Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2012

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:06, 30 January 2012 [1].

---

List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because following on from another list TRM worked on, we thought it a good idea to revisit this one which had previously failed simply because Around The Globe couldn't find the time to address the concerns of the reviewers. It's been slightly overhauled since then and had a History section added, a few images, some accessible tables, decent (and well-formatted) references, and is entirely complete. Hopefully the reviewing public will agree! Thanks for your time, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments – History: Is "a" missing from "while Mike Veletta made rapid 35..."? "An attendance of over 87,000 saw...". Might work better starting off as "A crowd". Now it says "An crowd". Still think it needs to be "A". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Oops, my mistake, fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC) The "baffled by the googly" quote could use a link to the term googly, for those of us who aren't that knowledgeable about cricket. Should "and their first win in final" also have "a" in it, before "final"? "It was also for the first time that the team batting second emerged victorious." Remove "for". "before Ponting and Damien Martin went on to score an unbeaten the highest partnership in any World Cup final with an unbeaten 234." First "an unbeaten" needs to be removed, as it is harmful to the sentence. "and opening stand with Hayden became the largest first-wicket partnership in World Cup history." Feels like "his" should be in there before "opening". LBW could stand to be spelled out. Remove space before reference 35. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Many thanks Giants, I believe I've taken care of all of these comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk I haven't had a chance to look throughly through this article yet, but on first read I can see a number of example of "with... xxxing", which isn't ideal. Take a look at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for help removing them. I'll look through the article more later! Harrias talk 13:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Had a purge of "withs", look forward to your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) "England is the only team to reach the finals and not win the World Cup," – I think that should be "final" singular, rather than plural which you use later to refer to the tournament as a whole. Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC) "Keith Boyce added a quick fire 34.." – I'm not sure "quick fire" is encyclopedic language. Maybe just "quick"? Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I'd link deliveries on first usage. Similarly link run out (which I wouldn't hyphenate). Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC) "Four years later, the West Indies qualified for the final once again, this time facing England, the hosts at Lord's for the second consecutive tournament." – This sentence makes it sound like the West Indies are facing England at Lord's for the second time in a row, something that clearly isn't true from the previous sentences. Try to remove the ambiguity from the sentence. Done, I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "An unbeaten 138 from Viv Richards, and supported by Collis King in a 139-run partnership for the fifth wicket, the West Indies " – The "and" seems superfluous to me in this sentence, but maybe I'm reading it wrong? Also, I think there needs to be another word before "the West Indies", possibly "helped"? It sort-of made sense to me, but have re-worded, any better? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "A profitable yet slow opening partnership between Mike Brearley and Geoffrey Boycott (the latter taking 17 overs to reach double figures) saw England to 129 but following Brearley's dismissal, only Graham Gooch and Derek Randall made a "brief assault" on the West Indian bowling, before a batting collapse, Joel Garner taking five wickets in eleven balls, saw England all out for 194, presenting the West Indies with their second consecutive title, winning by 92 runs." – That is a very long sentence! Perhaps try cutting it into two, or maybe even three shorter sentences? Split into three! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "This time, they faced India.." – Maybe replace "This time" with "On this occasion"? Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) WP:CRIC#STYLE suggests using / rather than – when shortening cricket scores, as you've done in the table. I'm not over fussed either way, but be consistent between the table and the prose. Slashed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "but with 17 required in the final over.." – A little pedantic maybe, but I think it would be best to say "17 runs". Runs added. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) MOS:NUM suggests that "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." So in this final sentence, I'd recommend either "but with 17 runs required in the final over to win, England fell short and lost by 7 runs." or "but with seventeen runs required in the final over to win, England fell short and lost by seven runs." Bad TRM. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "Pakistani batsmen Imran Khan and Javed Miandad saw a third-wicket partnership of 139." – Not keen on the use of "saw", maybe replace it with "built"? "shared" alright with you? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "India and Pakistan along with Sri Lanka once again.." – I'd put "along with Sri Lanka" in a clause: "India and Pakistan, along with Sri Lanka, once again.." Claused. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "Winning the toss, Arjuna Ranatunga sent Australia in to bat.." – Maybe "After winning the toss,"? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "..South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the final being a day-night match contested" – previously you've always written day/night. Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC) "and ended on the highest score in World Cup final history, on 359–2." – I'm not keen on the repitition of "on", perhaps change it to "in World Cup final history: 359–2." Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "Player of the series Sachin Tendulkar was dismissed.." – He might have been named "player of the series", but I think for the purposes of this article it would make far more sense to call him "player of the tournament". Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Link Strike rate. Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC) "..but a 97 from.." – I think this should either be "..but 97 from.." or "..but a score of 97 from.." Yep, removed "a". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Refs 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 are missing publisher details (publisher and location) Done to the best of my ability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Ref 8 is missing the author: Martin Williamson. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Ref 9 is missing the date: 14 February 2011 Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Refs 15, 18: Norman Preston can be linked. Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Ref 25, per your descriptions, the work should be Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, not ESPNcricinfo Indeed, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) In your Cricinfo refs for the finals, you format the title in two ways: "Prudential World Cup, 1975" and "ICC World Cup – Final – Australia v India" – try to be consistent and use just one of these two options. Well, Cricinfo themselves changed their match title formatting, but I've made it consistent here, all using en-dashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a lot from me, but it is all pretty minor stuff. Overall, very good work on this article, and once these tweaks are done, I'll be more than happy to support the article. Harrias ^talk 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's lovely Harrias. I'll get on to it tomorrow hopefully. I knew the history needed a bit of a copyedit, perhaps I should have PR'ed beforehand. But in any case, thanks, will get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we've caught everything there Harrias, let us know! Thanks again for your interest and comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, good work: an equivalent women's list is sat in one of my sandboxes, but the parent article needs a bit of expansion! Harrias ^talk 10:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit

Comments This is simply based on my preferences but I would split the references into two columns Makes little difference to me, so I've changed it to split in two, some browsers don't support it, but for those who do, enjoy! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC) England could be linked in the lead Indeed, my oversight, and I guess combines with the next comment.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I would link the countries on their first usage in the history, especially the ones that don't have links in the lead I've linked those who I believe I missed. I didn't link the "host countries" because they were countries, not the teams... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Images could do with alt text Definitely, silly me. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC) The result column in the table is confusing me at the moment. Its sorting alphabetically, shouldn't it sort by biggest margin of victory? Or am I missing something. Alphabetical was the only way I thought reasonable. What makes a 90 run win better than a 5 wicket win? It's subjective, so I've kept it alphabetical. Should it be problematic, I'll just make the column unsortable. NapHit (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments NapHit! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Fantastic work. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good to me, but I think the yellow is too bright for Duckworth-Lewis. When I saw it I thought it must be highlighting some outstanding achievement (the biggest winning margin??), but all it means is that the game was heavily rain-affected. --99of9 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DL Changed to something lighter. Thanks, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Another idea... move the blue "day/night" demarkations out of the "game result" column, and into the "venue" column. --99of9 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. The day/night refers to the game, not to the venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

To me the day/night is a logistical issue (like the venue), not a competition result issue (like the game result). --99of9 (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really fussed either way so changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 27 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 Dabomb87 18:01, 29 January 2012 [2].

---

List of posthumous number ones on the UK Albums Chart

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list (currently a FL), and I hope that it is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much in advance! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "from 2007 onwards, it also included albums sold through digital distribution." Since I assume the system still works this way, should it be "it has also included" to reflect a present tense? Done. "his 2005 compilation The Essential reached number one." Minor, but the full name of the album could be given here to match the table's entry. Done. What is sourcing Amy Winehouse's entries? The references are all archived entries from before her death. Is there an active version of the 2000s general ref that covers it? Whoops. Added a ref for 2011. For Winehouse's photo caption, there isn't anything in the article saying she'd reached number one with Back to Black before her death. That might be useful for the lead, but should be cited somewhere, either way. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Replaced with a ref that specifies that the album returned to number one. Thanks for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment very nice, once Giant's comments have been addressed, I will support this nomination. Just make sure you're consistent, is it "The Official UK Charts Company" or "Official Charts Company"? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My thinking is that "The Official UK Charts Company" is how the organisation was known in 2005, when the archive caches that I'm using for reference were captured. So I assumed that that's what should be put in the publisher parameter. But, if you'd rather this were changed for consistency, I'll happily do so. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with it, will leave the comment here in case anyone else debates the point, but for my part, I support this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Any reason why don't use the exclamation mark in the markup for rowscopes? NapHit (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Only my own ignorance, I'm afraid. Have now made the change. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I now see no issues with this list and support the nomination. NapHit (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Glad seeing Otis here. But I have one question: It says that Back to Black became UK's biggest-selling album of the 21st century, but not permanently. So, which album trumped the record?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• It was 21 by Adele. I have now added that information. Thanks very much for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:31, 29 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 The Rambling Man 15:14, 29 January 2012 [3].

---

List of James Bond novels and stories

Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 12:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria; it acts not just as a stand alone source of information in its own right, but also as the 'header article' for the canon of Ian Fleming's James Bond books. SchroCat (^ • @) 12:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments - good, big work! Not keen on the bold link at the beginning, MOS discourages that. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Update the fair use licensing on the JB image to add "List of" in front of JB novels and stories. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) " who write two novelizations" wrote (and not mad keen on all the z's, being a BritEng article, but not gonna make a fuss! Although later you use "organisation", so I'd at least be internally consistent with your s's and z's...) Neither am I, but according to the OED the correct word is "novelization": the OED don't even list the alternative spelling of "novelisation". - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "was asked to continue " by whom? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "followed, in 2011, " not sure those commas are really needed. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) In the infobox, why is Mother, Father, Aunt, Uncle capitalised while son isn't? Also not sure if "invalid" isn't a little ambiguous... Done (I've changed it to "null", which is a more correct term - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Upon accepting the job, Fleming requested that he be allowed three months holiday per year.[1] Publishers Jonathan Cape were initially reluctant to publish the book, ..." a bit of a non-sequitur for me.... Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) You may wish to link s and d (shillings and pence) for those unfamiliar with pre-decimal British currency. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) You say Bond's an "intelligence officer" in the prose, but a "00 agent" (linked) in the infobox. I guess "00 agent" is an intelligence officer, but you may wish to be consistent. I've clarified the distinction in the text – 00 Agent being a sub-set of intelligence officer. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "World War II" or "Second World War", be consistent. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Felix Leiter is overlinked (in the second novel). Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) fortune-telling is hyphenated. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Is it "Mr. Big" or "Mr Big"? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Bond is then nearly killed by Colonel Rosa Klebb, one of the SMERSH planners. "... is that how it ends? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "SMERSH target Bond to be killed and caught in a compromising situation..." doesn't appear to be written like the other summaries... Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) When you refer to Dr No a second time, you just say "No", but you don't with "Mr Big". Any reason? Big is a nickname (actually an anagram of his real name, Buonapart Ignace Gallia) whilst No is his real name - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Bond is told a story " so Bond isn't actually in A Quantum of Solace? Only at the beginning and end whilst his host tells the story—see the plot summary I did for the book version. "have hijacked and seized its two " hijacked what? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Is "The Spy Who Loved Me" really that boring? Just a question, the summary of it would indicate it could have been done in a couple of pages! Pretty much! There's a lot of back-story involved and Bond doesn't enter the story until the final third. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Bond's continues to search " grammar fail. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Thorough contact " typo. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "and the pair, but Blofeld kills " missing word, probably important... Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Who's Bunt? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) " leaves him with amnesia and Bond lives " just "and he lives" is fine. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) You link CIA and MI6, so you ought to link KGB, the first time, not the second. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) " CBS television " shouldn't that be "the CBS television network"? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Climax!.[26]" avoid that double full stop. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Dates for publication of "For Your Eyes Only" and "Risico"? Presumably the same as "From a View to a Kill" so just repeat. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "The fictional chronology" -> "Fictional chronology" per WP:HEAD. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) That gets me to the post-Fleming section, so I'll stop here and let you catch up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time on that. I think I've covered all the points you raised, but please let me know if I've missed any or misunderstood your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Comments part deux (and yes, am satisfied the first tranche have been dealt with satisfactorily!) One I missed from before, "Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond." doesn't need a full stop. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I think we prefer to use unspaced en-dashes not em-dashes for year ranges, i.e. 1968–1979 instead of 1968—1979. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) The third of the three novels in this section has a different colour border around it, are you seeing that? I am: there are three colours which underline the bottom of the boxes: a darker blue for the novels, a lighter blue for the short stories and the orange colour for the novelizations. Two of these are part of the template. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) There is a linkable article on Aegean Islands you may prefer to use? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Not sure you really need to link "outer space", pretty common term for regular English speakers/readers. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Was it really a Space Shuttle? If so, capitalise it, if not, probably needs a more generic link. Our article says the first real Shuttle flight wasn't until 1981, this novelization was two years earlier... just wondering. Yes, it was a SS – the programme had been around since the 1960s, even though the first flight wasn't until 1981. Possibly worth linking "Maggie Thatcher" for those of a more modern generation... Done, although thanks for making me feel so old! ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "In 1996, Gardner retired from writing James Bond books due to ill health.[53]" and "Ill-health forced Gardner to retire from writing the Bond novels in 1996.[55]" - don't need 'em both. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Bond goes undercover to be sacked from MI6" isn't it the other way round, "he is "sacked" from MI6 to go undercover"? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Link Moneypenny (notable supporting part). Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "The murder of two women connected to a Cold War mission are brutally murdered" que? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "multiple terrorist bombings " no need to repeat "terrorist" here. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Bond established the " keep tense consistent so "establishes" Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "the Brotherhood of Anarchy " -> The... Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Same coloured border thing above Broken Claw... As per the above - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) No need to link Russia. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Death is Forever, no need to relink CIA. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Could link Fourth Reich. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "American author Raymond Benson became the author " author author is a little tedious. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Who's Jeremy Black and why should I care what he has to say? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Benson followed Gardner's pattern of setting Bond in the contemporary timeframe of the 1990s[72] and, according to Jeremy Black, had more echoes of Fleming's style than John Gardner,[73] he also changed Bond's gun back to the Walther PPK,[74] put him behind the wheel of a Jaguar XK8[75] and made him swear more,[76] which led Black to note that there was an increased level of crudity lacking in either Fleming or Gardner.[73] " is one helluva large sentence. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "However, the Peterborough Evening Telegraph stated ..." is that the best source you've got (no offence Peterborough!)? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Shouldn't Kirkus Reviews be in italics? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Bond established that " same comment as before... Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Colour thing again, above "The Facts of Death[81]" As per the above - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "female TV news " television Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Electra - do you mean Elektra? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "preventing the assassination" +s. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "a post 9/11" hyphenate and link Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "a cancer drug" a drug to cure cancer? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Do you need a {{main}} template for Young Bond when you link the article straight away. Also, shouldn't" Young Bond be italicised every time? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) " the two children are kidnapped" which two children? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "and is eventually forced to flee " who is, Bond or the maid? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Is the graphic novel Silverfin or SilverFin? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Ref 107 doesn't mention "A Hard Man to Kill", it links to "Danger Society"... Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Ref 7 is actually by guardian.co.uk. (Check others). Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) The British Library is just called British Library. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Ref 45, is James Leasor the name of the article? The author? If the name, who wrote it? I've clarified the name of the article (it's Leasor's obituary) As with all Times Obituaries at the time, the author's names are not disclosed. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Obviously once you've tidied up the repeated ill-health comment, refs 53 and 55 will be resolved. Keep 55. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Ref 106, why is "(Graphic Novel)" in parentheses? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Again, thanks very much indeed for doing this and if I've missed anything, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Another great SchroCat work. Let's hope it gets promoted to turn this into viable topic! igordebraga ≠ 05:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Can we get an image expert to verify that the fair-use rationale for the lead image is okay? I remember what happened at the last Bond-related FLC and would like to avoid such a long debate if possible. I've asked Quadell, who does huge anmounts of good work at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, to comment on this one. - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) This is a very difficult case, and different people who each fully understand our policy might have conflicting opinions on whether this fulfills our non-free criteria or not. The relevant question is, is seeing the author's vision of James Bond necessary for fully understand an article on the list of James Bond fiction? If what unites "James Bond novels and stories" is that they all feature and are based on this one figure, then I could see it passing NFCC#8. However, if what unites them is that they are all books in a series, and it would be conceivable to have a "James Bond story" about Moneypenny and Q without Bond in it, then it would not pass NFCC#8. I don't know. Personally, I would feel more comfortable with a photograph of a stack or collection of James Bond novels which minimally reproduces copyrighted content (c.f. File:Videogameretaildisplay.jpg), which I feel would fully illustrate the topic, but I'm not an expert on James Bond, and I concede that this photo is not a clear violation. – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I'll replace this shortly - probably later today: I'm on the hunt for a licence free image that fits the above criteria, but if I can't find one of those, then I'll take a photo of the spines of the Pan paperback versions I have - bot copyrightable as the print on the spine is too common. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The current image is free and correctly tagged. (Typefaces are ineligible for copyright in the U.S., and there is nothing else copyrightable in the book spines.) There are no image concerns in this article. – Quadell (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The comma after James Bond in the opening doesn't add anything positive to the sentence. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) In the second paragraph, consider flipping "while" for "whilst"; that's usually preferred among the featured content processes' prose experts. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Also consider combining the third and fourth paragraphs, since the fourth paragraph is stubby and appears to be a logical fit with the previous one. Agreed: done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Ian Fleming: Try not to start a sentence with a number like in "4,728 copies of Casino Royale...". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I may not be an image expert, but I doubt that two non-free images in a list can be found to pass muster. The second image perhaps could pass the criteria for Ian Fleming's article, but not for a list like this. I've asked Quadell to comment on this one too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Even though it is appropriate to have a section on Ian Fleming, I have to say that I don't think a photo is needed to fully understand the article. (I'm sorry to say this, since the photo is useful in the article, but not necessary to understand the topic, and that sets the bar rather high.) – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Sadly removed! I've added a copy of Fleming's signature in its plance and a number of free images of some of the authors elsewhere: if you think this is overkill then please let me know and I'll get rid of them. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The short stories: Missing word in "Fleming adapted four of television plots..."? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) "When the paperbacks edition of the book was published". "paperbacks" → "paperback". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) In all of the Post-Fleming section headings, en dashes are needed for the year ranges. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 1979-1996: "the Bond series was revived with new novels by John Gardner, although initially almost turned the series down." Missing "he" before "initially". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Done - again! SchroCat (^ • @) 18:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC) License Renewed: "Murik hired Franco to hijack six nuclear power stations in order to start a meltdown, but are prevented from doing so...". Feels like it's missing "they" before "are". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Done - again! SchroCat (^ • @) 18:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Never Dream of Dying: "goesafter" needs to be two words. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The Man with the Red Tattoo: "to pursue terrorist Goro Yoshida. Yoshida...". Try to avoid this repetition from one sentence to another. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) There's a similar issue regarding Moon in the Die Another Die novel summary after the above one. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Double or Die: "manages to recue him." Typo hiding in there. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Hurricane Gold: "Bond gives chases and is captured". "chases" → "chase"? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 01:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Two of the ones above (the non-struck ones) were identical to what they were before the changes. Is it possible that the edits were just previewed and didn't go through? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Weird! All (re-)done now! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment The short stories and fictional chronology tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for more info other than that the list looks fine. NapHit (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Now done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) you need to add rowscopes, i've don the first table for you, so if you're unsure you can use that as a guide. NapHit (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Apols - missed that bit! Hopefully now done properly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Looks very good, I just have a few thoughts – Personally, I question whether that infobox is really needed - it details information about James Bond as a character, so it would make sense to use it at the James Bond (character) article, but it seems a bit superfluous in an article about a series of books. Done – SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Per WP:OVERLINK, I wouldn't have thought that either Jamaica or Caribbean need be linked to. Done – SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC) In the fourth sentence of the second paragraph, you use "Gardner" twice. Done – SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC) "Whilst", "Upon" and "due to" seem a bit overly formal to me - I'd suggest using "while", "on" and "because of" instead. I've not changed these as I don't think that they are formal, at least not in British English, which is the varient used in this article (for example, a search of the Guardian website shows the word "whilst" being used an average of five times a day—and about ten times a day on the BBC website) If it was an MOS thing then it may be different (at least different enough for me to argue against it on a talk page) but the "overly formal" is just an opinion on a user page, yes? Per WP:HEADER, I think "The short stories" header should just be "Short stories". Similarly, I'd rather not see the "List of" at the beginning of the first level 3 header. Done – SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC) "publishers of the James Bond novels, (since renamed Ian Fleming Publications)" - I'd put that comma after the closing parenthesis. Done – SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC) "The first Young Bond novel, SilverFin" - "novel" shouldn't be italicised. Done – SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC) "Young Bond" in the Charlie Higson photo caption is not italicised. Done – SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Looks good overall, Nice job! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Meets the FL criteria by my reckoning. One think I would say is that I think, per MOS:ELLIPSIS, the ellipses in the Charlie Higson quote need to be spaced, i.e. "the other books ... for now my". Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's great - many thanks indeed for pointing these out. I've done the last ellipsis point too. Thanks very much! - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Ref 9 doesn't point to any citation--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing it out - it does now! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nice list--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:05, 29 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 The Rambling Man 14:14, 29 January 2012 [4].

---

List of Philadelphia Phillies owners and executives

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the roster lists are over. I improved this during a lazy Saturday when I was reading my Phillies encyclopedia and I think it's pretty close to FL standards. Comments to be expediently addressed. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from User:Muboshgu 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – General comment I'm similarly working on the sister list for my team of preference, List of New York Yankees owners and executives, and I've come upon a few stumbling blocks that would probably be relevant to discuss here, so that everyone's on the same page. It seems that the nature of Phillies' presidents is a bit different than for the Yankees, as the Yankees have always had someone known as an owner. On the Yankees page, we have listed all notable former executives in addition to current executives (someone else grouped them the way they are currently grouped, and I was thinking about merging it all into one bigger table since lists of farming directors etc. are incomplete). Do you think past members of the Phillies front office, people who were not presidents or GMs, should be included? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC) As these folks are not inherently notable, my opinion would be no. That is why I included them under the "See also" umbrella. If that at some point becomes too cumbersome (like, if there are 15, 20, 30!?), then an "other executives" table would certainly suffice. — KV5 • Talk • 01:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I'm satisfied with that explanation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Everything in the toolbox checks out. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC) The "other executives" need some referencing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC) See also links do not require references, but reference 3 does verify that all worked for the team. — KV5 • Talk • 22:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – General managers: Don't think Bob Carpenter, Jr. needs another link in the intro text. There's already one in the previous section's intro, and ones in the tables. Done — KV5 • Talk • 12:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Is there anything out there on whether the GM position was specifically introduced to the Phillies before the 1944 season? That's a sizable gap in the team's timeline that could use some explanation. All information that I have says no. Specifically, Pennock was named the team's first GM; they did not have any before him. — KV5 • Talk • 12:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Also, was there a GM in 1949? All of my sources say no on this point as well. — KV5 • Talk • 12:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Footnote b says Paul Owens resigned in 1984, but the tenure column in the table gives the end of his GM position as 1983. Which is it? '83. I get my stuff mixed up because he was still the manager in 1984 but not GM. — KV5 • Talk • 12:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Publisher of ref 1 (Baseball America) should be italicized since it's a printed publication. Done — KV5 • Talk • 12:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Publisher of ref 2 (ESPN) shouldn't be italicized since it's not. Done — KV5 • Talk • 12:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Page range in ref 10 should be presented as p. instead of pp., as a single-page citation. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Done — KV5 • Talk • 12:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments What's a "farm system"? "The longest-tenured general manager is Paul Owens, with 11 years of service to the team as the general manager" bit repetitive, can you rephrase? No need to re-abbreviate General manager in the General managers section. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) All done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• WP:BOLDFACE suggests that bold should only be used in certain circumstances, e.g. captions table headers, any reason why the names are in bold? other than that the list looks in good shape NapHit (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing that's as a result of using row and col scopes without the plainrowheaders option. MOS defeating itself? Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It doesn't defeat itself. These are "table headers" and should thus be bold if "plainrowheaders" is not used. I chose not to use it in this case. — KV5 • Talk • 22:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, what I meant was we're not supposed to use bold links (per MOS) but we are supposed to use bold headers in tables (per MOS) which results in bold links. Thus MOS is in conflict with itself. Just saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah, missed that part. Understood. — KV5 • Talk • 12:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Hmm, a pickle indeed, I would prefer that the links were not bold, but I'm not going to cause a fuss over this, so I'll support, as the rest of the list is fine. NapHit (talk) 20:33, 8 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 The Rambling Man 14:14, 29 January 2012 [5].

---

List of Bermuda ODI cricketers

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria and follows a similar design to current FLs such as List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers or List of Cornwall CCC List A players. The list is also complete and as Bermuda don't play at this level anymore, it is unlikely to change in the near future. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Check consistency in the refs for the way you refer to Cricinfo. - Done Not sure what the image caption has to do with the image. - Added (pictured) to show it is the Queen's Park Oval Could link List of International Cricket Council members#Associate Members for associate member to help non-experts. - Done Suggest you make the first "World Cup" link just to the Cricket World Cup. - Done Suggest you make "In the World Cup which was held in 2007" -> "In the 2007 World Cup, " and link the specific edition. - Done " which began a decline in Bermudian cricket which eventually ... which ..." repetitive "which", perhaps reword to lose the middle one -> "Bermudian cricket, leading to..." for instance? - Reworded, better? "now find themselves playing" just "now play" would be more encyclopaedic. - Yep, far better wording :) "with Irving Romaine and" no need to repeat his first name. - Done Ditto in the list of captains. - Done Where is the captain stuff referenced? More importantly, where is the stand-in stuff referenced (" Basden stood in for Romaine in a single match against the Netherlands in 2007, which Bermuda lost.")? Steven Outerbridge, it appears, should be Stephen Outerbridge... (unless our own article is wrongly titled, in which case, I'd suggest you move that). - Moved the page, our own article was wrongly titled HS col doesn't sort correctly at all. - Fixed BBI doesn't sort correctly. - Fixed Suddenly find myself a little bit surprised we don't have Economy for these one dayers... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Response I'll try and factor in an economy rate column. Trying to find a source for Basden standing in, the match reports unfortunately thus far haven't made mention of it :S AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I've removed the part about Basden standing in for Romaine, although more than likely, I can't seem to dig up a source to back it up. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, I've experimented adding an economy rate column on my sandbox. It does squash the names up, which doesn't look too great. Is the economy rate column essential to the list? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC) No, not essential. But in my system, it looks fine. Perhaps a comment that we should keep open for other reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I've added an economy column. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Table fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this Not keen on the colours in the table. Firstly they hide the sort buttons, which would make readers assume that the columns are not sortable. Secondly I'm not sure of the benefit. Its clear what statistics refer to batting, bowling and fielding I don't think this needs to be highlighted by colours, especially as they are listed under those three headings in the key making it clear what statistic refers to batting or bowling. Refs that are PDFs need the parameter format=PDF added to them Instead of having the refs next to the players name in the table, why not create a separate column at the end of the table, that it becomes more evident that reference is referring to the stats as well. Image needs alt text NapHit (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Response Fixed table. To be honest, I didn't realise they were sortable because of the colours! I've removed the colours, but left them on the headings. Ideally I'd put the headings above the sort boxes, but I can't seem to get it to work without glitching. I think perhaps the colours have some merit on the headings. PDF format code added. I'll experiment with a reference column later on :) Oh and added the alt text thing. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Guess you're right, looking at other tables the colours aren't really needed, which perhaps negates the need to put the "batting", "bowling" and "fielding" headings above the sort boxes. I've added the reference column too. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Exactly, if the sortable icon showed despite the colours then there would not be a problem, otherwise readers might not be aware the table is sortable. Regarding the table it still does not meet WP:ACCESS standards, you've added scope=col to one column this needs to be added to all, and the rowscopes need adding as well, I've done an example for you so you know what you're doing. Btw, you have to the information on separate lines, as I have done in the example otherwise the whole table will be highlighted instead of just the rowheader. NapHit (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the example :) Think those are now done.... think!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Feels strongly like something is missing here: "Dean Minors, acted as wicket-keeper in twenty of the county's ODI fixtures." Could be that the comma shouldn't be there. Not a fan of the "with" to "with" structure in the following sentence. Doesn't read that well. I'd recommend modifying that bit. Don't need to repeat Irving Romaine's first name in the captains sentence, especially since it's inconsistent with how the rest of the lead handles repeated names. "Where more than one player won their first caps in the same match". Something about this is bothering me. I think it should be either "won their first cap" or "Where multiple players" at the start. The way it is now, there's some singular/plural confusion between "player" and "caps". Photo caption could use a period at the end. Blank rows are in the table for Jacobi Robinson (average) and Dean Minors (caught). The publisher of ref 7 is listed as CricketArchive, but it appears to be Cricinfo instead. Also check that that source doesn't give a publishing date. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Response Done! The comma after Minors shouldn't have been there, forgot to remove it from an older version where the sentence was longer. Removed the second mention of Romaine's first name, also changed the sentences mentioned around a little. Well spotted with reference 7, it was indeed Cricinfo! Blank rows removed too. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Looks good to me, any initial concerns I had have already been brought up. Harrias ^talk 14:27, 24 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 The Rambling Man 14:06, 29 January 2012 [6].

---

Grammy Award for Best Female R&B Vocal Performance

Nominator(s): Novice7 (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria for an FL. The lists follows the format of other Grammy FLs. Thanks in advance to all the reviewers! Novice7 (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: An excellent list -- well done! I would recommend listing artists in the Nominees column in alphabetical order by last name (in other words, just rearrange the order so that Gladys Knight is listed before Nina Simone). I would support this list if this first concern is addressed and assuming all other reviewers' concerns are addressed. Also, I would double check that there aren't any re-directs due to MoS inconsistencies. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks. (nominator has retired and has asked fellow editors to watch his nominations) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – In the Aretha Franklin photo caption, remove the hyphen from "eleven-times". That's a stray one. In many other photo captions, with "xxx nominee, including xxx award winner xxx", the least that could be done is have commas before the winners' names. Not a big fan of that format in general; I find it a bit clunky. What makes Rock on the Net (second general reference) a reliable source? What makes Indiaserver (ref 6) a reliable source? Ref 21, from Billboard, could use a little more formatting than it's currently got. It looks barebones next to the other Billboard links. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Both Another Believer's and Giants' comments have been addressed. Novice7 (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments "takes the runner-up position with eight nominations" not really keen on that, perhaps "is second with eight..."? Franklin's caption, why is Award capitalised once? 1976 nominees is missing a bullet. Why isn't Franklin linked in 1982? And Chaka Khan in 1985? I would expect all winning works to have an article, surely being awarded a Grammy would make each and every one notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC) The nominator has retired and has asked fellow editors to watch over his nominations. I have changed to "is second with eight nominations". That sounds better. The caps must have been a typo. Fixed. Replaced quotation mark with bullet. Another typo. Have removed the <code>

Support Everything looks in order NapHit (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments I have read the article. It is very good but there are some issues with the references. I will be posting them soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 7: Unlink work and publisher
• FN 17 & 18: Is that publisher correct?
• FN 22: Unlink work and publisher
• FN 39: Link the publisher
• FN 42: Check the formatting
• FN 43:Unlink the publisher
• FN 44:Use {{cite news}}

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for reviewing! Ryōga Hibiki (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - Fantastic work. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Ryōga Hibiki (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - with three comments:

• Are the flags necessary?
• In fact, is the "Nationality" column necessary? Until and unless someone from another country wins the Grammy, it seems redundant.
• Is the smaller font size in the "Nominees" column necessary? And/or should those be a bullet list, or simply the nominees (each on a line)?
  • Bulleted and having them small is fine to me. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment, per request on talk page: If consensus shows a preference for the removal of the Nationality column for lists where only one nation is represented, there may be additional Grammy-related FLs needing to be updated. I always included the Nationality column for consistency among Grammy lists, but I don't feel strongly about including the column if only one nation is represented (not necessarily the case if multiple countries are represented). I will say, however, that including a sentence in the lead about all winners being American is including a fact that is not represented in the content below. Feel free to use the Grammy Awards task force talk page is further discussion is necessary. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Another Believer. If I remove the column, the readers cannot verify the information about the winners being Americans. I've followed the format of other Grammy FLs here. Ryōga Hibiki (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• "a ceremony that was established in 1958"
• The image captions read somewhat monotonous. Any chance you could add some variety?
• Most images require alt text.
• Usage of File:Nobel Peace Prize Concert 2008 Diana Ross1 cropped.jpg might be in violation of the license. Should "Photo: Harry Wad" be included in the caption? Or is the link to the File: page enough? I'd appreciate it, if somebody would enlighten me on the matter.

Goodraise 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

All done. Ryōga Hibiki (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Legolas

• Agree with Goodraise above, about the image captions and ALT. Some variety is needed I believe.
• Do we have any other Grammy trophy image? That one in the infobox is just so so passe.
• Red links can be there, no? They are notable enough with their Grammy win.

These are just from me. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Added alt and fixed captions. As for the infobox image, I'm afraid we don't have another one of the same quality. The available ones are just drawings. Ryōga Hibiki (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It is not clear if this award is for R&B or Contemporary R&B songs, as both genres are very different from each other.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It was awarded for rhythm and blues songs. Actually, the award is given for the artists' vocal performance. Ryōga Hibiki (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

However, you linked "R&B" to "Contemporary R&B". I can't tell for all songs, but Aretha Franklin definitely did not record any contemporary r&b songs.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Linked to R&B. Ryōga Hibiki (talk • contribs) 12:52, 29 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 The Rambling Man 14:06, 29 January 2012 [7].

---

List of Grand Prix motorcycle racing World champions

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The final list in the topic of Grand Prix motorcycle racing world champions, I feel the article meets the criteria in the same way that the previous lists have, and if promoted will hopefully form the fulcrum of a featured topic. Comments will be addressed as quickly as possible. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• "The 350cc class was discontinued in 1982, two years later the 50cc class was replaced with an 80cc class". Comma would be better served as a semi-colon.

Done NapHit (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the second table, there are two entries for Australia for some reason. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, the second entry is Austria. — MT (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments Not keen on the simple years being easter-egg linked. Perhaps intersperse with the odd "season", e.g. "since the 1990 season" and link the "season" bit as well. Consider linking "cylinder" appropriately. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments TRM, I've addressed them both. NapHit (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Good list.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Prose, lead, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability are the requirements for an FL and I feel this meets all of those. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - well done. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Goodraise 23:45, 15 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 23:07, 23 January 2012 [8].

---

List of papal elections

Nominator(s): Savidan 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It's been stable for a while (although many of the redlinks have turned blue). It's comprehensive and useful. Savidan 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments Comment It is highly recommended not to introduce a list with "This is a list..." or "This list of Xs..."; check WP:LEADSENTENCE for more details. You can just remove that and start with the second sentence. Otherwise I would be happy to support this. — Lemonade51 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I have removed the first sentence as you suggest. Savidan 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Not sure if this is best served as a bunch of century lists, or just one big list. Particularly as each individual list is sortable, but only sortable within its own century... somewhat diminishes the utility of the function.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

*Our own article has In nomine, not In Nomine... Link conclave the first time, not second. On the page you link "Ubi Perculum" to, there is no mention at all of Ubi Perculum. Confused. "Oct. 1187" October... (and any others). "1799-1800" en-dash required for year (and page) ranges throughout per WP:DASH. Sortable tables so anything that's wikilinked needs to be linked every time. The December/October elections sort out of order, you need to force them to sort by something like 1187.10 and 1187.12... Check every table for this. It looks like a number of elections took place in multiple locations. This should be covered in the lead. Refs don't need to be sortable. Palais de Papes and Konstanz Minster captions, one with a full stop and one without, complete sentences need a full stop, others don't. "Council of Pisa (1409)" vs "Pisan papal conclave, 1410" consistency is needed, either (year) or ", year". "[53][1]" -> [1][53], check others. Why three refs for 2005? Check all page ranges have an en-dash and use pp., not just p. Refs 108, 109, 110 (although only one is really needed) appear to be book refs, so you should have a page ref for them. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Comment need to ensure names sort correctly, i.e. that Pius IX follows Pius VIII etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I have done this. Savidan 05:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough comments. I believe I have remedied the majority of them. I have opted not to make the wikitables sortable; I initially made them sortable by copy-and-pasting the markup from the cardinal lists in the individual election articles, and there is no utility to sorting in this context. As to the sources for the 2005 conclave, all three books are devoted in their entirety to the conclave itself. For this reason, it seems helpful to include all three, and no subset of pages would be particularly helpful to the reader. Savidan 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: You can increase the size of the lead image up to a maximum of 300 px, as per MoS guidelines. Can you provide a source for the first sentence? I'd change the wikilink in "process for papal succession" to "Prior to 1959", because that's what the article is about: the election procedure before 1959 and not a general succession process. Remove the indentation and italics on the last sentence of the lead. In fact, you could place the sentence mentioned in the previous item just after the initial sentence, rephrasing it so that you state how many non-legitimate papal conclaves where held (in opposition to the 112 legitimate) and then mention between brackets something like "(listed in italics in the tables below)". In alternative, you could place all of the table sections under one top-level section "Papal elections", and place this sentence there, as a note applicable to every table. Take these only as suggestions. Singularize the last two headings; there's just one item in each. A period is missing in the caption of the penultimate image. — Parutakupiu (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I have implemented several of your suggestions. I have added a citation for the import of In nomine Domini, but I do not regard a citation as necessary for the count of 112. The body of the article contains a citation for each of the 112 and the lead simply adds these. Baumgartner's book attests to 111 of these (without counting), but it predated the 2005 conclave. I have not taken your suggestion regarding the note regarding antipopes. I want to avoid breaking the third wall by failing to distinguish stylistically between statements of historical fact and statements about how the article is organized. I also have not singularized the last two headings, but I will do so if you point me to a statement to this effect in the MoS (it is my longstanding understanding that the policy is the opposite). Savidan 01:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding how the citation (a list of the 1913 College cardinals?) sources the papal bull. Is the reference content complete? As for the heading singularization, I checked the guidelines and you're completely right - comment removed. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I updated the cite. It appears there were two CE articles on Wikisource with the same title. Savidan 23:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments How come you decided to separate the list by century? Personally I think it would be more beneficial if the was all ion one, as it would allow the reader to sort by pope etc. Tables fail WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT, for further information, i've done an example for you in case you're unsure of what to do I know you've responded to TRM on this point above, but I really don't see the point in having three refs for in the last cell, when one would suffice NapHit (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I am willing to make the tables more accessible, but I do not understand this. Nothing at WP:ACCESS or MOS:DTT says anything about "plainrowheaders." Any why does it unbold the first column heading? I perceive more utility in being able to jump to a given century (for the reader who knows the approximate era of the election they are interested in) than in being able to sort alphabetically by pope (there's no real reason to see all the Pope Alexanders next to each other). If a reader is looking for a specific pope, ctrl+f is a much better move than alphabetizing the list by pope. Nor do I see the harm in extra footnotes. Savidan 01:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC) The reason the first column heading was unbolded was because i put the wrong parameter in, fixed it now. Plainrowheaders is used to prevent the links in the row headers form be bold, thus ensuring they remain they are at present. So you know why these improvements are necessary I'll point you in the direction of this, where RexxS very eloquently describes why these changes are needed. Regarding the sorting I would prefer if the table was all in one, but its a matter of preference I guess, so i'll leave it at that. The footnote bit still bug me, why does Benedict warrant three sources while none of the others do? Its pointless to include three references when one can easily do the job, so I would like to see just one used. NapHit (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I have combined the tables. I still don't know that I can implement sorting without eliminating the two uses of rowspan, which I think is the fairest way to indicate that the same election elected two competing candidates. Savidan 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I have added anchors for the centuries within the unified table. Savidan 08:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I have eliminated the "extra" sources. Savidan 08:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Much better now, the anchors is a good idea as well. Two things you need to do i would make the table sortable, and you need to add rowscopes, I've done the first cell as an example, in case you're unsure of what to do. Once these two bits are done I'll be happy to support. NapHit (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I have added rowscopes. I cannot make the table sortable because of the need for rowspan for the 1130 and 1159 elections. If you can suggest a viable alternative for these, I will implement sorting. Savidan 21:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) These are done. --♫GoP♫TCN 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC) There is a way of doing it, I think this does it, will have a better look tomorrow, as its bedtime now. NapHit (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Ok, i've managed to fix the problem with the rowspan, and the table is now sortable, there are few cells that can incorporate the markup (mainly the location, but that's up to you. One problem that sorting has created is that the years don't sort correctly, this will need to be fixed, and isn't too much trouble. I'll do a few examples for you so you know what to do and then it should be a piece of cake. NapHit (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your help. I have fixed the sorting for the years. I do not see any need to modify the current sort for the location, but would be open to changing them if there are specific problems. Savidan 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Might just be me, but I find List a bit generic as a section heading title. Something like Papal elections would be more descriptive of what's to follow, and headings with titles like this are used in many FAs.
• In refs 72 and 76, the page ranges should have pp. instead of p., as multiple-page cites.
• Is the last reference entirely about the 2005 papal election. If not, a page number would be handy there. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have implemented your first two suggested. No subset of the Greeley book would be useful to the reader. It's all the conclave. Savidan 04:13, 13 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 23:07, 23 January 2012 [9].

---

Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC), Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured list because after redoing the page completely, and structuring it similarly to other featured timelines, I believe that it meets the criteria to become a Featured list. Additionally, if this timeline passes, I have the potential to submit 2002 as a featured topic. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As nominator of the first FLC, I am co-noming, especially since TA has another FLC open and there is no clear consenusus to promote quite yet. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - What doesnt make this a content fork of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season? Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2008? Assuming you mean the 2002 AHS, the timeline is a content fork, but it is an acceptable type of content fork IMO, they are spinoffs from the season article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support on criteria 1, 2, 3 a), 5 a), b), and 6. Note - I gave this article an offsite review (in particular on sources, citation quality and prose). I feel it is now close to satisfying all of the FL criteria. One more quibble though:

• In the timeline, it shows the season ending on November 1, which is inaccurate. Auree ★ 17:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I believe this has been fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

• Comment - "No tropical cyclones form during the month of June." and "No tropical cyclones form during the month of November." I think you should find a citation for that, maybe using the MWR. Also, the timeline graphic needs some updating: Dolly, TD 7J, and Josephine were merged.--12george1 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • From what I've been told, there is no need to source stuff that does not happen (correct me if I am wrong). The fact that the articles were merged is not problematic IMO, as they redirect to their season articles. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I fixed the timeline, but the other issue you brought up does not need to be addressed. I checked the MWR and it doesn't mention anything about the months either. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Alright. Since I have no other issues, I will Support this article for featured list candidacy.--12george1 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • As it stands, the statement that there are no tropical cyclones in June and November isn't true. Tropical cyclones include typhoons, which form regularly during both months. On the other hand, there may well be no hurricanes during these months, but hurricanes are a subset of "tropical cyclones". Waitak (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Clarified. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Support - Thanks, that does it. Waitak (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments "reaching winds of 145 mph " would prefer "with winds reaching 145 mph..." Fixed. No 118km/h in the diagram at the top of the Timeline section. 118 km/h is not used in any timelines, nor is it used by the NHC. It is skipped. UNBELIEVABLE. No way. Unacceptable. So the scale specifically excludes 118 km/h? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, as seen in this image here. Tropical Storm ends at 117 km/h and Category 1 hurricane status begins at 119 km/h. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Um theres one problem with that source that has to be highlighted, its a rip off our SSHS scale. it should be noted however that this is a new one on me - while its verifable that C1 starts at 119km/h but neither me nor Titoxd have yet found a source that proves where the tropical storm category ends on the SSHS in km/h.Jason Rees (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Update - i found the french verson of the Atlantic hurricane operational plan from 2011 in French which basically states that tropical storm ends at 117 and hurricane starts at 118 km/h.Jason Rees (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Alright, now that this has been settled, I have addressed all your concerns; thanks for the comments The Rambling Man. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Note 2, the "Scale" is simply a "scale". It is part of the name though, shouldn't it be capitalized? Because it isn't capitalised. "Scale" isn't a proper noun, check out our own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Any reason why NHC is linked in its third reference, not beforehand, and not all the time (like the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory)? Fixed. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Not a deal-breaker by any means, but I'm not fond of the external jump in note 3. If a link to that website is deemed necessary there, maybe formatting it as a reference would be an improvement. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Images could do with alt text. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider it done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Lovely jubbly, great work, I support the nomination. NapHit (talk) 18:00, 15 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 23:07, 23 January 2012 [10].

---

List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes

Nominator(s): HurricaneFan25 13:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is extremely well-referenced and the prose is of high quality. Thanks for your consideration, HurricaneFan25 13:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It was odd to me at first, for example, to not see Ioke listed. Sure, it topped out at Category 5, but that still means it was Category 4 as well. So at the very least, the scope of the list needs to be specified or clarified. Looking at the list of Cat 4 Atlantic storms, the intro specifies that storms which reached Cat 5 strength are not included, this needs to do that as well. --Golbez (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Addressed in the table's notes and the lede. HurricaneFan25 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments You need to add rowscopes to the tables, I've done the first line as an example in case you're unsure about how to do this ref 1 needs format=PDF adding to it, think all the other PDFs have this NapHit (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC) All addressed; I fixed the landfalls table too. HurricaneFan25 — 15:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Yep looks good, one more query, you use mention the saffir-simpson scale a lot without clarifying exactly what it is, I think you need to do this so the reader understands what it is. NapHit (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

As I've already conferred with you, a have a problem with the first image caption. Saying that a Category 4 hurricane was the most intense one not to attain Category 5 status is like saying a Category 2 hurricane (Let's take Rina for example) was the most intense one not to attain Category 3 status. Doesn't make much sense, does it? I may have some more comments over the coming days. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh, removed part of it... ?. HurricaneFan25 — 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes more sense now, thanks. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "is used for tropical cyclones that have winds ranging 131–155 mpg." Surely this needs "from" before the actual range? Statistics and background: "At that time, the advisories were written in cooperation with the with the United States Navy Fleet Weather Center...". Two excess words need removal. Minor, but the abbreviations could be moved outside the blue links. It should be formatted as such per this, though I could limit the blue link to the abbreviation if you want. HurricaneFan25 — 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) "The National Hurricane Center's authority extended to the EPHC in 1988, and began maintaining the tracks in 1988." The authority maintained the tracks, or the center? If the latter, the sentence needs some fixing up in that regard. Maybe try "extended its authority" in the beginning? All images need alt text. Landfalls: All em dashes in the text are faulty; they should be either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, depending on style preference. Hyphen in the title of ref 1 should be an en dash per the MoS. We are allowed to make style changes like this in titles, in case you're wondering. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC) All fixed except the one noted.

• Support made a couple of minor changes, but reviewed this at peer review so no major traumas for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not seeing anything of concern here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:52, 20 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 23:07, 23 January 2012 [11].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Album of the Year

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is well formated and referenced, with an expanded lead providing relevant information about the award, following the path of previous Latin Grammy related featured lists. Thanks to all the reviewers for their hard work. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Déjame Entrar " is a dab link. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Juanes image caption needs a full stop. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) As does those of Guerra and Perez. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) A lot of the album titles redirect to versions which are capitalised very differently. Suggest some work is done on this (not necessarily here) to work this out. I will check it out. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) "Joe Chiccarelli" -> "Joe Chicarelli" (occurs twice). FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) "was awarded in 2009" perhaps "was awarded the Grammy in 2009.." FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) You link USA Today in the refs but not Los Angeles Times. Why? FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Who publishes ref 8? FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) You relink AllBusiness.com but not Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences. Be consistent. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Couple more in addition to the ones above...

• In note H, the slash in "mastering/engineer" should be removed.

FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• See also should come before the notes.

FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The third paragraph in the lead is very complicated and confusing. It lists 6 albums, then 4 Grammy categories, then there's a word "respectively". I don't understand what album earned the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album OR what Grammy Award did the Los de Atrás Vienen Conmigo album earn?

FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I can't see the image of Juanes. It shows a red X to me. It's probably my browser, but still worth noting. I can see all images except this one.

On my computer it looks good, I do not know if I have to change it.. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise all is good.--Cheetah (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Does ref 3 cover the whole of the second paragraph? if not the other two sentences need referencing The ref 3 is for the last sentence, 1 and 2 sentence is information taken from the list. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC) The above applies for the last paragraph as well The same for the last paragraph, the reference is for the last sentence, the rest of the information is taken from the list. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Add the parameter plainrowheaders in wikitable sortable to remove the bold links NapHit (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Cheetah (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• No reference for note 17? Albacore (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For the other directors' sake, it appears that this was resolved in SatyrTN's review (I'm assuming that note L was meant here). Giants2008 (Talk) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: You could fill the award description parameter in the infobox. Done. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC) Add a caption for the recipients table. Could you be more specific? Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC) I was asking to add a title (caption) to the table listing the winners, for accessibility purposes, but it's no longer necessary. Where is the anchor for note II? Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC) — Parutakupiu (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional support

• Needs a ref for note "L".

Fixed, I added a ref. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Surely more images could be added to the right?

Fixed, I added images for every award winner. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fails criterion 1. Goodraise 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Is there anything wrong with the prose? Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 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 19:10, 15 January 2012 [12].

---

List of UEFA European Football Championship finals

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because we have a parallel featured list for the World Cup and I thought it would be nice to get this featured and then onto the mainpage in time for the final of Euro 2012. As ever, thanks to reviewers for the time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I believe this list meets all the criteria laid out at WP:WIAFL. There are no glaring omissions, it covers the topic completely. The MOS is well-observed, the prose is well-written and the lead adequately covers the topic and the following lists. – PeeJay 13:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and thank you for your tidy up too! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Ref 30 has a publish date. As does 9, 11, 14, etc – generally any BBC Sport archive page, as it was made for Euro 2004. Fixed. Thanks for the spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) "France and Spain have also won the competition on multiple occasions (2)". I assume multiple in the adj. sense? Actually ignore that, just looked up Webster's who define it as "involving more than one". — Lemonade51 (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I wasn't sure what you meant so I'm glad you've struck your own comment! Thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Hehe, I was just unsure about the use of multiple. I overlooked that you put in brackets the number of France and Spain's cup wins which answered my query.

• Support – Nice job. — Lemonade51 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
* Just the one query, how come you link to every final apart from 1964 and 1972, seems a bit odd. Other than that it looks grand. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC) An oversight, fixed, kindly, by PeeJay2K3. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Great job, NapHit (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "The tournament takes place every four years;..." – In my opinion, this looks a bit lost, out of place. Would be better contextualized if it was the end of the first sentence ("... in 1960 and which takes place every four years. It is...") or the beginning of the second ("in 1960. Taking place every four years, it is contested by the men's...").
• If this list is modeled after the World Cup finals list, it would be interesting to also mention in the lead the number of teams that reached the final, that won, etc.
• Is there any compeling reason for the table listing the finals having width-defined columns? Just asking...

— Parutakupiu (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'm about to head to bed, so if you don't mind I'll address them early tomorrow. They're all reasonable; (1) I'll look at a rephrase. (2) the WC list doesn't actually seem to cite those stats (so I didn't try to do it) and (3) no, I'll see what happens if I ditch the width-definition, shouldn't be a big issue. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Take your time!) Another comment: the "Key" section is not important or big enough to be a section per se. It could perfectly be tucked into the area between the heading and the table in the "List of finals" section. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Parutakupiu, I think between me and PeeJay2K3, we've addressed your comments, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I still have that column width issue. Could you test reducing the widths, to erase most of the blank space in the cells? Also, I've taken the liberty to make a few copyedits, to the lead mostly; see if you agree with my changes. Btw, the new history section is a wonderufl addition. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I've now unforced all col widths, so it should be okay, hopefully on your monitor? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Thumbs up! I have a couple of other suggestions, but I don't want to become annoying and the way the list is is already deserving of my Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I don't mind if you have more suggestions to make. This won't be promoted for at least a week or so, I have time! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
            • It's really minor but I think could make the main table look neater: (1) make key symbols superscript relative to the score (here, I'd suggest replacing "^" with a bigger one (e.g. "§"); (2) place the note tags in the same line (remove breaks). At the end of it, every row would have the same height and the table would look more homogenous. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
              • See what you think of what I've done now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Ha! Excellent, just what I envisioned. That's it. Nothing more to be addressed. Great work. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • No problem, thanks for your ongoing interest and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd leave this lot till the morning ;-) The infobox would look neater if "Germany (3 titles)" didn't wrap the "titles)" bit underneath the flag, don't know how you'd stop it though Should extra time be wikilinked on first occurrence rather than second? And should replay be wikilinked? seeing as the other technical terms are "France and Spain have also won the competition on multiple occasions (2)" needs a copyedit as does the last sentence. Maybe something like "Greece, Netherlands and Denmark each won the competition on their only appearance in the final, the latter having replaced Yugoslavia on the eve of the 1992 tournament." It's going to be repetitive however you word it, but three "tournament"s on one line is a little OTT. The little coloured boxes in the key would look neater if they were all the same size. You could perhaps use a wikitable? I might have had the three sentences in the key as three separate bullet points, and have them in the order the columns appear in the table In general, numeric columns look neater centred. In particular, in the Results by nation table, the huge width of the Final appearances column containing a single digit crammed up against the left-hand border looks awful. Consider putting the table-related footnotes below the table to which they apply, so that the sighted reader with a deep enough screen can see the relevant notes without having to keep clicking down to the bottom and clicking back up again I'd consider having the primary sort key for the Results by nation table as final appearances, seeing as that's the topic of the list, rather than wins Impressed than you can get three supports for a sortable table where some of the columns don't sort properly ;-) Me too. I think that's as a result of the colspan. Which I didn't add, but it seemed fine. Okay, will fix...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps force the 2012 TBDs to sort high (or low) until there are genuine values in there, to keep them out the way of the real data. The Key to symbols table and the main table need captions, for accessibility. Wasn't necessary when they were immediately below the relevant section headers, but now they're not. Struway2 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 1992 final and Footnote 6: Seems strange that the UEFA History reference calls it West Germany, when German unification took place before qualifying started, the unified German team took over West Germany's fixtures in the qualifying group and the no longer existent East Germany withdrew. The prose in UEFA's history section calls it Germany. Comments I'm uncomfortable with how this list meets criterion 3b: "does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". As far as I can see, the only thing in this list that the parent article doesn't include is the name of the stadium each final was held in. And the history section of the parent article actually includes rather more prose about each final – i.e. some – than there is in this list. There's prose about the final, i.e. format, tie-breaking criteria, in this list, but did you not consider including anything about any of the individual finals? As it stands, it's a little like having an episode list that just gives the name of each episode. Agree with that comment too. Just thought it could be a useful fork from the lengthy main article. Wouldn't want to repeat the "History" section of the main article but think it's justifiable as the replacement for most of the "finals" section of the article. Especially given the size of the main article. However, I guess (from your perspective) it could be eight times the size to discuss each final? Perhaps this is a lost cause (despite the supports!), and if so, we need to reduce the World Cup Finals FL to nothing too. This is where we need to decide what a list does and doesn't do, given there's an article dedicated to each final, would be worth a discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Hope some of this might be helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Struway2, delighted! Typical you leave this until the moment I"m about to go to sleep. I'll deal with your comments tomorrow, but be advised, if they're too difficult, I'll just resign from Wikipedia altogether and become a unicorn (with wings, not entirely a Centaur, but close), and make you an admin. Your choice... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Hey, thanks for your comments. I think between me and PeeJay2K3, we've covered most of them, the only one left is the concern over 3b. In my opinion, that info should be removed from the main Euro page and just linked as a {{main}} to here. The article is long enough to support this info being forked off. As I said, since we have an article dedicated to every final in any case (linked to from here), it would seem nugatory to add more info on each final here. But interested in what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I'm not too bright this morning. Could you clarify what info you'd remove from the main Euro page? Just for comparison purposes, I've been looking at episode lists. The featured List of The Simpsons episodes has some words about how many series there have been and stuff, and then a table with a row for each series, and then a table for each series with a row listing each episode. Below that you get the featured The Simpsons (season 1) et seq, which have lots of prose and a list of episodes each with a few lines of what happened in that episode. Below that, you get the good article Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire et seq, an article for each episode. So it's clearly accepted in this genre that the existence of a mature developed article on each item listed doesn't mean you shouldn't have words about that item in the next level up. I think my basic problem is not that this list shouldn't be spun off the parent article, but that it should justify being spun off by having more than minimal content. I'd expect an article about the finals of a competition, whether a list or a prose article, to tell me something about those finals, not just list the results in a table with detail translated into punctuation marks. A few years ago, lists about football club seasons had a truly minimal amount of prose and a few footnotes; these days we expect rather more information. Compare any of the early promoted versions, e.g. Aston Villa or Ipswich, with more recent, e.g. Watford or Brighton. Obviously with long lists like those, it's impractical to describe in prose what happened in every season, but the existence of a "History of ... F.C." article isn't an excuse for not describing any of them. List of FIFA World Cup finals was promoted nearly three years ago. Standards change. Just about to go out. Will cap resolved comments when I get back, definitely looks better. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Would you prefer something like this or would you prefer a focus on the match itself? The former is relatively straightforward, the latter less so, but either way, is this (in principle) the kind of thing you're after? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I'd prefer a focus on the match itself, seeing as this is a list of finals in the sense of "last match in each tournament". At least I think it is: I wish, for clarity, that the later stages of a tournament and the plural of the last match in a tournament weren't both called "finals". Your example leans more towards a "List of UEFA European Football Championship seasons" spin-off, i.e. an expanded version of the parent article's History section. In terms of layout, I'm not bothered whether the prose goes in the table how you've got it, or in a history section separate from the table. All in my opinion, obviously. Does anyone else have a view on this? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Okay, I'll see what I can conjure up. Thanks for getting back to me. Could you check if we've addressed your other issues at some point convenient to you? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Hey, added some prose, so I expect some comments back from that, but hopefully I've addressed your major concerns? Let me know what's left! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Haven't gone through checking references or grammar or anything like that, but the new prose looks impressively close to what I'd have wanted. Relieved you decided to address the comments and not follow through on your unicorn-related threat above. Apart from any possible incongruity in your assuming the role of a "symbol of purity and grace" (so say Wikipedia, so it must be true), I'd have made a crap admin. Is it worth leaving (the serious part of) this thread visible, for the benefit of other reviewers, or shall I cap it all? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC) You were right, there were some lovely things there (coin toss, penalty, Van Basten goal) that were well worth bringing to the table. I really enjoyed writing all that as it happens. It would be good if you could cap things you're happy with, FLCs don't tend to get this big these days and I don't want to put anyone off. If it helps, I'd be happy to nudge those editors who have already commented, since the list has taken a bit of a turn since they reviewed it? Either way, I think we've definitely made a decent fist of it, and I'd like to think that pretty much every summary of each final I've written is as good, if not better than those in the individual articles. Everyone's a winner baby. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC) On column widths in the main table, I agree with Parutakupiu that there was far too much white space, but for readability, I think you do need a little space in the winners and particularly losers column, which for the longest names crams right up against the venue. In general, columns with comparable content should be the same width as each other, it looks sloppy otherwise; so the winners/losers columns should be the same, and in the results by nation table, the finalists/winners/losers should be the same. I've had a go at tweaking them, see what you think. Looks fine to me if it looks fine to you. Wasn't convinced it looked "sloppy", but nevertheless, you've fixed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) "Sloppy" was overly crude: my apologies. But if the Results by nation table were published in a book, they wouldn't set the finalists column twice as wide as the winners with the losers a different width again. They'd format the headings or whatever so that the columns could be laid out evenly. Easier to read and more professional in appearance. I'm conscious of trying to avoid unnecessary markup should it compromise the ability to access the data. As a non-expert in that area, I would try to adopt the simplest approach... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I'm no expert either. Presumably you're just making the general point, not saying there are possible accessibility issues with adding a width parameter, which is all I did? Struway2 (talk) Yes, I'd like to guess that a purely visual tag like setting width column should make no difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Addressed those. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Should Germany and West Germany sort together? Sort as Germany. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) In the lead, you really can't say "The team that wins the penalty shootout is then declared champions." In an article written in British English, is there any good reason not to use the normal discretionary plural with the collective noun "team"? Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC) All comments resolved. It's too soon to support yet, before anyone's read through the prose, but I expect to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you Struway2, I believe we've now got a doubly good article thanks to your review. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Couple matters arising, sorry. For consistency with the style adopted with the BBC and UEFA references, you need to include as much detail for the new references, e.g. work and publisher, publication dates where these have been omitted, press agency name for agency pieces, ... Well, they're all consistent now as far as I can tell, but you mentioned "omitted" publication dates, can you specify? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC) The one I noticed was #17 Sporting Life (it's in the URL, which is their house style). ##11, 18 and 25 are AP agency pieces so should include agency=Associated Press. Ok, I've never heard of "interpreting" the URL as a publication date (although I'm sure you're right, that's what it is) but will address that and the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC) It's fairly common practice to structure websites in that way, particularly in newspaper archives, e.g. Northern Echo, old icBirmingham site, though also elsewhere, e.g. the Football League, though most publishers include the publication date on the webpage as well. Yes, I can see it's common practice, it's certainly so in my own industry, but I'm not sure if that's the publication date, the date it was originally written or submitted for publication, the date it was last updated, or some other filing date. I dare say you're right, but this is the first time I've encountered an expectation to decode a URL to form a publication date. I'm also not entirely happy when attempting to decode an "international" date format which could be 10 February or 2 October... but as I say, I believe I've done what you asked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, I finally :-( see your point. Having been used to sites where the URL date always was the same as that appearing on the page itself, or on the index page that pointed to it, I'd never considered the alternatives. If you'd prefer to remove that publication date as possibly original research, I'd be fine with that. Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support All comments resolved, thanks for dealing with them all (not just mine) so promptly and co-operatively. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "The team that wins the penalty shootout are then declared champions." "are" → "is"? That's how it's handled earlier in the paragraph, and it seems to me to be the better method. History: Comma would be nice after Bruno Bellone. "Five minutes into extra time, Bierhoff scored his and Germay's second". Typo alert. "Despite never having won a match a 'major tournament'". Needs "in" before the second "a". Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Splendid, thanks for catching those, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 8 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 19:10, 15 January 2012 [13].

---

Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this timeline now meets the requirements needed for a Featured list. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • Make sure every time the first unit is rounded, the second is as well. For example - " 60 mi (97 km)"
  • The Dolly section is improperly formatted where it makes landfall.
  • I'd like a source for Hanna being the deadliest storm of the season (see its image caption)
  • Could you get a better source for the starting date and ending date? The source only has a generic starting and ending date, and although I know it was the same back then, I'd rather you have a contemporaneous source. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed all, thanks for the comments! -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The dashes in number ranges should be n-dashes, according to the MoS.
  • I'd suggest you use Template:convert for the unit conversion and rounding. Waitak (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed all, thanks for the comments! -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see that either of these was done. Under May, for example, you have 45 mph (75 km/h) (which is actually incorrect!). Using Template:Convert that would be {{convert|45|mph|abbr=on}} yielding 45 mph (72 km/h). If you explicitly wanted to round to the nearest five, you could use {{convert|45|mph|abbr=on|disp=5}} which produces 45 mph (70 km/h). Similarly for ranges (which also takes care of ensuring that you get n-dashes between numbers instead of dashes). Waitak (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

45 mph translates to 75 km/h. I didn't use the conversion template for all of them, granted I didn't use the template for only a select few. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• 45 mph is 72.42 km/h. Rounded to the nearest five, it's 70 km/m, as you noted under August 5 at 1430 UTC. This is one reason to use the convert template, so that you don't have math errors. Waitak (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that we are converting this windspeed from knots.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The windspeeds used are the NOAA standards. HurricaneFan25 02:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be difficult here, but if you're converting from knots, then convert from knots and get the numbers right. I'm sure that NOAA doesn't assert that 45 mph is 75 km/h. If I understand correctly, the idea is that you've converted a number in knots (40?) to mph, rounding it to 45 mph, then converted the same figure in knots to km/h, getting 75 km/h. But 45 mph doesn't round to 75 km/h, so the numbers as represented in the article really are wrong and need to be fixed. Waitak (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually the numbers are correct because we are converting 40 knots to mph and 40 knots to km/h and yeah the NHC does so this. We have to do it this way as otherwise we are committing OR by increasing or decreasing the winds. Its one of those catch 22 situations and has been discussed numerous times on WP including here.Jason Rees (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. And I also see that you've used {{convert}} for the most part. {{convert}} does have some output units that convert to multiple units (like mgpus). Is there nothing like that for converting knots to mph and km/h, e.g. {{convert|40|kn|mph km/h|disp=5}} (by analogy to {{convert|55|nmi|km mi}}, which works fine)? Waitak (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, that does not exist. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• All right. I'd still argue in favor of more accuracy, as above, but if this is what the NHC does, and you're quoting the numbers you're given accurately, then that has to be good enough. Waitak (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose pending fixing of some things per MOS:NBSP, especially times (e.g. 0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. AST) should be 0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. AST). HurricaneFan25 22:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  BTW, I should have enough time to tweak all of those. HurricaneFan25 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment there is an ongoing discussion at WT:WPTC on wheather that timelines should exist. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That discussion ended a week ago, YE. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not true at all. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Author refs are also incorrect. HurricaneFan25 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How? -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - quick note on citations...the way the authors are represented now is quite confusing. In sources with 2+ authors, it's just rattling off names with no sense of if it's first or last. I already made a suggestion to TAWX to reformat these into |author=[First Name] [Last Name] so I'm just clarifying where that's coming from. I'll get around to reviewing this article within a few days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral Some authors are still formatted as last, first; stay with one format. HurricaneFan25 21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the format, though I noticed a few more other issues I'll leave the nominator to address. Auree ★ 22:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sources (haven't done spotchecks)

• None of the refs have publish dates (|date= parameter); I would like to see these added. In addition, take note that dates within the body of the article are formatted as "Month day, year" (e.g. "December 5, 2011), while the ref retrieval dates are formatted as "Day month year" (e.g. "5 December 2011"). For optimal consistency, use the same format for the ref retrieval (and publish) dates as the one within the article.
• Ref 2: "Clarksville Online" is |work=, not publisher.
• Ref 6: Check title.
• PDF files need |format=PDF parameters.
• Multi-page PDF files also need page numbers/ranges (use |page= for a single page, |pages= for multiple pages)
• NHC published reports should probably be formatted using the cite report template instead of cite web.
• Furthermore, make sure everything in the article is sourced. The notes, as well as parts of the timeline, do not contain any sources to back up their claims. The fact that this list suffers basic problems such as verifiability makes me believe this was a rather premature nomination, so I'm inclined to oppose if I find more significant problems. Auree ★ 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I found that portions of significant and contentious content within the lede are not supported by any sources. Some of the content even appears to be incorrect. Some external links also link to completely irrelevant material. It needs a thorough check for similar problems. Auree ★ 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for pointing out the issues you have seen so far. I have Fixed all except the lede, which I shall get to shortly. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll get around to checking your changes soon. By the way, the usage of graphic templates is discouraged over at FLC (for example, Fixed, Done or Not done), as they slow down the page load time. Auree ★ 00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Some issues still remain: the notes remain unsourced; ref 6 still has a faulty title; and some sources still don't have publish dates. Additionally, use an – (endash) for page ranges on ref 5 and 15 (on ref 5, "1, 2, 4, 5" should be "1–5"). Auree ★ 01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, after struggling on how to reference a note, I have finished the lede and addressed all the issues that you brought up. :D -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning support on criteria 2, 3 a) b), 4 and 6, as well as on referencing and lede prose. Thanks for your quick and good work. It's looking much better, but I would like to see a prose review of the timeline itself before wholly supporting. I might get around to doing this myself depending on how much edit time I have in the coming days. Auree ★ 03:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support because it resembles the quality of other FL timelines in the Atlantic basin, such as the one in 2009.--12george1 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Lead image could be larger. Opening sentence of lead could use some work, the use of "hurricane" three times is quite repetitive. Ditto second sentence which uses the word "information" three times. Timeline is not WP:ACCESS compliant (you're using just colour to convey information) and not WP:DASH compliant (ranges need en-dash, not hyphen). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I have fixed the issues per WP:ACCESS and WP:DASH that you brought up. As for the lede, the image was enlarged and the first sentence was reworded. As a whole, I'll see what I can do to enlarge it, and for the second sentence, other timelines use this wording and I feel that the way it is presented sounds the most grammatically correct. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Well perhaps other timelines are written as poorly as that. Elegant prose is needed here. For those lists that don't meet these requirements, WP:FLRC is the way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I have addressed all the issues you brought up, including slightly rewording the second sentence. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Get a dash into Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale in the key. And another one in one of the July 7 entries. And a third in note 2. In the timeline, there's some inconsistency regarding whether or not storms are linked when they are first mentioned. I'd think they should be, but it should be consistent either way. Noticed a red link for Isle of Youth, Cuba. Just linking to Isle of Youth gives a redirect that may be the intended target. Note 1 could use a "the" before the NOAA's name. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Fixed all, thanks for the comments. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 03:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - What doesnt make this a content fork of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season? Jason Rees (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:21, 15 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 19:10, 15 January 2012 [14].

---

List of ironclad warships of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is another list of German warships (similar to my previous lists on battlecruisers, battleships, and armored cruisers); this one is a list of German ironclads, or Victorian-era battleships. It caps off this project, which is all but ready for nomination as a Good Topic. The article has previously passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review. I feel the article meets Featured List criteria, and look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this is the case. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – SMS Prinz Adalbert: Before the second use of reference 7 in this section, there's an excess space, and there's no space afterwards. Move the cite back and it will solve both problems. SMS Friedrich Carl: "The ship was commissioned into the Prussian Navy in January 1867". The table says October, not January. Are you confusing this with the launch month? SMS Kronprinz: Excess space before the comma after "The Prussians conducted only two sorties in which Kronprinz participated". SMS Konig Wilheim: "SMS Konig Wilheim was laid down in 1865 at the Thames Ironworks shipyard at in London". Either "at" or "in" needs to go toward the end of this bit. Kaiser class: "both ships designed by Edward Reed and were built by the Samuda Brothers shipyard in London." Given that this is the second part of the sentence, it would be a smoother read if "were" was moved to before "designed". The prose says Deutschland was sold for scrap in 1908, but the table says it was broken up in 1909. Did the two happen in different years? (Just checking since I'm not an expert on these things.) Sachsen class: The dates given for Baden's selling/scrapping are 1938 (sold) and 1939–1940 (scrapped). I assume that these are correct as well? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC) First five are fixed, Deutschland was sold in 1908 and scrapped in 1909, and Baden was used as a target ship until 1938. Thanks for finding all of those. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Prinz Adalbert was similarly delayed," then why not just say Britain delayed the delivery of both? Fixed. "The latter two vessels" don't need to repeat vessels here. Fixed. In fact, you could merge that shortish sentence with its predecessor like "...followed by two Kaiser-class vessels in the middle of the decade, the last capital ships..."? Or something more elegant? Fixed. "The date the keel began to be assembled" reads a little clumsily to me, perhaps "The date the keel assembly commenced" would be better. Fixed. Friedrich Carl and Kronprinz and Hansa and Kaiser and Oldenburg don't have their gun calibres in Imperial terms. Conversions are only required for the first instance. Strikes me as an odd approach, especially if you navigate using the TOC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC) That's the generally preferred approach (I was instructed to remove repeat conversions in previous FLCs/ACRs) Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) But you repeat the conversions in the prose... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC) They shouldn't have been repeated there either. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, so one way or the other, you're internally consistent now, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, thanks to your attention to detail :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC) You translate Konig Wilhelm but not Kronprinz, is there a reason for that? Added. You start relinking the units from Wilhelm onwards, why? Simple copy-paste error. Sachsen has 6 x 26 guns (no units at all). Fixed. Why doesn't the Sachsen have a cost? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Groner doesn't have it, for some reason. Added a note to that effect. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support my picky issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment The tables fail WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this, other than this the list looks great. NapHit (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• How does the list fail ACCESS? As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the list as far as MOS:DTT is concerned (correct captions, no spliced column headers, no use of color, and no nested tables). Can you explain please? Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to add row scopes and col scopes, if you look at the MOS:DTT, you'll see that the row haeder is shaded, they are not on this list. Also the tables have no captions, its all explained at MOS:DTT. The scopes are needed for unsighted readers that's why it fails ACCESS. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be possible to add the "scope="row" |" lines to the template without breaking the tables, at least with the example given at MOS:DTT. I'm not well versed in template building - is there someone more experienced who can take a look? As for captions, that seems redundant to the section headings (which seems to be the general thrust of the discussion here) - I think it would be best to hold off until some consensus is formed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done the first table for you as an example. Regarding the captions, they are required, as its for people using screen readers so they need the caption to be able to tell them what the table is about. Most Featured lists that are promoted now utilise these, regardless of whether there is a header close by. NapHit (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the rest of the row and column labels, but I really do not like the table headers (which in my opinion decrease the visual appeal of the list - FLC criteria 5a). Is it possible to hide the captions so they don't show up but they'll still be available for screen readers? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think its possible to make captions available to screen readers, I'll leave this up in case another editor suggests captions should be included, its not enough to abstain from supporting. I support the list regardless, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: This is excellently done, and very close to FL status. I do have a few quibbles though:
• I'd suggest changing the lede a little; perhaps "the Prussian and later German Imperial Navies" should read "the Prussian Navy, and later the Imperial German Navy".
• "The Prussian Navy acquired three more ships" - sounds like there should be a "had" in there based on the rest of the sentence?
• "The three turret ships of the..." Might want to link turret ship; also, this is a little unclear as to whether it means three ships with turrets or ships with three turrets, can this be tweaked a bit?
• "...the last capital ships ordered from foreign yards." - probably should add "by Germany".
• Arminius: "...designed by the British Royal Navy Captain Cowper Coles" - this is rather awkward, perhaps "Royal Navy" should be dropped?
• Sachsen class: suggest wikilinking boom defense.

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• • All done, thanks for reviewing the article, Bushranger. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Support, nice work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Sometimes your footnotes are out of numerical order. Forex, in the first para of the lede.
  • Should be good now.
• Fix caption on SMS Hansa image.
  • Did you just want "line-drawing" hyphenated?
    • No, it's not a compound noun or adjective. Two words please.
      • Fixed.
• Why aren't the costs plural?
  • In the ACR for the heavy cruiser list, MisterBee said Mark doesn't add an "s" to make it plural.
    • That maybe correct for German usage, but I assure you that every American that I encountered when I lived in Germany during the Cold War anglicized mark(s) as they'd do for any English term. Not gonna oppose over this, but "mark" reads as singular, which conflicts with the quantities specified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - this is the English wiki afterall.
• Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:51, 16 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 Dabomb87 17:48, 3 January 2012 [15].

---

List of Afghanistan T20I International cricketers

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria, and follows a similar format to current FLs such as List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Feels like "matches" or something else should be added in at the end of the first sentence. Could link Ireland in the second paragraph to an article on their national team, if one exists. I see a link is already in the third paragraph; maybe it could be moved up a paragraph? Names should be sorted by last name, not first name. Only one person is now sorting by last name. The rest are still sorting by first name. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Per a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers/archive1 I believe that sorting by the first name is more appropriate, and have reverted the article to do that. Harrias talk 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC) If there are going to be colored rows, there needs to be an explanation of the color in the key, with matching symbols per WP:ACCESS. Not sure if it's because of the colors, but the sorting tab isn't showing up in the colored rows, though the sorting itself works fine. Don't know if other similar lists do this, but having a seperate Ref column would be more attractive than having cites after the players' names. Ref 2 could use a PDF indication. If you're using cite templates, the format= parameter works well for this. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC) All issues fixed. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Table currently fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this Not keen on the sorting being separate from the rows, three rows at the top of the table is unnecessary. Remove the colours from the table as they are not needed, the key indicates what stats refer to bowling etc, and just have the sort next to the stats. Majority of the third paragraph needs referencing, I know its reference in the table but I would add the refs in the lead as well. All issues fixed. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC) nearly, you need to add rowscopes. I've done an example for you so you know what you're doing. Btw, you have to put everything on a separate line as I have done for the first player, otherwise the whole table gets highlighted not the row header. NapHit (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - seems to meet all the criteria having read through it a couple of times, so unless I've missed something, it looks good to me! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Because of the width of the table, when viewed on a monitor width even 1280 pixel width, the images display above the table, creating a large amount of blank space. I know monitors and resolutions are getting better and better, but I think we should be catering to that width, which is still reasonably common. A solution as used at List of international cricket centuries at Lord's Cricket Ground might be appropriate?
• "..was the 2nd match.." – per MOS:NUM this should really be "second" rather than "2nd"; similarly later in the sentence, "by 5 wickets." should be "by five wickets."

Otherwise the list looks pretty good to me. Harrias ^talk 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support thanks for those tweaks: nice work. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Don't mix date formats in the references. The lead image caption is a little clunky, could be "The Afghanistan national cricket team playing in Rotterdam in 2010 ICC WCL Division One"? 13, 8 - thirteen and eight (just to prose-it-up a bit). T20I is overlinked in the first para. Are the names per the sources, e.g. Shenwari has an article at Shinwari here, Hameed Hasan has an article at Hamid Hassan (in fact, in his image caption, you spell it per the latter)... If the captions in the gallery are intended to be sentences, the "Has..." etc should not be capitalised. Ref 4 has author name inconsistently formatted, i.e. first last rather than last, first per all the other similar refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:43, 1 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 Dabomb87 17:48, 3 January 2012 [16].

---

Grammy Award for Best Country Collaboration with Vocals

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the criteria. I'm not a big fan of country music, but hey. Albacore (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

;Comments "Alison Krauss holds the record for most wins in this category" → "Alison Krauss holds the record for having the most wins in this category" Reworded. Do not link more than once within table cells. Table entries are linked more than once because there's no guarantee which year the user will want to find. If someone's name is not linked in the following years then the user would have to find the first year the name is linked, creating an inconvenience. Albacore (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC) What I mean is that you would not link more than once within an individual table cell, not in the table as a whole. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Albacore (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Check for inconsisntencies in references. (i.e. FN 20 vs. 24) Fixed, should all be consistent now. I am open to revisit once these issues have been addressed carefully. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• You now have my full support. Excellent work on the list. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I made a few edits to the list, mostly minor and to increase consistency with other FL Grammy lists (Grammy year template, see also section, portal link, etc). I also removed a few sortname templates, MoS inconsistencies, etc. Please discuss if you disagree with any of the edits. I would support the promotion of this list assuming all other reviewers' concerns are addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments 1996 has a minor format issue in the winner's name. As does 1997. "Michael Martin Murphey " has an e in his surname. k.d. lang has a full stop after her d. The "Mary-Chapin" of "Mary-Chapin Carpenter" doesn't need hyphenation. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Taken care of. Best, Albacore (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Only issue I see is that the year's are bold links, not sure if this is frowned upon or not, but I would suggest adding plainrowheaders to wikitable sortable to fix the issue and be on the safe side. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 1 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 Dabomb87 17:48, 3 January 2012 [17].

---

List of monarchs of East Anglia

Nominator(s): --Hel-hama (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria; it provides a good summary of information concerning the regnal dates of some pretty obscure kings in such a way that invites people to explore the rulers of East Anglia further. --Hel-hama (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments Don't start with "The list of...", treat it as an article about monarchs of East Anglia. done Image in the infobox is meaningless as it's nothing to do with East Anglia. sorted For a non-expert, what does "semi-historical" mean? phrase removed "kingdom of the East Angles" vs "The East Anglians were initially" Angles or Anglians at this point? always 'Angles', but sometimes 'East Anglia' - any necessary amendments made. "was soon restored by Offa's successor" his successor, no need to repeat Offa. done Your spelling of Eadmund is derived from the source, presumably? (I'm not aware of this spelling). spelling changed to Edmund Why are King names in bold in the table? No need. sorted "A king named Hun may never have existed." not referenced. Who said this? sorted out Please make sure the timeline is accessible, i.e. colour is not the only thing to distinguish one thing from another. done, after a lot of thinking... Large empty cell at the end of the table should be removed. done Ref page ranges should use an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) per WP:DASH. done Ref 14 could use a publisher/accessdate. Ref 14 already had a publisher and didn't need an access date, but ref 20 is an online citation, so I sorted that instead The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• First quick nit-pick: The first table entry has a comma after "Possible ruler" while the other similar entries have semi-colons, which seem to work better.

sorted.

• Second quick nit-pick: Ref 34 has no space between the p. and page number, which is inconsistent with the other cites. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

sorted

Support Just one suggestion, perhaps split the reference column in two, although if this affects the template then don't bother, otherwise well done on a great list. NapHit (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk One major issue from me: the timeline image is beautiful, significantly unfunctional. When viewed on a 1024 x 768 monitor, the image and the table are out of sync. While it may not be the intention for them to be perfectly aligned (they don't appear to be at the full width of my screen either) it is very confusing when they are so far out. – On further thought realise this is acceptable. Harrias talk 13:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC) I also don't understand why there are blank cells at the start of each dynasty? sorted, I think - can you confirm it's worked (I don't see the empty cells you've got)? Hel-hama (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC) The Bede source should have an ISBN number if it was published in 1969. template amended accordingly. Hel-hama (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC) The is a slight discrepancy between the navigation box and the article: Æthelred I, Oswald, Æthelred II and Æthelwold are all listed as being "sub-kings", but as far as I can tell in the article, only Oswald and Æthelred II are mentioned as being sub-kings. article (and template) clarified to remove discrepancies. Hel-hama (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Beornwulf is styled differently in the nav box and the article: Béornwulf and Beornwulf. sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC) On the whole, the article looks pretty good. Harrias talk 07:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Thanks, the empty cells have disappeared, so whatever you did has worked, and the other points have all been addressed. A nice list about a subject I knew nothing about, but am now quite interested in reading more about. Harrias ^talk 16:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Well done. Waitak (talk) 22:49, 1 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 15:08, 1 January 2012 [18].

---

List of 1964 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Courcelles 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is tie for another of this series to make an appearance here! Courcelles 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Remove the extra 'from' in the opening sentence. "Germany dominated the luge competition, with that country's team..." A tad colloquial. Unified Team of Germany would be a better substitute for 'that country's team'. Of course I am need of a second opinion of this. Ref 6 is dead, or has been since December 18, 2011. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Al three attended to, thanks for the comments. Courcelles 16:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support — Lemonade51 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – No need for multiple 1960 Winter Olympics links in the second paragraph. There are a few "with ... winning"-type sentences in the lead. Given that this is an awkward type of structure, perhaps consider rephrasing one or two of them. "The Scandinavian teams Sweden, Norway and Finland". I'd replace "teams" with "nations" or "countries". Typo in note B: "fro" in "tied fro second...". What makes Topend Sports (reference 4) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Just a note, I've looked at some of these, and will get to the rest tomorrow. Courcelles 16:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC) With a new source, I've handled all off these. Courcelles 20:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: "... after the sports had been absent from the 1960 Olympics." – This is redundant, if the sports returned to the program it's because they were absent from the 1960 Games. If we look at history, though, they weren't "dropped" so much as Squaw Valley didn't build a track for them. I've edited to make that clearer. Courcelles 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC) "Unlike the preceding 1960 Games..." Long sentence copyedit suggestion: "This was the second and most recent occasion on which ice stock this sport (a German variant of the sport of curling) had been played as a demonstration sport at the Winter Olympics. The first Games at which this sport had made an appearance was at the 1936 Winter Olympics." "... with its athletes winning a total of 25..." – I suggest replacing "winning" with "collecting" or "securing", etc., to avoid repetition of this verb in the same sentence. Same situation in the first sentence about Lidiya Skoblikova. "... Winter Olympics participant..." → Winter Olympian — Parutakupiu (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I've addressed or fixed everything. Courcelles 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Suppport. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Andrewstalk 22:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments The lead is of decent quality - the only problem I have is this sentence: "The Soviet Union won the most number of medals, with its athletes winning a total of 25, 11 of which were gold." It reads a bit awkwardly. How about, "The Soviet Union won the most medals; its athletes won a total of 25, 11 of which were gold."? A couple of WP:CAPTION issues - basically, captions which are complete sentences should end in full stops, while others (eg "French figure skating silver medallist Alain Calmat in 1963") should not have full stops. Image licencing checks out OK, but I think it would be good to crop the file notes on the side from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B1014-0012-002, Alain Calmat.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-G0313-0017-001, Ludmilla Beloussowa, Oleg Protopopow.jpg. I'm happy to crop them for you if you want. —Andrewstalk 23:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I've addressed the first two, and have no means to manipulate images at all until I get back to my home computer next week. If you feel this needs doing, please go ahead. Courcelles 21:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support I have no issues. —Andrew_stalk 22:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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