Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 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 22:08, 22 June 2012 [1].

---

List of English Twenty20 cricket champions

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria. It is based upon the FL List of official County Championship winners, among others. As usual, all thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Harrias ^talk 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick Comments: Three players in the table goes to a disambiguation page, and one player leads to an Arab leader (Arafat), you should fix those.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, sorted that now! Harrias ^talk 07:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ZiaKhan 07:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Image needs Alt text. Added. Harrias talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC) There is no information about 2012 season. As the 2012 season has not yet started, it would be inappropriate to include anything about it: this is a list of champions, not of seasons: I will update it at the end of the season, once there is a new champion, not earlier. Harrias talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC) A template at the end will be helpful. Added. Harrias talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC) ZiaKhan 22:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support meets the criteria. ZiaKhan 13:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Just a quick comment on 3b, as I'm sure someone will mention, I think the list meets this certain criteria, as the parent article could be expanded and therefore render including this information redundant. I think as well, given that this bridges the Twenty20 Cup and the Friends Life t20 articles, there isn't really one parent article that it would be in. Harrias talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Could consider adding a history section such as in this list Possibly, but personally I think that would be more the purview of a history section of the Twenty20 Cup and the Friends Life t20 articles, and obviously, the individual articles. I think recently we have started to see more and more lists move away from the stand-alone format, and blur the edges between list and article, which is no bad thing, but for the moment with this list, I am happy to follow the standard stand-alone list format for this. Harrias talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure there is much point in listing the counties that haven't won a championship in the second table it seems redundant to me. NapHit (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I think you are probably right: it is something I debated with myself a few times back and forth. I'll leave it in for the moment, and if we keep this visible, just for any further comment, but if nothing more is said on the matter, I'll get rid of it in a week or so. Harrias talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Given no one else has voiced an opinion either way, I've removed them. Harrias talk 11:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Hmmm.. this has messed up the formatting of the references a little, as the image trails down into that section: have a look and let me know what you think? Harrias talk 11:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments short and sweet but, in my opinion, can withstand existing as a separate list. I think you could afford to put "English Twenty20 cricket champions" in bold as you're not linking the key terms until after that. Done. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Daily Telegraph is actually The Daily Telegraph. Done. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I do have a tiny niggling wonder if you could have something along the lines of a History section which describes the various finals, but that may be better served in a List of English Twenty20 cricket championship finals? As I said above, I think something like that would be better served in the parent article(s), but yes, the finals specifically would probably be better placed in a specific list of the finals: should such a page be deemed notable. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Lead image caption probably could use (players celebrating the 20xx victory) or something to put the image into better context. The issue is that the photo is specifically of them celebrating their semi-final win in 2012. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) You could have "(pictured celebrating their semi-final win in 2012)"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 06:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps worth noting that the B&H was an ODI competition with 40(?) overs, so the shortening of the matches came about naturally since half as many overs were played? Done. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) "the Friends Provident t20" looks funny to my eyes, that you link Friends Provident and then have t20 unlinked afterwards. Would consider "the 'Friends Provident t20'...". Done, though for consistency have also done it for the B&H, Twenty20 Cup and FLt20. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) "each team was allowed two overseas players" not sure you need to repeat "overseas players". Done. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Consider linking Quota players for "overseas player". I've never heard of "quota player" but the article does a bit of a job on explaining what you mean. Done, nice find, I've been looking for something decent to link that to for ages! Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) "qualified for the Champions League Twenty20," (I'd say who that was) and how did they get on? I'm not sure on this one; given that the information provided here provides an easy way to check which teams it was, it would seem slightly superfluous to list the counties in the lead, and information on how they did I would think is more detail than is needed in this list article, but you could convince me? Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) No, it's okay, it was just a "maybe" for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Essex CC isn't linked in the table. Which then poses the awkward question, should all the top scorers etc have their county linked?! Linking these two points together: good point! I have linked the counties wherever that county was not the winner or runner-up, how's it look? I'm not against linking them all if it will be a visual improvement: it does look a little random at the moment! Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I would link each one each time, it does look a little odd... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 06:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure that "(Ordered by..)" should have a capital O each time. (And "... Runs" and "... Wickets" etc). That's how they copy from the source. I'm not against changing them, but I don't see that it does much harm either way. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) No, it doesn't really do any harm, but I tend to apply the rules of grammar to ref titles as well as article content. Although I must admit that I can't find that in MOS anywhere, so I guess it's just a personal pref... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Ref 3 should use an en-dash, not a hyphen in the title. Done. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) As usual, thanks for your comments. A few of my replies probably require some further thought and discussion, so I look forward to your continued input. Harrias talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:08, 22 June 2012 [2].

---

General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Nominator(s): TIAYN (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Another communist-related list... :) TIAYN (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Done The lead should really be longer than one short paragraph. Consider incorporating some material from the Officeholders section. Done Officeholders: "until the laters death on 2 September 1969." "laters" → "latter's". Now reads "latler", which is an obvious typo. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Done Add "on" in "until his death 10 July 1986"? Done "and was succeeded by Nguyen Van Linh. Linh...". Try to avoid repetition like this from one sentence to another. Done Same goes for "Mu o i. Mu o i..." later in that paragraph. Done "Le Kha Phieu was Mu o i's". His what? Done In the heading List of General Secretaries, the List of isn't really necessary since it's obvious that a list is here. It's a bit redundant to have that in the heading. Done Note 2: "are ranked in a official order of precedence...". "a" → "an". Done Don't think that links to Ho Chi Minh are needed in both notes 3 and 4. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Done Check to see if all of the images have alt text. Some do, and some don't. Done The Trong photo in the lead still doesn't have alt text, although the others do. If you want me to be picky, the coat of arms in the politics of Vietnam template also doesn't have it. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC) No pictures have alt text... This is why I don't like alt text, its confused! --TIAYN (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments (sorry to have taken so long to get round to the review by the way..) Explained Why isn't this list called "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam"? Because sources commonly refer to the post as General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, or just party General Secretary.. Even party sources just call the post sometimes General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (its the same with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which is an FL, and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China articles). Explained "the leading Party organ on military affairs" is that a quote? if so use quote marks. Nope, its not a quote. --TIAYN (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Done "For a long period in its history, the General Secretary " I would say "in its history, the position of General Secretary..." since the "history" relates to the position itself. Done "and he is ranked 8th in the Political Bureau (Politburo) ranking.[2]" I'm not sure what this means, but you certainly don't need "ranked", you could just say "he is eighth in the ... ranking." Its explained in the "Notes" section. --TIAYN (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Done "he was sentenced to prison " why? Done "and shot to death" does that mean "executed by shooting"? Done Nhan Dan should be Nhân Dân, be consistent throughout with your use of diacritics. Done "Lê died just a couple" -> "He died two months..." Done "and he was succeeded " -> "and was succeeded". Done "and Nguyễn Phú Trọng succeeded him, but Trong" consistent with diacritics please. Done "№" we should use "No." Done "Nông Đức Mạnh"'s image seems centrally aligned. Done "19 January 2011 . Retrieved 23 " odd space there. Done "Catholic University of America" is actually "The Catholic University of America". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC) (Explained) No need for the bold text in No. or Rank. Unless it's for WP:ACCESS, in which case it'd probably only apply to one column. They are both bold because of WP:Access and I see no reason to debold them... --TIAYN (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Done Nope, we definitely don't use bold because of WP:Access. See WP:BADEMPHASIS and WP:MOSBOLD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no reply to TRM's comments in the last 11 days, no edits to the list in the last 11 days although TIAYN has been active elsewhere. Has TIAYN lost interest? If so, this ought to be archived - no-one else is going to want to spend time reviewing the list if comments are being ignored. Bencherlite^Talk 06:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've nudged TIAYN. Let's see. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. --TIAYN (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

;Comments Arsenikk (talk) Done "from 1951–76" don't mix words and symbols, should be "from 1951 to 1976" Done According to the MOS, capitalization of titles may only be done when immediately in front of the name or when referring to a unique title. Thus "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam" is correctly capitalized, while when using the shorthand "general-secretary" it should be lower-case. (see MOS:CAPS) Done Either link "Indochina" or even better create an article about the "Indochina Communist Party" Done Any reason the 7th congress is linked, but not the 6th? Seems to me they would both be highly notable. Done The Politburo needs a brief explanation. Done Perhaps make a stub for the two people without articles. Done "Potomac Books, Inc" should be just "Potomac Books" Done Everything else in the table is centered, perhaps also the images should be? Otherwise looks good. Arsenikk (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Bibliography section should listed alphabetically by surname of the author. NapHit (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support--GoP_T^C_N 08:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:08, 22 June 2012 [3].

---

List of songs recorded by Chrisye

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is a fairly complete list of songs recorded by Chrisye during his career as a vocalist. It includes all songs he recorded on his solo albums, as well as all songs on Guruh Gipsy and Badai Pasti Berlalu. There may be a few songs (not singles) on out-of-print audio-cassettes or CDs (very few Indonesian albums are reissued, especially 20 years down the road), but that's okay per FL criteria 1a) as any out there are minor songs which he did not bother mentioning in his biography or receive coverage from news outlets. I would like to thank Mark Arsten for copyediting, and note that I based this off Calvin999's List of songs recorded by Rihanna. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is my first FL review, so I had to look at some other lists. The last paragraph in the lead is "This list includes song titles and their English translations, if applicable; songs titles that do not need translation but have a possibly unclear meaning have notes after the title. Unless otherwise noted, all songs are in Indonesian. Songs performed but not recorded are not listed." Should not this be in the "Released songs" section at the beginning of the table rather than in the lead? See for example List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Baltimore#Tallest_buildings. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's workable, but I think in the linked example it was put with the different lists due to each list having a different scope. Here, there's only the one list Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. There is a similar page List of songs recorded by Rihanna. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I meant that there is only one list of songs in the article. The Boston article has three lists, while the Rihanna one has two. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Meets FLC. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Beginning with Badai Pasti Berlalu (1977), Chrisye began to write songs; his first songwriting credit was "Merepih Alam"." Not keen on this sentence, in particular the "Beginning with ... he began...." repetition. How's this? "over his initial solo albums" I think "early" would sound better than "initial". Agree. Changed. You don't need to link "songwriter". Delinked. You link "arrangement" after you use the term "arranged", so I'd link it first time if I were you. Fixed. "the title with the most iterations is "Cinta Kita", which has three different songs attached to it" I would rephrase this as ""Cinta Kita" has the most versions, with three." Ref. should be Ref(s) Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Fixed most. Not sure if "version" would be right, as the three "Cinta Kita"s (sp?) have a) completely different writers/composers b) completely different lyrics and c) a completely different tempo and arrangement. The only thing they share in common is the title. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "songs titles that do not need translation...". "songs" → "song"?

• Fixed.

• Is Denny Sakrie (from Denny Sakrie's Music House) an expert on the topic of Indonesian music, or is this just somebody's personal webpage? If the latter, it's not going to be a reliable source and a replacement should be found. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• As noted in hidden text by both references, he writes for Rolling Stone Indonesia (and is cited in that capacity in several Wikipedia articles). He is also quoted in Kompas (Google search) The Jakarta Post (Google search), The Jakarta Globe (Google search), and Tempo (Google search). I believe he is enough of an expert in the field to pass WP:SPS Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

'Comments

• A pic of the singer in the lead would be useful.

• I agree wholeheartedly. However, no free images are available. Otherwise the main article would have one too. A Fair-Use image wouldn't pass the criteria.

Can't you use one of the four on his bio? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• There are only two FU images in the biographical article (both of him), and using them would fall afoul of FUC #8, as knowing what he looked like is not necessary to understand what he sang. The other two images are not very useful, methinks: neither the grave nor his signature would serve for much more than decoration. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Collaborator(s) column is so wide all because of one song's row. Put three names underneath the first three names so the table as a whole isn't so wide. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good. How's this? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, better :). Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Looks great overall; I've made a couple of small alterations here. I just have a few fruther comments/suggestions: I'm a bit confused by the {{incomplete list}} template at the top of the page – which songs are missing? The Indonesian Wikipedia has him singing Titiek Puspa's "Hidupku Untuk Cinta" solo and "Marilah Kemari" with other artists on From Us to U. The album seems to be out of print (been looking for about two years), so I am unable to verify that. As visible from the history, several songs, like "Doa Anak Negeri", were added after a new book came out (minor songs, but still met the inclusion criteria). The Collaborators column largely consists of empty cells, whereas almost every entry in the Song column contains two pieces of information: the song's original title and its English translation. I wonder whether it might be worth swapping them around, i.e. have the English translations of song titles in the second column, and the collaborators in a small font underneath the original titles. I feel that a reader is more likely to want to sort the table by English title rather than by collaborator anyway. Obviously this is a major change to the list, so feel free to consider it at your own discretion. These are generally not official translations, as many of the songs did not see international release. The translations are only to give readers who don't speak Indonesian a rough idea of what the song was about. Giving it its own column would be undue weight, in my opinion. Also, songs like "Asalkan Pilih Jalan Damai" with six or seven artists would end up very messy. Speaking of the Collaborators column, was Chrisye the lead artist on all the songs listed, or for some of them was he a featured artist on someone else's album? He was part of a group for "Asalkan Pilih Jalan Damai", "Kidung", and "Kemesraan". I could indicate this with a footnote. The second sentence of the first paragraph took me by surprise the first time I read it. I was thinking "Whoa, Lilin-Lilin Kecil was number 13 in what exactly?", and it wasn't until I got to the end of the paragraph that I realised what it was referring to. Looking over it a second time, it of course made a lot more sense, and it reads better as well. But I wonder whether, for the sake of first-time readers, it might be worth moving the parenthetical remark to the end of the sentence. Changed "in 1989 and 1989" Is that correct? Or should the first one be 1988? &Yep. The fourth paragraph repeats the word "songs" a lot. Given the topic of the article, obviously this is to be expected, but I wonder whether it might perhaps be worth varying the prose slightly with some similar words, e.g. "tracks"? Trimmed. Overall, great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I just wish we had better free pictures of Indonesians... pretty much every field is underrepresented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC) The photograph of Fariz RM is a different width to all the others – using upright rather than 200px on all the images would fix this, and would give extra space on the screen for the columns of the table. Removed. For some reason I can't get it to work. This is sort of what I was referring to. Revert it if you don't like the change. Duh. That's good.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Every cell in the Album(s) column lists just one album, so it might be worth changing it to just Album. Agreed.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Were "Kidung" and "Kemesraan" featured on any albums? If not, their Album(s) cells should just say "Single only" for the sake of consistency. Also, what were the groups that released these singles actually called? Agreed.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Did Chrisye perform as a featured artist on anyone else's songs? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC) None that I've found thusfar. After Badai Pasti Berlalu he more or less stayed a solo singer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Do the two different versions of "Pergilah Kasih" represent two distinctly different recordings, or is one simply an edited version of the other? Essentially the same except for the extra instrumentals (recorded at the same time). To be removed?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I'll leave it to you – there's doesn't really seem to be any firm consensus either way. If each entry represents a song that Chrisye has recorded, then I personally don't think that things like post-prod edits or remixes need to be included, as the singer himself hasn't actually recorded anything new. However, other editors might argue that, since the extended version of "Pergilah Kasih" was included on the album, it's worth including it on this list too. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Alright, unless there is consensus otherwise I'll keep it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Just had another look over the list, and there are no issues that I can see, so I'm happy to support this nomination. (I think it might be worth changing "that Younky Suwarno arranged" to "arranged by Younky Suwarno" though.) Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Good work :) --GoP_T^C_N 08:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:08, 22 June 2012 [4].

---

List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it meets criteria, like all my other lists. Albacore (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "52,796.800 square kilometres (20,384.958 sq mi)" waaaay too accurate, just to nearest sq km/sq mi is fine. Apply throughout the lead. "to major cities " just me, but don't like "major" (e.g. in what way?) so either go for "most populous cities" or just "cities". kilometres or kilometers? Suggest that instead of numerical cells being left justified, they're right justified. Ref 12 is in Portuguese isn't it? Don't really need Category:Municipalities of Brazil since that's a sub-cat of Category:Lists of municipalities in Brazil. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC) All fixed, except the right align comment, which I don't think is that big of an issue. Albacore (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Minor, but add "the" to "while smallest by population..." in the third paragraph? In the Municipality column, Varzea doesn't appear to be sorting in the right order due to the diacritics. Not a huge deal, but alt text for the non-lead images would be a nice luxury. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC) All fixed, alt text added. Albacore (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Only thing I can add to the above is that the Natal image still doesn't have alt text. Other than that everything from my batch of comments is fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Added. Albacore (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• At least on my browser, the images on the right force the table down so there's a full page of whitespace. A possible solution is not enforce column/table widths, you really shouldn't need to anyway.

Removed the column and table widths.

• Do we need two columns for area, or can they be combined, stacked on one another?

::Probably better as two separate columns, for sortability and navigation reasons throughout the table.

You can still have it sort by km, we have sort templates. --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, that's a lot of work for a little difference. I think the list is fine the way it is. Albacore (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Now combined into one column. Albacore (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure we need the coordinates, either; we have the map, and if someone needs the coordinates of the city center they can click through to the article, since they're all bluelinked. But I won't push for that, just offering it as a discussion possibility. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There's three or four red links in the table, and having them really doesn't hurt anything. I wouldn't say they're essential, but they help. Albacore (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments I see this has been mentioned above, but I do think it would make more sense to merge the area columns using the convert template, I appreciate that would be a lot of work, but having two columns seems redundant when they can be accommodated in one using the template WP:CONTEXTLINK frowns upon bold linking, I know this is a consequence of scope row etc, so would add plainrowheaders to wikitable sortable entry to fix the issue. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Both taken care of. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support suberb list.--GoP_T^C_N 16:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Image review – No problems found with the photos. I only did a spot check on the maps, but they appear all to be the work of the same editor. I'll assume therefore, that they're all fine too. Goodraise 23:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• 'Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:10, 18 June 2012 [5].

---

Malmö FF league record by opponent

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This league record for Malmö FF is part of my effort to promote articles and lists regarding the club to featured status. I believe the list offers everything the reader would like to know about the league record of the club. Thank you! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Cliftonian (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cliftonian "the Malmö FF have won sixteen" rephrase this "sixteen national championship titles and fourteen national cup titles". you should put numbers with more than one digit in numeral form (16, 14) "the 77th overall" should be "its", "their", "the side's" or similar "in the two clubs' 144 league" "two clubs" is not necessary, just "the clubs'" will do "Matches from the Allsvenskan play-offs held between 1982 and 1990 are not included, however matches from Mästerskapsserien held in 1991 and 1992 are included, Mästerskapsserien was held as a secondary league stage to crown the Swedish champions while the Allsvenskan play-offs were held as a cup stage to decide the champions." Rephrase this, try "These statistics do not include results from the Allsvenskan play-offs (held between 1982 and 1990), but those from Mästerskapsserien (held in 1991 and 1992) are included. The Allsvenskan play-off round was held in cup format at the end of the league season to decide the national champions, while Mästerskapsserien was a additional league stage with the same purpose." or similar "avoid confustion," woops, typo: confusion I'd move one of the images up into the "Key" section, and lose the other one: having them in the "All-time league record" section squashes the results on my monitor, causing the "First" and "Last" columns to wrap rather unattractively, which also makes the rows uneven I see no problems with notes or sources. Alt text is present and of a good standard. I hope all of this is helpful. Good luck, and well done so far! —Cliftonian (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC) All of these issues are now fixed. Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, good job. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Malmö FF playing against AIK in a 2009 fixture" worth telling us who Malmo is in the shot (i.e. dark red or light blue?). Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Forgive my ignorance, but "The club is affiliated with Skånes Fotbollförbund, " what does that mean and who are Skanes Fotbollforbund? Perhaps a slightly more detailed explanation for our non-Swedish, non-expert readers? I added a translation. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "goalscorers against Malmö " see no reason to italicise "against" here. Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Use {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} rather than the plain symbols, for WP:ACCESS. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Check sorting of the club names. I would think that English readers would expect to see "Örgryte IS" sort with the O's and "Ängelholms FF" with the A's. Also, maybe would expect "Råå IF" to sort before "Reymersholms IK" etc. See what you think. I can see why you would think so but they are actually correctly sorted as the the letters ÅÄÖ, in that order, are the last letters after Z in the Swedish alphabet, which is exactly like the English alphabet except for the last three. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Since the table is sortable, link everything every time, most particularly the seasons. Wouldn't that be WP:OVERLINK? I don't think I understand how the sorting ability would impact? I've only removed duplicate linking where Malmö FF have only met a team in one season. The link can easily be found in the left field, independent on how the table is sorted. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) No, over link doesn't apply to sortable tables where, after sorting, you have no guarantee that the first item is linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC) No matter what column you sort, descending or ascending, the first item will always be linked in the "First" column, all seasons are linked there, and if you sort in a way that makes the first item in the "Last" column unlinked it is available right next to it in the "First column". I don't see the problem but I'll link them all if you deem it to be necessary. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Well, that's a good argument! I'll buy it. Just looks a little odd with the combo of linked, unlinked and red linked in those two cols. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Alright! It's indeed a misfortune that not all seasons in Swedish football have an article, perhaps I'll fix that when I have some more time. Do you have any other comments? --Reckless182 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Ref 5 has (Swedish) while all others have (in Swedish), and its position in the reference looks different too. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

;Comments by Arsenikk (talk) I'm confused: how many times have they won the league? Needs to be slightly rephrased so it is understandable how many leagues were won and how many titles were claimed (as far as I can see Malmö won the league multiple times without winning the trophy, but I had to check other articles to find that out.) I added a sentence to try to make it more clear. I also added a footnote that was missing (A) that explains the nature of the Swedish Championship title. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Does Malmö have a derby or other rivalry? Could these be mentioned in the lead as well? I added a sentence to the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Don't think italics should be used as they are in the captions. Similarly, "The Scanian Football Association" should not be in italics, although you can optionally use quotation marks to show that it is an unofficial translation, or you can just leave it bare. Removed the italics. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Otherwise an excellent article. Nice seeing more than just English football at FLC :) (not that there is anything wrong with English football, mind you) Arsenikk (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Very nice article, Two things, One is the alternative text in the dagger and double dagger which is missing, example: {{double dagger|alt=Defunct team}}, and second is the 7th ref Retrieved date which doesn't follow the rest of the dates formatting (2009-11-25 --> 25 November 2009).
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Both issues are now fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, great work!.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Honor! --Reckless182 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• The "main rivals" sentence in the lead could stand to be cited.
• Remove second "the" from "The team that the Malmo FF have met the most times..."?
• Key: "while Masterskapsserien was a additional league stage...". "a" → "an"? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

All fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Looking at the other FLCs of this nature, the wikilinks in the "First" and "Last" columns link to league season aticles, rather than the "in [country] football" articles. Would it be possible for these wikilinks to be used instead? If most of them don't exist and the result would be masses of redlinks then don't worry about it. "Teams with this background and symbol..." - maybe it would be worth mentioning what the current season is? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I clarified the statement about the current season, should be OK now. For the other season links, I could change the wikilinks since all of them are blue-links but I don't see the need since almost every one of the current links are blue links. Also, the current season articles display the league season tables for a few exceptions. I could add league season links for the red-links if you believe this is better? --Reckless182 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC) If you feel it's better with the current linking that's fine by me, just thought I'd throw it out there for your consideration. To be honest there wasn't much in the way of faults to pick out! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:10, 18 June 2012 [6].

---

List of chronometers on HMS Beagle

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 23:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a list of important instruments on an important voyage of a highly notable ship. Besides which it tells a great story. It has been through Peer Review and GOCE. SpinningSpark 23:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support --Thefrood (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Initial comments I like! A really innovative and interesting list, something we should all encourage, so nice work so far. Image captions that aren't complete sentences should not have a full stop (e.g. the lead image). done Five paras in the lead is a little heavy, although a couple of those paras are brief. Check out WP:LEAD. This is an unusual page and I grant the lede is long for the average list article, but WP:LEAD is not really relevant to lists, in that the introduction to a list is not (or not only) a summary of the list. The relevant guideline is MOS:SAL which requires that the lede, amongst other things, "provides any necessary background information" and "gives encyclopedic context". Most of the lede can be said to fall under those criteria. The page addresses the intersection of chronometers and HMS Beagle. The first para gives background on chronometers, the second para gives background on Beagle and her mission, the third para gives background on chronometers on survey ships, the fourth and fifthe paras address the reasons for large numbers of chronometers on the mission. All this seems to me useful background for the reader, and you have not indicated which of these areas you think should be reduced or cut. On the contrary, all your comments so far which affect the lede require an expansion. Actually, we do respect WP:LEAD at FLC. You could always create a history section, or similar. The purpose of the lead remains the same, to adequately summarise the whole article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Can you point to where there is consensus for that? I am open to suggestions that this might be done another way with reasons why it is an improvement, but I am not very open to arguments that it is against guidelines when WP:SAL says something utterly contradictory. SpinningSpark 13:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Well, SAL actually links to WP:LEAD. And if you look at any recently promoted featured lists, you'll see what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC) It is astonishingly misleading to just say SAL links to WP:LEAD and just leave it at that as if SAL was deferring to WP:LEAD in every respect. MOS:SAL actually goes on to say a lot more than that: "Stand-alone lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title." If that is not the consensus, then the guideline should be changed, but guidelines are usually taken as evidence of what the consensus currently is, so I don't know where that leaves us. I took your advice and looked at the three most recently promoted articles List of Georgia Bulldogs head football coaches, List of Major League Baseball player–managers and List of Somerset CCC Twenty20 players (all placed on the FL page by you by the way). None of them could be said to have a lede that merely summarised the content of the body. All of them contain mostly material that could be described as "background information" or "encyclopedic context". I might be persuaded to do something if I was convinced it was actually of some benefit to the page. I will take another look later, but for now I am declining and will wait to see where this review is going first. SpinningSpark 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Not "astonishingly misleading" (unless you're easily astonished I suppose), but I'm just one reviewer. Let's see, it's certainly not a huge deal. No need to thank me for taking plenty of time for the review, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC) My apologies for not thanking you. I am, of course, grateful for reviewers attention, and know from experience how time consuming it is. SpinningSpark 15:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Suggest you link longitude in the lead. done Only the second expedition has a link? As far as I know. The second expedition, as well as being notable for its mission per se, is enormously famous as the journey which carried Charles Darwin during which he began to formulate his Theory of Evolution. I have not dwelled on this aspect because that story is well covered elsewhere on Wikipedia and, frankly, Darwin has naff all to do with chronometers. " a copy of John Harrison's H4" if you mention Harrison in the lead, consider explaining why someone would attempt to copy his work, i.e. what is his significance? done " had become highly inaccurate" highly, or just unacceptably? done "By the time of the Beagle voyages, carrying chronometers had become routine and the ship carried a large number – an unprecedented 22 were carried on the second voyage." count the use of "carry" here in one sentence... suggest a minor rework. done "Such large quantities were necessary" not an immediate logical sequitur from the previous para. done Please make sure all tables meet MOS:DTT for screen readers etc. (That means including row and col scopes where applicable). done Enough to start with, will come back once these are done. Nice list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Replies so far. SpinningSpark 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC) to 11:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Further comments "80 Cornhill.[18]" this could be expanded a touch so our international readers understand it. Added London, although Cornhill is linked on first mention and the London location should be assumed from the headnote if not explicitly stated otherwise. "furthest point south " horses for courses but somehow I prefer "most southerly point". Agreed, missed this one on the first run through The Nomenclature section is a little oddly positioned as sub-section to that which precedes the sections to which it is relevant. Moved up one level " (Des. column) " but the column title is in bold, not italics. Same with the other explanations. Perhaps ("Des." column) etc? My belief was that this was to comply with MoS (terms in italics) but as I also think quotes look better I have changed it regardless. Does an en-dash under "winding" mean not known? It's not clear. Well it means I don't know, but not necessarily that it is not known to anybody. Would you prefer the cells to simply be left blank? Well, perhaps it's worth a note so other readers don't ask the same question? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) That seems superfluous to me. The note would in effect be saying rather obviously that the article has provided no information in fields which contain no information. Do you have a suggestion for wording? SpinningSpark 22:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Maybe. It could also mean not required, or something else. An alternative would be to have "unknown" explicitly rather than an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I'm really against writing "unknown" in here when what we really mean is unknown to Wikipedia. It is perfectly possible that information exists somewhere, I just don't know where to find it. A chronometer expert might well be able to identify the winding from the serial numbers. Frodsham's for instance still have records on individual chronometers going back to their foundation. It is also conceivable that "not applicable" might actually be the case: while batteries are, of course, not a possibility, there is such a thing as self-winding mechanisms, although I have never heard of a self-winding marine chronometer - at least not a 19th century one. SpinningSpark 11:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC) "Liutenant Skyring" typo. done Adventure's Z chronometer comment needs an en-dash if there's nothing to say, to be consistent. done You have two separate tables with the caption "Chronometers on first voyage (Adventure)", I'm not sure why, but perhaps I missed something obvious? Ultimately, the justification for splitting the table into two groups is that Parker treats them differently in his description. Although he does not explicitly state this, I gather that the first group are his officially issued chronometers. They are mounted together in the same structure and given designations for identifying them in the log of readings. The second group are provided by manufacturers, probably for the promotional value of having their product on an important mission, and do not have designations. Unlike the main group, their pocketwatch format indicates they were used as journeyman chronometers, although Parker only explicitly identifies one used for this purpose. My original concept for this article was to give each chronometer its own subsection. This was changed to tables due to a suggestion by the peer reviewer and I would not now want to revert to a scheme that another reviewer found objectionable. The current format is a compromise between the desire to have a compact table format and the need to keep extended text close the chronometers to which it applies, hence two tables at this point. Not entirely convinced links to major geographical entities like Chile, Peru, Australia etc are required. In fact, things like gimbal would be much more usefully linked... Agreed, although individual decisions could be open to opinion. Left in Melbourne, Calcutta, Madeira, Río de la Plata, Tierra del Fuego, Tenerife, Cape Verde, Rio de Janeiro, Tahiti, Galápagos Islands, Canberra, Cape Horn, Tasmania, Mauritius, Arafura Sea, Dardanelles; unlinked Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Australia. Not sure why you mentioned gimbals, it is already linked on first mention. In fact it was linked twice and I have now removed the second mention. Why I mentioned gimbal is that when I saw you'd lined Chile, etc, gimbal was the nearest word to it that I thought should have been linked. I missed that it was linked before. The principle was to link non-standard terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC) " miles (15.3 km)on " space required. done "inflation adjusted £37,300" adjusted to when? The template automatically adjusts to the current(ish) value - ie, to the last time the template data was updated. It could be to a specific date but I feel it is preferable to let the template take care of it, that is the point of having a template. Why the big col spans for info in the "Chronometers on second voyage" table when you have a Comments cell that could contain most of this information? I fear, a little, for the accessibility of this particular table since you kind-of abuse the headings etc to get in images and additional notes... This is due to the same compromise mentioned above in going to table format. Placing all the text in the "comments" column would push down and cause a lot of ugly whitespace, and writing it elsewhere would split it from the target chronometer. The alternative is to keep splitting the tables which is moving back towards the original layout. I was referring more the fact you have used a bunch of extra cells using col spans which would cause havoc with a screen reader. It would be useful to speak with User:RexxS about how JAWS for instance would interpret this particular table with its curiosities... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I have left a note for RexxS and have suggested a solution in my sandbox. SpinningSpark 11:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I would be consistent with the captions on the tables so "on the second voyage (Beagle)" perhaps? Why? the other tables don't require disambiguation. The Wikipedia convention is only to disambiguate where required. We do not put a bracketed disambiguation in article titles for instance, unless it is actually needed. The comment isn't one about disambiguation, more about consistency throughout. If someone were just looking at the tables, then it is not immediately clear which "second voyage" you are referring to. Honestly, for the sake of consistency, this shouldn't be too troublesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC) But the purpose of the bracketed suffix is all about disambiguation. I'm not really getting why we need table headings at all, but have taken it on faith because DTT calls for them. If we are going to have headings, there is no reason to not comply with MOS rules on headings. The headings could be something like "Chronometers on Beagle's nth voyage", but this would be breaking the rule not to repeat the subject in sub-headings. After all, the section heading just says "First voyage" etc, there is no reason we need to then expand it in the even lower level table heading. After all, the voyages are clearly identified and described both in the lede and in each individual section so their should be no possibility of confusion. SpinningSpark 11:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry I missed this earlier. You've created table captions (not headers) which the MOS asks us to, partly to identify the table to a sighted reader, but particularly to index the table to anyone using a screen reader, Some of them can call up a list of all the captions of the tables on a webpage and allow the user to go directly to that table. That functionality is enhanced by having a descriptive caption that is not too long (for obvious reason), so I'd tend to agree with Spark's conclusion (but not his reasoning) here: as long as the caption is unique and clear, it should be kept short where possible. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not arguing the caption should be too much longer, but I am arguing (for different reasons) that they should be unique. Same goal different paths... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I know you're not arguing that, TRM, and I apologise for sometimes using these reviews to propagate general advice to whoever happens to be reading them. I suppose I ought to collect guidance up in one place some time, but the context of an actual review works so well ... Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) RexxS, no worries, of course. I take up so much of your wiki-life by diverting folks your way, I can hardly complain. General advice is brilliant advice when most of us aren't even sure what advice we're even supposed to be asking for. As ever, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC) "on 13 Oct 1843." in prose, even in tables, there's no good reason to not use October etc. Agreed You have Category:Clocks and Category:Horology but the former is a less refined category than the latter. No need for both. Actually "clocks" is the more specific category, and marine chronometers all seem to be in that category. Not very justifiably in my opinion since chronometers can be in the form of a watch. So I probably agree that horology is the correct category, but for different reasons. I have not had much to do with choosing the categories, but while we are on the subject, the article used to be in ship categories but they were removed by another editor on the grounds that the subject is not a ship. We could equally argue that the subject is not a chronometer. We really ought to be doing something consistent here, but I don't really have a proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Responses so far. SpinningSpark 17:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC) to 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support interesting, well written, nicely illustrated, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

Disclaimer: This is a fascinating list/article, covering a real niche topic in fine detail. Any following criticism is not intended to detract from my impression that this is a piece of work worthy of being considered "among Wikipedia's best".

In terms of accessibility, the more complex you make the structure of any table, the less likely it is to be accessible by all screen readers. A table which contains no row or column spans is guaranteed to work with virtually any user agent, including text-only browsers that may be used by visitors on very low bandwidth connections. A sophisticated screen reader like JAWS will generally make quite a good job of fairly complex tables, but at the cost of some misinformation. For example, in the table 'Chronometers on second voyage', the cells with images would be preceded by the spoken word "Maker" when column header announcement is turned on. Generally, I'd recommend that tables are best when used to contain comparable information on a number of related items.

• Therefore, I'd question whether it is a good decision to include images within a table if most of the entries do not have images. Would they not be better as larger images with an informative caption in the surrounding text?
• Similarly, is it better to include the rows which contain considerable extra commentary, such as K, M, V, and X in 'Chronometers on second voyage'? or is it better to employ the same technique as you used in the two 'Chronometers on first voyage' tables, where you added extended commentary beneath each table? Simplifying the tables will always lead to an increase in accessibility.

I see that you are concerned about the visual appearance of the lists, and have mentioned white-space as a consideration. I've taken a screen-shot of how the table 'Chronometers on second voyage' appears on my monitor at http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/demo/Beagle%20chronometers%20list.png

• If minimising white space is an important consideration, then you need to appreciate that setting explicit column widths (rather than percentages) will lead to the sort of problem with white space that the screen shot illustrates. The table 'Chronometers on third voyage appears even more cramped to me for the same reasons.

It's worth remembering that HTML is a markup language, not a desktop-publishing program, and attempts to fine-control how a browser displays content will always lead to problems when different screen sizes, resolutions, and browsers are considered. There's no perfect solution, and I encourage you to consider my comments above as 'food-for-thought' for you when looking at the compromises you have to make in each table. --RexxS (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• You have not commented on the suitability of the format I pointed you to at User:Spinningspark/Sandbox. Please take a look at this before the format of this article gets ripped apart yet again. My original concept for the format of this article was the much simpler scheme of a sub-heading for each chronometer and the tables being used merely to format basic information. This was changed following comments at Peer Review. I'm sure you will appreciate my reluctance: it is a little soul-destroying to have to completely rework an article each time a new reviewer comes along. I certainly don't want to do it before the editor concerned is given an opportunity to comment. Whatever the solution here, I am utterly against separating images and/or text from the chronometer to which they belong. This makes the article more difficult to understand by everybody, including those with screenreaders.
• Regarding the whitespace, the issue is to avoid large amounts of whitespace within the table. I appreciate that there is whitespace to the right of the table on your screen, but that is not the issue. If I were to display the article using the full width of my double-monitor 3840 pixel display there would be even more whitespace to the right. But on such a display, if the tables were made 100% width of the screen, the columns with just single words or numbers would be spaced so far apart the table would be virtually unusable. At the other end of the scale, on my 1024 pixel notebook, the table still displays quite nicely, and does not need a scrollbar until the window is reduced to about half that size. Getting down as small as PDAs and mobile phones the table will not fit on the screen, but then neither will most tables on Wikipedia.
• Your point that some text is outside the table already is not really valid. In all cases this can be justified because the text is not describing a chronometer, is describing a group of chronometers, or is quite close to the chronometer being described anyway. SpinningSpark 14:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• At the time I looked at your sandbox, the table was so far from usable that I didn't seriously consider it. Your latest sandbox version is a worthwhile improvement, though.
• I understand your reluctance to change things: it's only natural when you've put a lot of work into an article. Nevertheless, as I look through the revision history of the article, I see a gradual, but significant improvement over time. Each new reviewer seems to have given you good advice.
• You asked my opinion on the accessibility of the tables in this FLC. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer: the tables can be coped with by some screen readers, but could be improved. The most significant improvements would be to simplify the structure of the tables, and to ensure that captions are unique.
• I disagree with your contention that moving excess text out of the table is not justifiable because of loss of proximity to the relevant entry. I don't find it appropriate to jam large amounts of additional text (or images) into just a few entries. But I suspect we have a different view of the purpose of tables anyway. --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's where I'm coming from: this article is being sold as a list. If list means anything, it means describing the items of the list sequentially by members. To restructure it in some other way puts into question its qualification as a list. The article was not originally table format. I don't see how you can maintain that the move to a table format was an improvement and at the same time point out the shortcomings of having all the information in table format for screenreaders. The original format would have been completely trouble free for screenreaders as far as I can make out. A lot of effort went into getting this into table format, but if it has to be unpicked then so be it (although I might go away and sulk for a week or two before doing it). SpinningSpark 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's where I'm coming from: a table is an HTML structure designed to contain a two-dimensional list. That is a list where each entry (row) contains individual data that is essentially similar to the corresponding data for other rows. I used to write databases for a living, so I guess I tend to look at a table as if it were a 'flat-file' database. I fully accept that tables are equally validly used as a means to organising a display of related information, so you mustn't take what I say as a prescription - it's just one way of looking at things. I would say that screen readers in particular treat a table as if it were a database with column headers being the fieldnames and row headers being the primary key entries, so I find my approach as useful in solving problems with the accessibility of tables.
• Please don't unpick your list to an earlier format. I can support the present layout as acceptable, if not optimal. I'm interested in your sandbox version as it appears to be an improvement. Would you be able to find the time to get User:Graham87's opinion on the contents of your sandbox? He is a very experienced wikipedian who is blind, so I always value his opinion on these issues. (You'd have to clean up the refs, etc. so as not to distract him from the zero-width column that is the key point here, though). --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll drop a note to Graham87. You are right, we have different views on the purpose of tables here. The table is merely a tool to help format the article. The table is adjusted to suit the required content of the article, we don't adjust the content to suit the requirements of tables. The starting point to me is the conception of what the article should look like, then choose the tools to achieve that conception. I am not really very interested in writing the kind of articles that are "prose-free" table=database in nature. SpinningSpark 18:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I like the sandbox version, as it's easier to navigate with my screen reader than the previous version, especially due to the extra "Extended comments" column (which is fairly easy to move past when necessary). Graham87 07:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's more than good enough for me - and thank you once more, Graham!

Please make the changes to the list, Spark; and I'd be grateful if you moved that sandbox to a permanent subpage. I'd like to refer to it in future as a sensible technique for reducing the impact of rowspans when extra-large cells are needed.

@TRM - this looks a good work-around, and I think we need to keep it in mind for future FLCs when similar rowspan problems arise. --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The changes have now been made and I have added an example to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Hidden columns. SpinningSpark 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Spark. I'd be happy to support this list article for FL on accessibility grounds and general interest. Other reviewers are commenting on other aspects. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Never like to see blatant repetition from one sentence to another, like in "is called a chronometer. Chronometers...". Could try changing the second sentence to "First built in the 18th century, chronometers...". The sentences are grammatically fine and I see no problem. Your personal preference should have no bearing on the nomination. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Rubbish. We're looking for elegant prose. That's naturally subjective. Blatant repetition is far from elegant. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Changed "Chronometers were first built..." to "These were first built..." SpinningSpark 11:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Chronometer makers: In Arnold's note, we have "He opened his business in The Strand in 1763, and later going into partnership with his son, John Roger Arnold, forming the company Arnold & Son." Is "forming" meant to be "formed"? Otherwise, this seems off grammatically. Should be 'later went' - 'forming' is fine, but could be 'and formed'. Will change. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Earnshaw: Needless repetition in "Thomas Earnshaw. Earnshaw...". Don't even think there needs to be a sentence break. Fixed. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Pennington: "from" is apparently missing before the years in "Robert Pennington & Son was a partnership with his son John 1832–1842." Surely it is either from x to y or a range dash is used instead. SpinningSpark 12:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Even if you use the dash you still need the "from" beforehand. If you're uncomfortable with that, the "from x to y" format works just fine.Giants2008 (Talk) 16:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry to butt in, but you really can't have a dash after 'from'. Once you use the preposition 'from' you need to use the matching 'to' like: a partnership with his son John from 1832 to 1842. A date range is best used in apposition to a noun like this: a partnership with his son John during the years 1832–1842, but never like: a partnership with his son John from 1832–1842. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Third voyage table: In the Arnold No. 138 entry, is "in" missing from "and returned to Devonport 1842."? This is still in the article. Any thoughts on this? Giants2008 (Talk) 17:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC) fixed. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC) What is intended to be sourcing the three notes at the bottom of the article? That isn't clear at the moment. I think it is clear enough. Note 1 is sourced to Fitzroy, as the note says, and Fitroy's claim that chronometer B was not used can be found in the citation for the line of the table to which that note refers. For note 2, reference to 1041 is sourced to Fitzroy. The non-existence of 1041 is sourced to the Greenwich ledgers, as the note says. I requested the curators there to do a search specifically to establish that fact. Basically, Fitzroy has made a typo and the note is there merely to indicate that the table is based on that assumption for scholarly honesty. The only factual claim in note 3 is sourced to Gould with a Harvard ref. The rest of the note is editorial explanation which boils down to the statement that the table may not be complete. SpinningSpark 12:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Small point, but in ref 47 there should probably be a space between chapt. and 2.3, for consistency with other cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Done SpinningSpark 11:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) One more while I'm here: In the bibliography, there should be a space after before Joyce's name in the details of the Frank Leahy piece. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Done SpinningSpark 11:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I believe all the issues you have raised have now been addressed. SpinningSpark 11:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:10, 18 June 2012 [7].

---

Marshal Foch Professor of French Literature

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 01:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A arms dealer endowing a university professorship in literature in honour of a war hero? A French politician trying to fix the election? Not stories you find every week in your university newspaper, I'm sure. "I am nominating this for featured list because..." it's about time I brought something here, after a two-year gap doing other things, and I think this now fits ths bill. In fact this is something I nearly finished polishing up in 2010, around the time that I was doing other Oxford University professorship lists such as Laudian Professor of Arabic (which has a much longer history, hence the reason that list is much longer), so I thought I'd finish it and give it a twirl to see what people thought. Thoughts / comments welcome. Zut alors! Bonne chance, mes amis! C'est tout. Au revoir et joyeux Noel (ok, I'm really running out of my French lesson memories now)... Bencherlite^Talk 01:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 11:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise "Although Zaharoff wanted the University of Paris to have a right of veto over the appointment, Oxford would not accept this." – The although irritates me a bit. It would appear to imply that Zaharoff's wanting it would make Oxford more likely to accept it. Would changing the sentence to read "Zaharoff wanted the University of Paris to have a right of veto over the appointment, but Oxford would not accept this" be acceptable to you? "...who from April 1918 was was supreme commander of..." – was was? "The French regarded the appointment..." – "If an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization." (MOS:QUOTE) "French Quarterly" – This strikes me as probably notable. Are you sure it shouldn't be redlinked? "French Institute in Florence" – Could this (or part of it) be wikilinked somehow? "Librarian of Brasenose College, Oxford" and "Master of Christ's College, Cambridge" – Could these titles be explained or wikilinked? Some of the sources requiring a subscription are marked as such, but not all of them. Good to see you back at FLC. Goodraise 03:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the swift review and for welcoming me back. Although was Even as I put "The" in the sentence, I wondered whether I was right... Hmm, not sure. I found one half-sentence in an obituary for its co-founder that the journal had done much in its day to widen knowledge of French life and journal, and a search on JSTOR for "French Quarterly + Rudler" only threw up seven hits, most in French, so I wouldn't necessarily be able to tell if they discuss the journal in terms that would pass the GNG. I'll link it for now and we'll see what happens. I don't have enough to write even a stub showing notability, alas. Sadly, it isn't the Florence Institute! Wikilinked Florence but can't find a suitable article to link the institute to (we have no article on it, nor on the Palazzo Lenzi where it is based, and French Institute is wrong). I'm not sure that I need explain "Librarian of Brasenose College" or can explain it without repetition. As for Christ's, I've added "(the head of the college)" and linked it to a rather bare list at List of Masters of Christ's College, Cambridge Marked the rest with "|format=subscription required". Hope this all meets with your approval. BencherliteTalk 08:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Image review. No complaints. Goodraise 11:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Good work, as always. Goodraise 11:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments from a 'tab "Zaharoff wanted the University of Paris to have a right of veto over the appointment, Oxford would not accept this" picky, but I would prefer to see a "Although... " at the beginning or an "however" before Oxford or something... or perhaps a semi-colon rather than a comma... "was that it should " mildly unclear as to what "it" is here. Could (could) link French Foreign Minister? Last three sentences of lead have "professor" overdose, could you say "As of 2012, the (post/position)* is held by..."? "necessary changes to the university's statutes were made " followed by "during the debate". What debate? Are you, like me, working under the understanding that capital letters don't take accents in French (e.g. Ecole?) while our own article thinks the opposite (École Normale Supérieure)? "Cambridge University"?? You should be ashamed, but I suppose you did this deliberately.... "University of Cambridge" me old mucker. Picky, but should the heading "Professor" really be "Professorship" or "Tenure" (bleugh)? Gross Domestic Product doesn't need to be so capitalised. Not entirely sure in the use of Category:French literature here, but open to being convinced... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC) ", but" - would that do for you? changed "it" to "Paris", trying to avoid repetition of "University of Paris" added and linked the minister's name to the lead, put the position in brackets without a wikilink (on the basis that the individual is more relevant at that point than the office) professor - chair - position Clarified, I hope École'd throughout For you, m'dear, anything... I'm sure we've had this discussion in the past; looking back, I see "in office" at Bodley's Librarian and "Professor" at Laudian Professor of Arabic - but what about a simple "years"? Will that do? decapped, abbreviations for GDP and RPI introduced in note 1 and used instead of the full words in note 2 I wanted to get it into a French literature category of some sort, and that seemed as good as any... Merci beaucoup pour votre review, L'Homme Randonnée... BencherliteTalk 08:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC) De rien mon ami. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support why not. As usual, not too dreary from my darker blue colleague. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Comments

• History, "government to agree a common position with the University" - I think there might be something missing here...
• History, "ambassador to agree him with the representative" - again, grammatically off.

Just a couple of minor comments on prose. Referencing and the sole image look good. Dana boomer (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for stopping by. I've rewritten that little section, which was getting a little complicated. Hopefully it fits the bill. Bencherlite^Talk 15:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I actually like the original version better. Nice long sentences are so rare on Wikipedia. I presume Dana's irritation with the passage stems from the use of the transitive form of agree, which I was so delighted to learn existed when I looked it up while reviewing this list. Goodraise 16:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Rock, meet hard place! I quite liked the second phrase that Dana boomer picked up on, but it was an unfortunate casualty of my need to rewrite the first. C'est la vie. Bencherlite^Talk 16:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I like the new version, but I won't scream (or revoke my support) if you change it back. Goodraise, that is exactly what I was objecting to - and the wording was so foreign to me that I didn't even think to look it up! After reading the wiktionary page, this appears to be a UK/Ireland form (I can definitely state that I have never seen it in writing in the US!). Although technically correct, I would think that the usage of a transitive form of "agree" would be foreign to so many readers as to make it better to use something like the wording currently in the article. YMMV Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gah, it's been a while since I faced the use of the word "transitive" in a discussion, whether in real life or here (if there's a difference). I'll stick with what's there now, I think, and thanks for your review and support. Bon soir, tout le monde. Bencherlite^Talk 00:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:10, 18 June 2012 [8].

---

Nebula Award for Best Novella

Nominator(s): PresN 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that novels has passed through, here is the list of Novella winners/nominees for the Nebula Awards- American sci-fi's Emmys. This list is basically identical to the novels list, but with different authors and works filling up the table. All FLC comments from the novels list have been incorporated into this list as well. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Two dabs, John Varley and Michael Bishop, need fixing. Done, they were fine in the table, just not the lead. --PresN 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Seems a shame that many of the winning works don't have articles... Yeah... A lot of stubs, too. --PresN 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC) "have not won either." have won neither? "Have also not won an award"? --PresN 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC) "the winner of the 2012 award will not be announced until April 2012." well it is April 2012 now, so presumably we need to update this or get a clearer update date on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Ceremony is May 19 this year, so specified. --PresN 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Beginning with the 2009 awards, the rules were changed to the current format." The use of beginning implies to me that the rules have changed twice which doesn't seem to be the case. Would simply put: "The rules were changed to their current format in 2009." :Prior to then..." would change to previously I would use different colours to indicate symbols instead of using the same colour for both, slightly confusing and not easy to distinguish between tied winners and winners and joint winners. NapHit (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Done, done, done. --PresN 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Support with just one comment:

• "Novellas published by themselves are eligible for the novel award instead if the author requests them to be considered as such." - Do we know if this has happened before?

This is quite minor, however, and more of a curiosity issue for me, so I am adding my support. This is a great series of lists to see brought to this quality! Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:WilliamsNebula.jpg – Who is the copyright holder of the Nebula Award trophy? Goodraise 12:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unsure- I can't find any information on copyrights on the trophy itself. --PresN 20:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the File: page needs to make clear how we know that using the image isn't infringing on somebody's copyright. If we can't be reasonably certain, we can't use the image. We can be reasonably certain that the uploader took the picture, but not that this makes him or her the sole copyright holder. Something needs to be done here. If nothing else works, there's still fair use. Goodraise 10:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I've moved it to fair use. --PresN 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, moving on. Goodraise 22:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:Nebula Trophy.jpg – Please see WP:FUR. A separate rationale is necessary for every use of the image. The rationales need to be detailed and specific. Declaring that the non-free content criteria are met is insufficient. It is necessary to explain how they are met. Don't be afraid to write a long FUR; a verbose one is better than one that is too short. Goodraise 22:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• How's that? --PresN 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk I'm not convinced about the opening paragraph. WP:BOLDTITLE states that "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." In this article, the title is emboldened in the third sentence, and while I can understand the thinking behind it, I would prefer to see the paragraph reworked slightly to place it in the first sentence, or not embolden it at all. Hmm, well, as I'm sure you figured out, my thinking was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to specify the novella award before saying what the Nebula awards are in the first place. I've kept this format for 17 award lists so far, so I rather like it, but I'm not opposed to dropping the bolding. Done. --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I would expand the link to Nebula Award for Best Novel to be "[[Nebula Award for Best Novel|novel category]]" rather than simply "[[Nebula Award for Best Novel|novel]] category". At the moment I mistook that for a link to Novel. Good point, done. --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC) This is hugely picky, but given that you've abbreviated "Ref." it needs to be defined somewhere. Ugh, really? There isn't anywhere to define it, and I don't want to make that column wider by spelling it out. As before, I've been calling the column "ref" or "ref." for 17 lists now, and I thought it was common practice to leave it abbreviated. Any suggestions on where/how to define it? --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Yeah, on second look this is far too picky: don't worry about it: it's pretty self-explanatory. Harrias talk 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC) What makes TechRepublic a reliable source? The article in question looks blog-ish in style, though I appreciate it isn't in the blog section of the site. TechRepublic is an online IT magazine, owned by CBS Interactive. It's run entirely professionally, with paid writers, editors, a subscription service, etc. Despite the styling, it's as reliable as any other professional-targeted magazine. --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

All in all a good looking article! Harrias ^talk 13:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Support looks good to me now! Harrias ^talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Agree with all the supporters.--GoP_T^C_N 16:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:07, 11 June 2012 [9].

---

List of reptiles of Michigan

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As a sister nomination to the recently passed List of amphibians of Michigan...I present the state's reptiles! The formatting for this list is based on that of the amphibian list, and I have incorporated comments and improvements made to that list during the FLC into this one as well, so hopefully it is coming better prepared! I look forward to seeing your comments, and thank you in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment: - I noticed that many of these have no citations for the description, nor for the fact that they are found in Michigan. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC) If there is no specific ref, they are referenced to the general ref - a method which was accepted in the FLC I mentioned above. Dana boomer (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Alright, sounds good. I'll give prose a look. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Prose comments from Crisco 1492: "glacially-derived landforms" - Do we not have an article on glacial terraforming or the terraforming effects of glaciers? That may be a better target. I haven't been able to find a link of this sort...I agree that it would make a much better target, but I'd rather link to straight glacier than a redlinked glacial terraforming... Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "and deciduous hardwoods are the dominant tree species, with some natural prairies and savannas." - You go from talking about soil to talking about plants in the same sentence. Perhaps split? Also, it reads like hardwoods are a single species. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Split into two sentences. And I think it reads correctly in the plural, since species is both singular and plural. I think the correct singular (if "deciduous hardwood" was a specific species) would be "and deciduous hardwood is the dominant tree species". Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Image comments from Crisco 1492 Note that this isn't going to be a full image review; one is still needed. I selected five randomly File:Eastern Brown Snake.jpg - I'm rather doubtful that this is an original work, due to the small size and lack of metadata. I couldn't find anywhere that it was copyvio'd from, but I replaced the photo anyways. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Image for Diadophis punctatus edwardsii could use cropping Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I'm really horrible at cropping pictures, and I don't have the software to do it correctly, so if someone else wants to do this I won't have a problem with it but I most likely won't be doing it myself :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review, Crisco - much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tentative support pending full image spotcheck. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice article!

Some comments, FWIW. Not meant to hold up your star sticker (will not vote or check back). Just for you to consider when working on the thing.

1. A map showing Michigan blown up would be helpful. If you are pushed for space, could put the USA one into a cutout of that state map. Fallschirmjaeger can do this for you. Maybe also consider showing the location of Detroit and naming the lakes for geography ignorant Eurowikians to have some reference of something they have heard of. And the four regions. (you can add some note or caveat if someone gets persnickety about OR in assigning the boundaries).

   I've changed the map to be one of Michigan with an inset of the US. However, I don't think adding the names of one city or the lakes are necessary, and would make it rather crowded. Dana boomer (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Don't think numbering the parts of the state is helpful in the text, as we never use the numbers later (and as south lower and east upper are more explanatory).

   Eh, they're more a transition tool. I don't think they're bothering anything... - Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Add a comment in table (or article text) that the RES is non-native.

   Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

4. It would be interesting to add a column for geographical occurrence (both interesting content, and also plays well off the geography discussion above). The DNR site has some good content here. for instance, we can see that this snake is state-wide. If you need more table space, the first two columns can be tweaked to be smaller (get RexxS or some table expert to do it for you).

   I don't think this is either necessary or advisable. We have already broken this down fairly small geographically (Michigan vs. the world), and interesting distributions (only found in one county, imported, etc) can and are mentioned in the notes column. Besides this, I think it would get very complicated very quickly, as in some cases you would have to list many geographically dispersed counties, which would end up with a lot of names that I don't think would be recognizable to the majority of the population. If people are really interested in where in the state (as opposed to just in the state) these reptiles can be found, they can always go to the individual articles. This is especially true as this is designed to be a gateway article, not the be-all and end-all on each of the species. Dana boomer (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

5. I like the break by reptile type.
6. Most of Wiki (and the Reptile Wikiproject), as well as the New York Times and Britanica use lower case for Animalanimal names. For a birder article, I would do the upper case, but only to appease the Wikiproject Birds...as the New York Times still says bald eagle not Bald Eagle.)

   Done. Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

7. Text is pleasant to read.
8. Subject is notable and interesting to assemble into a list. I think schoolchildren will appreciate and enjoy it.
9. I'm not sure that the frost free burrow explanation is 100% correct. I know picta has some degree of being able to withstand freezing temps. Probably serpentina also. Also, probably fair to note that freezes still kill many reptiles, especially if near their habitat limit (as is probable for many of them being in Michigan). (you would have to research this and add cites).
10. You are using the "notes" column almost entirely for endangered status. Advise to rename the column title then.

    Almost, but not entirely. Therefore, notes is the most correct title. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

11. I advise writing for donations of pics for the animals that have no image. Start with DNR although you may need multiple requests. (I know this is work, but it would make this article prettier and be a real contribution for the individual animal articles.)

    I did some digging, found a couple more images, and added them in. For the rest, I'll keep looking, but I don't think it's a huge deal. Dana boomer (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

12. Wikilink "state reptile" (pimping another FL).

    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

13. org tweak: I would talk about occurrence before threatened status (the general/natural before the specialized/legal). So, keep the first sentence the same, but then join the second para right after it. Move the remainder of the first para down to become the last para. Keep the state reptile comment in that para, but put some parens (not threatened) to make it clear, given the rest of that para's content.

    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

14. On the talk page, add a banner for Wikiproject reptiles.

    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

15. Description column is good content.
16. Categories, refs and the general ref (link to DNR) are all good.
17. The Graphics Lab help desk will crop your picture for you.

    This has already been done, thanks to Crisco! Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

18. Consider making the keyed column be the common name, not scientific. Yes, it makes it a little bit less taxonomically organized, but more convenient for the layman. (I'm torn on it, but see what RexxS thinks.)

    The table is also sortable by common name, and keying by scientific name is more professional, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

19. Use of the word "species" is incorrect. Several of the reptiles are subspecies. Perhaps "types" of reptiles. 76.79.11.122 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

76.79.11.122 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi TCO...may I suggest you edit while logged in, due to the trouble editing while logged out caused last time? Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Painted turtle is the offical state reptile of Michigan(http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mhc_mhm_statesymbols2002_47909_7.pdf), seems appropriate to include and highlight this somehow. Edit: Now see it's covered in one sentence. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this is covered in the lead, as you see. I don't really want to put it in the table, because Michigan has two subspecies of painted turtle (Western and Midland), but only named the full species as the state reptile, without differentiating between the two subspecies. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• It seems the subspecies western and midland painted turtle are not referenced in the article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused - do you mean they are not referenced in this article (List of reptiles in Michigan) or in the link you provided above? If the former, they are listed down with the rest of the turtles... Dana boomer (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• As I understand, the table is supported with the general reference http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12145_12201---,00.html but on that reference there is no mention of the painted turtle subspecies. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• If you click on the Painted turtle sublink it says "Midland Painted turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata) in Lower Peninsula...Western Painted turtle (C. p. belli)...intergrades with Midland throughout the Upper Peninsula." Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• The reference page is not at all clear that you can click it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Column with common names would be best capitalised per WP:FAUNA, i.e Common snapping turtle, Red-eared slider, Eastern hog-nosed snake etc as done on List of amphibians of Michigan, U.S. state reptiles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think I've addressed this. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Great. Done. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Would advise a Michigan based navigation template. i.e with Amphibians, Fauna, Birds, Flowers, Butterflies and moths, Threatened fauna. Or perhaps instead to use and extend {{Michigan}} Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am definitely not the person to talk to with regards to navigation templates. If someone else wants to make one up, I have no problem with using it, but it's definitely not my area of expertise. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am definitely not the person to talk about prose but will that get me off the hook if I propose an FA or FL? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi SunCreator, and thanks for the comments! Individual replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Use of slash rather then connector in "conifer/broadleaf" is ambigious. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments (apologies for taking so long to get round to this review) "The state of Michigan, and its location in the United States." no need for a period, it's not a complete sentence. "cold blooded" is a dab link and probably should also be hyphenated. I always get confused whether it's "Big Dove" or "big dove", so much so you have a red-linked "eastern massasauga rattlesnake" which is cited by a source calling it "Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake". It's not a major beef, but one day I'd like to try to understand how the English names of these chaps are supposed to be capitalised! I guess I just look for internal (i.e. within an article) consistency. Basically, it's completely confusing. Different projects do it different ways - bird names are generally capitalized, while apparently reptile/amphibian names aren't (at least on WP), but various sources go both ways, and, and, and... I think (?) I've made everything internally consistent, and I've fixed the redlink (by piping it to the capitalized name, which is where the article is...) Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC) "with differentiations based" is there a reason that isn't just "differences"? I think differentiations is correct, although I could be wrong. Scientists differentiate based on differences, so to replace differentiations with differences would basically end up with the sentence saying "with differences based on x difference, y difference and z difference" which is incorrect. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC) "again predominate" just a question, why not just "again dominate"? "Three species are considered..." of what? lizard or snake or turtle, or the whole shooting match? Would prefer to see an en-dash or something in the empty notes cells. Ref 12. Suddenly I see that mixed date formats are allowable for publication versus accessdate. It's very odd to me, I'd ask you to keep it consistent but it now seems that's a pure preference rather than MOS... Yeah, technically the MOS says you can have mixed date formats. However, it's just one, and it's not a huge deal to me, so I've changed it to match everything else. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks, TRM! I believe I've addressed them all - individual replies on a couple of things above where I had questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Check that notes which aren't complete sentences don't have unnecessary periods. Would this be all of them? Technically, I don't think any of them are complete sentences (since none have a subject; they're all pointing to an earlier column in the table for their subject), but I'm a little unsure. Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, I think so. Although the one with the semi-colon may take one because a semi-colon can often be followed by a capital letter... (how odd is English?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC) I've removed them all, including the one with the semi-colon. I think because the second part (after the semi-colon) isn't a full sentence either, there should still be no period (?). Don't know if I'm right on that though. We'll see if someone else comes through and says to do it the other way :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support good work. (Would prefer you to use plainrowheaders but not mandated...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, TRM! I thought I had them in - isn't that what "class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"" does? If not, please let me know what formatting I have to change and I'll do it. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I just had a quick look at the code, made a minor change here will fix it, you've inadvertently specified that the rows are actually cols... Roll that fix out and I'm 100%. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, I can be a bit thick sometimes, can't I? :) I think I've taken care of all of the rest - thanks again for babying me on the code! Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• No worries, happens to me all the time. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – In the Coluber constrictor foxii row, there appears to be an extra line in the Common name column that doesn't show up elsewhere. This can happen if a row has one column too many; can you check that there isn't an extra pipe here that might lead to this? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Giants, I looked at both the read and the edit version of the article and can't find anything different. I can't see the extra line in the Common name column, either. Maybe I'm missing something completely obvious, but I can't see anything different in either the formatting or the readout of this row vs. any of the others. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• The line is gone now. The work you and TRM did on the scopes must have fixed the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 03:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010 I think the first sentence could be rewritten from Michigan, one of the fifty United States, is home to two types of lizards, nineteen types of snakes and eleven types of turtles, all members of the class Reptilia -> The U.S. state of Michigan is home to two types of lizards, nineteen types of snakes and eleven types of turtles, all members of the class Reptilia No, because then you end up with a repetition of "state" again (United States state). The current sentence is grammatically correct. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Reptiles are found throughout Michigan, although the only poisonous species, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, is found only in the Lower Peninsula. Using "found" twice in a sentence looks sloppy Tweaked. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC) The use of "considered" in the third paragraph also sticks out to me. Could a few others words be used here? I've reworked to remove two of the instances of "considered". Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC) I'm new to this type of list, but why do some of the listed reptiles remain uncited? Compare Plestiodon fasciatus to Coluber constrictor foxii for instance. Ruby 2010/2013 19:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Information that is not accompanied by in-line references comes from the general reference. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, Ruby. I have added my replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Support the promotion of this list. Ruby 2010/2013 03:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Ruby! Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support List has improved since I first checked it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, SunCreator! Dana boomer (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Still waiting for the image review that Crisco asked for. I pinged Goodraise and asked for one; if anybody wants to take this on in the meantime, that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review

Thankfully, the fairly tidy File: pages and few problems made this a faster job than I anticipated. There's still room for improvement in terms of general cleanup, but I'm not in the mood for that much nitpicking today, so I'll only go into the one possible copyright problem I found.

• File:Garter swallowing frog.jpg – The file is presently hosted on Commons, but was originally uploaded here under the same name. According to the File: page, User:Cjottawa released it under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Normally I'd simply take the word of whoever transferred the file to Commons on such claims, but according to the original upload log on the File: page Cjottawa uploaded the file saying: "I grant full non-commercial use rights to anyone. Commercial use requires my prior consent." Such a restriction is incompatible with both the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA licenses as well as Commons policy for what files are free enough to be hosted there and our own image use policy. So, what to do now? The question is whether the file is or is not available under these licenses. With access to the deleted local file page I might be able to provide an answer. Somebody more knowledgeable than me might even be able to do that without. Alternatively, Cjottawa could be asked to re-upload the file without this restriction. As it stands, I'm not comfortable with this image being used. Goodraise 23:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, for now, I've removed the image, just to be safe. As for this image, there was a deletion discussion here about the image, in which a user asserted that "Uploader loses the right to restrict image for commercial use by submitting to Wikipedia.", removed the commercial use provision that had been on the image (it said "I grant full non-commercial use rights to anyone. Commercial use requires my prior consent." on the image page), and declared the article kept. I have no idea if this is legit or not. If there is any specific deleted revision you would like to see, let me know and I'll copy it over here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, submitting text and uploading images are different matters in regard to copyright. By submitting text, "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." On the other hand, images the copyright of which one is in possession of can be uploaded under whatever license one chooses; Wikipedia (and Commons) just don't accept all of them. Seeing the entire history would be best. Would you mind restoring it temporarily? Goodraise 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I have restored the history - I'll re-delete when you're finished looking. Dana boomer (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• So, the image was uploaded with a GFDL tag and an incompatible caveat. And the author did not make any changes post uploading. The assertion made in the closure that the "uploader loses the right to restrict image for commercial use by submitting to Wikipedia" is technically not quite correct. What rights are lost depends on the license chosen. As the GFDL can't be combined with restrictions like that, this means that either the restriction is irrelevant for use under GFDL, or the file was not actually released under the GFDL. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to answer this question. Someone who is might be found at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Goodraise 16:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Anyway, to give this some closure, with File:Garter swallowing frog.jpg no longer used, there is no copyright problems left with images in the article that I could find. Everything seems to be in order. Goodraise 15:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 13:57, 8 June 2012 [10].

---

Rihanna videography

Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it satisfies the FL criteria. Previously it was part of Rihanna discography. I re-created as a separate page and fully wrote it. Also my fellow friend User:Wikipedian Penguin helped a lot with the tables and made them have excellent access. I would be grateful If everybody who opposes also adds comments how I can further improve the list. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Under 'television commericals', I seem to recall Rihanna starred in an advert for NRJ Radio, which I saw a while ago in France. Bit like the Capital FM one. Managed to track the advert for evidence, so you need to find a reliable source. Likewise, she appeared in a Renault Clio ad, which I'm guessing was aired across Europe. I can't find reliable sources to add them. Btw that is an award commercial, aired for limited time, and the Renault Clio one it does not really features Rihanna. Only a frame of her music video and the line "Feels so good being bad". — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "In 2011, three of Rihanna's videos has met with criticism and controversy." → has is redundant and can be removed. Removed it. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "In September 2011, Rihanna released "We Found Love", lead single from her sixth studio album Talk That Talk whose caused controversy from some activist groups", put 'the' between comma and lead single. Place comma between album and 'Talk That Talk'. Done.— Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Missing a quotation mark on Rockstar 101 Added. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Be consistent with the date format for refs. Is it 2008-07-01 or July 1, 2008? Using the later one only now. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Is Rap-Up considered to be a WP:RELIABLE? If so, be sure to add a hyphen in its title on Ref 108. Sure is. I have used it in "Rehab" which is a FA and nobody complained about it on its FAC. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Two deadlinks which need fixing Done/Fixed. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Two dabs which also need fixing Done/Fixed. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) For Ref 82, BBC News is the publisher, BBC is the work. Be sure to use 'cite news' template for news sources. Done/Fixed. Maybe you can point me some others where I should use the {{cite news}}? — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments (quick ones) Lead image doesn't need a period in the caption as it's an incomplete sentence. Removed period. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC) " dance-sequences." is that really hyphenated? Done. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC) "with her lover and husband" add an extra "her" before husband to make it 100% clear you're talking about two different people. Added one more her. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC) "who later became her regular collaborator" repeat of "collaborate" is boring here. "Rihanna starred in her first movie" "starred" or simply "played herself in..."? Try to keep it neutral in tone. Copy-edited. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC) "For the album, she changed her image and style." as a standalone sentence, this is unhelpful, as I don't know what about her image or style she changed from or to... Removed. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC) "to shoot them in Prague, the Czech Republic" don't see a need to say ", the Czech Republic" as Prague is pretty self-explanatory. Removed. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC) "the dark-theme inspired" don't understand this at all. In sortable tables, anything that's linked should be linked every time because after sorting, there's no guarantee the first linked item will list first. Linked. — Tomica (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC) "she puts on herself a pair of jeans" don't get this. Suggest a quick copyedit from native English speaker. Done. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Avoid SHOUTING in the refs (e.g. QUICK CLIP). I changed it. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments – If I Never See Your Face Again: Don't see the point of the last word in the description. Having "the late-1970s or early-1980s situation" doesn't work well. Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC) We have "love–hate relationship" in the lead and "love-hate relationship" in the We Found Love description. I think the latter is correct stylistically, but they need to be consistent either way. Now only latter one is used. — Tomica (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Video albums: In the Album details column, there is what appears to be an extra line on the left side of the row. It's worth checking the formatting to see if an excess pipe is causing this. I really can't see that extra line. Don't know in what is the problem. — Tomica (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Looked at it and can't figure out what's going on myself. Then again, I'm not familiar with the formatting of discography-type articles. Maybe one of FLC's music regulars has an idea? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I am gonna search for some user and see also the other discographies/videographies. User:Status provided different format of the table. Is it okay now? — Tomica (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, that fixed it. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Television commercials: "an garden" → "a garden" in Reb'l Fleur. Done. — Tomica (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC) About.com (ref 42) isn't usually a reliable source. Why should it be considered one here? Removed. — Tomica (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC) All caps in refs 71 and 111 need to be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Fixed. — Tomica (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Article is in good standing. I see no reason why it shouldn't be promoted. Statυs (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492 "dark-theme" - What exactly is a "dark theme"? Removed it since there were also complaints from other users. — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) "The Matsoukas " - Who's the other one? "Hard", "Rude Boy" and "Rockstar 101" already mentioned in the body of the lead. — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Ah, so not the Matsoukas family. You should have "The Matsoukas-directed music video for "S&M" (Loud, 2010)", as Matsoukas is used as an adjective. Thanks for elaborating, I fixed it now. — Tomica (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) If we're going to have plot outlines of the music videos, we should have one for each. You can cite the video itself, can't you? That are not plotes, rather a rough description. And some of the videos (or alternative versions) aren't uploaded on Rihanna's official channel. — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Fair enough. Perhaps link cabaret Linked.— Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) "A post-apocalyptic inspired video shot in Queens, New York." is not a full sentence. The other blurbs are all full sentences. Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC) "while sitting on a table," - Just to double check, on and not at, right? Ooops. Done. — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Just thought I'd double check. Who knows these days, a music video could have a singer sitting or dancing on a table. "nominated for an Emmy Award for Best Original Music and Lyrics." - I do think Shy Ronnie may be notable enough for a redlink. Want me to link Shy Ronnie even though there is no article? — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Sounds good. I expect you, Calvin/Aaron, and the other project members will have no problem making an article. An Emmy nomination sounds like certain notability to me. Done. — Tomica (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) "various 1990s dancehall dance moves" - Any way to avoid repeating "dance"? C/e it. — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) "Two versions of the video were released for a Doritos campaign, titled day and night version" - If the title is Day Version and Night Version, you should have capitals. If not, I'm not sure the singular "version" is correct. Capital letters used now. — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Are the names Day Version and Night Version, or Day and Night? If the latter, just cut "version" as you have the word earlier in the sentence. Fixed. — Tomica (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) "played by British model Dudley O'Shaughnessy." - Should be referenced Referenced. — Tomica (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Lots of sentence fragments in #Television commercials C/e by Status. — Tomica (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Not too much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Looks better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:08, 4 June 2012 [11].

---

List of colleges and universities in Wisconsin

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, another colleges list. This one details post-secondary institutions in the Badger State, and is part of my ongoing project to clean-up the lists seen on this page. Thanks in advance for reviewing! Ruby 2010/2013 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Bold links are frowned upon per WP:CONTEXTLINK, so I would add plainrowheaders to the wikitable sortable bit to fix this issue. Two out of three tables have captions, would make sure they all do for consistency ref 64 the hyphen should be an en dash, most of the refs do use en dashes but would go through and check them to be certain NapHit (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC) All three points addressed. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 21:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments "UW–Madison is one of 26 campuses" -> "It is one..." "as it had an enrolment of" -> "with an enrolment of". "Beloit College, located in Beloit, Wisconsin," welllllll, this is a list of stuff in Wisconsin, do we need to say it's in Wisconsin again? Link "accredited" first time round. Key table should meet MOS:DTT. Prof Psych school (the one with 75 alumni) is not linked in the lead but is linked in the table. Be consistent. Accreditation column, lots of acronyms per the key, but "The Higher Learning Commission (NCA)", why? Again, things like NASD which aren't linked in the key but are linked in the table... be consistent. Defunct institutions - ref col doesn't need to be sortable. Ref 76, e.g., why is the title in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC) All done except the last point (Ref 76 is a book, hence the italics). Thank you for your comments. Ruby 2010/2013 17:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support with minor modifications. It's about time that you got around to Wisconsin ;-). First, I added defunct Gale College in Galesville which I recently started. I am not aware of any other defunct colleges or universities. I took care of some minor fixes. Perhaps the article should somehow note that the location column is actually the location of the main campus on many of the colleges (especially the technical colleges). On Mid-State Tech – the cities needs cleanup (either pick one city or take out "Wisconsin"). How have other states incorporated the list into the state's template? Royalbroil 13:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. I fixed the Mid-State location error, and have added a link to the list in the Wisconsin colleges template. I kept the locations column consistent with other colleges lists, though I have added that it is sourced from the Carnegie website. I don't think it's way necessary to add a caveat about the locations (they can click on the colleges' article link to find out more). Ruby 2010/2013 15:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Everything looks good here; very nice work! (Can't wait 'til you get around to Michigan!) Dana boomer (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support Dana! Don't worry- I will eventually get to Michigan! Ruby 2010/2013 15:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:08, 4 June 2012 [12].

---

List of Slovenian football champions

Nominator(s): Ratipok (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe this list complies with the Featured List criteria as well as possible. It comprehensively covers every season of the Slovenian PrvaLiga, and is factually accurate. It is also useful to football fans. Ratipok (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments – I never like seeing blatant repetition from one sentence to another, like what exists in "PrvaLiga. PrvaLiga, also known by the abbreviation 1. SNL". The easiest fix I see would be to make the second sentence "Also known by the abbreviation 1. SNL, PrvaLiga...". "most of Slovenian teams competed for the title of regional champions...". Needs "the" before "Slovenian". You don't really need to link clubs multiple times in the lead; one link at the point of first mention is sufficient, and the extra blue isn't desireable if it can be avoided. Among other things, I see three Maribor links and two Gorica links. Still see the Gorica links, and a couple excess Olimpija Ljubljana links late in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC) "The" is needed at the start of "2006–07 season gave rise to a surprising champion...". By the way, whose opinion is it that Domzale's title was surprising? That's something crying out for attribution. "a feat they have repeated the next season." "have" should be removed as it messes with the sentence as a whole. "The majority of Maribors's titles...". "Maribors's" has one s too many, before the apostrophe. "by the end of 2004–05 season..." could use another "the" before the years. "bankrupcty" is a typo, which should be "bankruptcy". The Matjaz Kek photo caption could use a citation, since the lead doesn't really support it (at least not him winning as a player). From looking at the current season's article, I see that Maribor has clinched the 2011–12 title already. When is the list going to be updated? At the end of the season? At the least, I'd expect to see a sentence in the lead saying that Maribor has won the title. Footnote A-1: "are a distinct and separate clubs". Remove "a" from this bit. Also, add "The" at the start of the next sentence, and change "does not" to "do not", since that refers to multiple associations. Footnote B-1: Not a big deal, but in "His 22 goals of the season", I feel that "of" should ideally be "in" or "during". Publisher of refs 11 and 12 shouldn't be italicized, since this isn't a printed publication. Hyphen in ref 15 should be an en dash per the Manual of Style. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Done everything except the 2011–12 update. I was planning to update and add the stats for the current season in three days, when the final round is scheduled. However, I can do it sooner if you believe that its too important to wait until then. I also left the 'blue links' for the Olimpija Ljubljana, as there are two teams with that name (explained in the article). This way its probably easier to distinguish both of them (in case if the new team ever wins anything or finishes high enough on the table that it is included in the list, which will probably happen this year). Ratipok (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC) If you were planning to change it within a few days anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Just make sure that when you do update for this year, you make all necessary changes in the lead for things like number of competitions, Maribor titles, and the most recent season. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, I know and I will make sure everything will be in order:). The exces links of Gorica and Olimpija Ljubljana were removed form the lead. Ratipok (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

;Comments from Arsenikk (talk) In the first sentence of the second paragraph, "... in the country" seems redundant to me. "Currently..." is a word to avoid; perhaps it would be better to write, "Since [year]..." or explain the circumstances of now and then (whenever someone says currently I am curious to now how it was before) The sentence about the double is a bit awkward. I presume you are trying to explain the double (which is fine), but this does not come out correctly, as the sentence just states that Maribor has won two cup and two league titles. Adding "in the same season" or similar would help. Perhaps link the top-scorer clubs? For instance, 'Slovan' is not linked anywhere in the article. As this is the English Wikipedia, names should sort without diacritics, for instance 'Šiljak' should sort as 'Siljak'. I believe you misunderstood me. Writing Š is fine, but you need to make the name sort as if it was written with S. Use the format {{sortname|Štefan|Škaper||Skaper, Stefan}} Arsenikk (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Ok then:). I have made it right this time:). Thanks Ratipok (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC) There is one red link, any possibility of creating a stub on him? It is annoying with the forced image size. Use |upright| on the portrait image to make it narrower. I am a bit concerned about the general reference, as it is merely a link to a site and not to the specific information. Otherwise an excellent list. Arsenikk (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Did everything you have mentioned. I used |upright| for the profile pic, but to me it doesnt look like anything changed (perhaps I did something wrong?).Ratipok (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The team from Ljubljana, who have had a long tradition of playing in the Yugoslav first league and at the time still had their squad composed of players from that era,[3] dominated the league and went on to win the Slovenian championship three more times, before Gorica won their first in 1995–96 season." -> Olimpia had a long tradition of playing in the Yugoslav First League and their squad was still composed of players from that era, dominated the league and won a further three championships before Gorica won their first in the 1995-96 season. "Following Gorica's success, Maribor took control and won their first championship in 1997." "The title started a national record-breaking streak of seven successive league championships with the streak coming to an end following the final round of the 2003–04 season when Gorica eclipsed them winning their second title." -> This started a record-breaking streak of seven successive league championships, which came to an end when Gorica won their second title in the 2003-04 season. "becoming the third club in history with at least three consecutive championships." -> becoming the third club to win three consecutive championships "Maribor has won the most titles, having won a record ten times, as of 2012" -> Maribor is the most successful club; they have won the championship ten times "Maribor has won the Slovenian version of the double the most, having won the league and the cup three times in the same season." -> Maribor has won the Slovenian version the most; they have won the league and cup three times in the same season. I think the key would be better following the format used in List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners, as at the moment its untidy and it would easier to identify the symbols in the key used in the European Cup list. NapHit (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Check and fixed. Ratipok (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Looking better now, just one query, the first entry in the is not used in the table, not sure if you've forgot to put it in or its not formatted correctly. But if no team has accomplished that feat then there is no need for it to be in the key. NapHit (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Removed the first entry from the key. Added information about top Slovenian clubs who played in the Yugoslav First League prior to World War II. Ratipok (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, I had a run through and picked up nothing major with the prose, making only one slight alteration. Meets the criteria. Well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Kek caption needs a full stop. "Olimpija Ljubljana won the first title.[1] Olimpija Ljubljana had " avoid the quick repetition. Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:DTT. When sorting champions in reverse, suggest Maribor (10) is forced to sort before Maribor (9), and not after Maribor (2). Sources that are in English don't need to be denoted as such, this is, after all, English Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Done. Please check it ouf if it meets the criteria. Ratipok (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:30, 2 June 2012 [13].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Imran Khan

Nominator(s): ZiaUllahKhan ^{Khadar Khani} 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. This is based upon FLs Muttiah Muralitharan and Waqar Younis. Please feel free to make your comments and suggestions... ZiaUllahKhan ^{Khadar Khani} 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments "at the Sharjah Cricket Association Stadium (Sharjah)" do you really think you need (Sharjah) after "Sharjah Cricket Association Stadium"? "and Dennis Lillee[19]" missing full stop. Sri Lanka cricket team is overlinked in the lead. "runs inthe match" space needed. Some but not all Cricinfo match report refs use the cricket match date as the publication date of the source. I don't think that's correct. But in any case, be consistent. "Imran Khan was selected "Man of the match"." no need to repeat Imran here. Why SM Gavaskar and not Sunil? Same for J Garner... be consistent, check all names are First Last, not F. Last. You have Chennai and Calcutta in 1980. Is that consistent? No need for the ODI table to be sortable, particularly as he won't be adding to it. C in ESPNCricinfo should be c. "Retrieved 26 April 2012September 2011." punctuation and space needed. Any need for that second external link? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Done. ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC) RL Dias? Why not Roy? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Ooops! missed it. Fixed. ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 21:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• A link to the 1992 World Cup would be helpful in the quote.
• Publisher of reference 9 (The Hindu) should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done. ZiaUllahKhan ^{Khadar Khani} 22:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)

Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) "between 1971 to 1992" -> between 1971 and 1992. Done. "Khan's maiden ODI five-wicket haul came in 1985 against India in a match which Pakistan won at the Sharjah Cricket Association Stadium, Sharjah". If you check the scorecard, Pakistan had actually lost the game. Sorry, my mistake! Corrected. This list doesn't comply with the new FL criteria. For eg., Use {{dagger}} instead of spade symbol and {{double-dagger}} instead of asterisk. Done. Since Imran Khan had claimed two five wicket hauls in the same match on a few occasions, you need to mention that too. Done. Ref #9 is missing author. I couldn't find author's name on the page. If I'm correct, the author is Abhijit Sen Gupta. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Done. Date format needs to be maintained consistently as per MOS:DATEUNIFY. You must follow the same style throughout the article. The body uses "MDY" format while the references use "DMY" format. Done. You say that, "He went on to take ten or more wickets per match on 6 occasions", where as the table lists eight such entries. Likewise each and every entry needs to be examined carefully. Tests #2 and #3 refer to the same match. Same for #9, #10, and #14 #15. "As of April 2012, he is eleventh overall among all-time five-wicket haul takers". This needs clarification. This is clear. Sydney Barnes, Kapil Dev, Dennis Lillee and Khan have taken the same number of five-wicket hauls.ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 13:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Eleventh in Tests, ODIs or both combined? You need to rephrase the sentence for better clarity. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Done. I think, I've addressed your concerns. ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 15:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Meets the criteria. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk Why is the "o" in square brackets in ""[o]ne of the finest fast bowlers.."? As far as I can see you've quoted it directly, thus don't require the brackets? Removed square brackets I'm also concerned that you quote more than you need to in that instance; you should probably cut the quote off after "inspirational captain" – even attributed quotes can be problematic if they are used too much out of context, and I think him captaining Pakistan to the 1992 World Cup could be considered out of context for this article, though I could be convinced. Quote fixed. "lost at Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne." and "at the Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney." Not sure you need to repeat the locations! Fixed! "He went on to take three pairs of five-wicket hauls in a single match." – How many innings did that match have?! For clarity, this would be far better phrased something like "By the end of his career, he had claimed five-wickets hauls in both innings of a match on three occasions." Corrected. "He went on to take ten or more wickets per match on 6 occasions." – "per match" implies an average, you need to use "in a match". Done. "Making his One Day International (ODI) debut in October 1974[10] against Sri Lanka at Iqbal Stadium, Faisalabad,[16] Khan's maiden ODI.." – "Making his.." implies that something is going to be said about what happened in that match, but it isn't, so you need to change it to something similar to the previous paragraph, or "Having made his.." Done. Also "..Khan's maiden ODI five-wicket haul.." implies he took more than one: try "..Khan's solitary ODI five-wicket haul.." possibly? Done. Is § an accessible character? Changed to *. As I did in List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham I think it is worth noting the matches in which eight ball overs were bowled. Done. I'm not keen on the symbols wrapping onto the next line in the table, could you set these not to wrap, or make the table wider (or both)? Done. I think, I've addressed your concerns. ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Harrias talk 20:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support looks good to me now. Harrias ^talk 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 19:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Support with comments: I made some minor copy edits to the lead, checked a sample of the list for accuracy and am happy with things. Always appreciate a helping hand! I think that ground 6 should be changed to "Madras Cricket Club Ground" as that was what it was at the time; calling it by a later name is anachronistic. I don't think that is better idea. Why not? If Headingley changes its name to the "Tetley Tea Cricket Ground", or "The Geoffrey Boycott Stadium", would you come back and change the name here? If not, what's different about calling it the "Madras Cricket Club Ground"? Anyone who clicks onto the article will see what it's now called, after all. BencherliteTalk 13:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I hadn't noticed this, and would definitely agree with Bencherlite that it should be what the ground was called at the time. Harrias talk 17:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Yep, me too. If it's an issue, then add a footnote explaining the name change. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Once the name of a ground is changed, I think we should use the new name. If Headingley changes its name we'll go to update the article accordingly. ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Disagree. St James' Park has been renamed "Sports Direct Arena" but we won't be going back over every single football article replacing the former for the latter. The same applies here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Well, in that case I 'm going to change it to "Madras Cricket Club Ground". ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Do you need both reference 3 and reference 18, or can you use the same reference twice? Fixed. I do wonder, though, whether we really need the double wikilinks in the grounds e.g. "Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne" as readers are unlikely to want to click directly to Melbourne from this list (as opposed to the MCG), and if they do happen to want to read about Melbourne they can get there from the MCG link. Alternatively, perhaps only include the city name (unlinked) when it's not in the ground name e.g. "Headingley Stadium, Leeds" but "Melbourne Cricket Ground". Fixed. But these are minor quibbles. Nice work. BencherliteTalk 07:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 11:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Bencherlite^Talk 19:39, 30 May 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 10:30, 2 June 2012 [14].

---

List of Louisiana state parks

Nominator(s): Michael miceli (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers the topic of current Louisiana state parks well and provides short, encyclopedic information with images for each park. Almost every piece of information is cited. I tried hard to find a citation for every year, but for 2, I just couldn't. I know the years are close though. For comparison to an already featured list see List of Pennsylvania state parks Michael miceli (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead, at one para, is too short. It should adequately summarise the whole article. What is missing from the article lead? I feel right now it adequately summarizes what the article is about. Do you want a history? Michael miceli (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Ensure all "remarks" that are complete sentences have a full stop. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC) "Date Founded" -> Date founded. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Some of the phrases in the remarks are unknown to me (e.g. tupelo, bottomland... ) - any suitable links for them? Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC) "it has a surface area of 6,400 acres (2,590 ha)" in a pakr the size of 643 acres? Clarified the park is situation on the lakefront, but does not include the lake. --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC) First general ref has two full stops. Complete Michael miceli (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the refs. Complete Using the long format now for all references, e.g. January 20, 2011 Michael miceli (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Use en-dashes, not spaced hyphens in the reference titles. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Be consistent with author names, is it First Last or Last, First? Complete All references are now Last, first Michael miceli (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the "Other names" section should be incorporated into the main table's remarks column.
  • I don't like the idea of having another column for just 4 state parks. Should we remove the table and then insert it into the Remarks column? Michael miceli (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That's what I suggested, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• The two dates which are unreferenced really need to be referenced.
  • Found 2 references for year on Grand Isle State Park, still searching frantically for Cypremort Point State Park Michael miceli (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep looking! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Complete - I found one! It's from a blog and not as good a reference as I'd like, but at least it is something for now. --Michael miceli (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support -- I must admit though that I have along with Michael Miceli been actively working on this list. --Chrismiceli (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 11:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – The lead is very short at only one paragraph. For a decent-size list, I'd expect to see at least a two-paragraph lead, which should be doable. You could add items like the earliest and most recently opened park to help beef the lead up. Complete I added more info, tried to be unbiased and state just interesting facts. Please review my awful prose :) --Michael miceli (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC) "a division of Louisiana Deparment of Culture, Recreation and Tourism." Could use "the" before Louisiana. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Same goes for the next-to-last sentence of the lead, before Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Committee. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC) In the table headings, Park Name should have the second word decapitalized. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Cypremort State Park: The two en dashes in the remarks should both be hyphens instead. Similar fixes are needed for Grand Isle State Park, Hodges Gardens State Park, and Poverty Point Recreation State Park. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC) In the second table, it would be nice to have dashes of some kind for the two blank columns. Complete Michael miceli (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Personally, I'd feel more comfortable with the list if each of the remarks was sourced, instead of just having a note at the end linking to a general site. Having specific cites makes it easier to verify facts, which is the whole point of having sources in the first place. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Ref 4 needs an en dash for the page range. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Refs 23, 24, 30, and 31 need publishers in the citations. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) Ref 34 could use the PDF designiation that a couple other cites have. Complete --Chrismiceli (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Several more from me, based on a request in the capped comments for further prose reviewing... "After The State Parks Commission of Louisiana was formed in 1934". No need to capitalize "The". Complete --Michael miceli (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC) In the next sentence, last parts of "Sam Houston Jones state park" should be capitalized. Complete --Michael miceli (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Contraction that should be fixed: "weren't". Complete, I reworked the sentence to be more natural. Now says (with changes in bold) "In 1966, the National Park Service reviewed Louisiana's state parks system and made many recommendations, which led to specific guidelines and requirements for state parks. Over time, many state parks that did not meet these guidelines were either reclassified as state historic sites or were turned over to local or state agencies." --Michael miceli (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Don't need the last word in "$80 million dollars". Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Complete --Michael miceli (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Table does not meet MOS:DTT, you need to col and rowscopes to the table. NapHit (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Complete Thanks, I never knew of this! --Chrismiceli (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC) The other table needs to be updated as well, sorry to be a pain. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Complete No pains here, forgot we had two tables on this article :). Also added alt text to be more accessible. --Chrismiceli (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Subjective opinion, but feel like this could use more content (prose). Such a cool topic. Would just expect more description.76.79.11.122 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

TCO, you really should log in and contribute. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Another excellent list--GoP_T^C_N 15:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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