Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2012

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 28 May 2012 [1].

---

List of municipalities in Florida

Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...all of the recommendations/critiques from the previous nomination have been addressed. Mgrē@sŏn 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – √ Duval County could use a link in the lead. √ Feels like the first word shouldn't be there in "and which must be confirmed by the state legislature through special legislation. √ There's no need to have any capitalization in "Strong Mayor-Council". √ Same goes for "City" in the next sentence. √ "which is utilized by 70% of Florida's municipalities, whose mayor is primarily symbolic and ceremonial." Considering that we're talking about multiple counties, clearly, shouldn't this be "whose mayors are" since there's a plural element? √ Remove the space between refs 11 and 12. √ In the table, the one town with None in the government type column doesn't need to have a period at the end of that column. A PDF designation would be nice for ref 7. What is a PDF designation in a reference? Mgrē@sŏn 18:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 00:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC) It just means that a note is placed into a reference saying that a link is in PDF format. It helps for those with slow browsers, so they know what to expect if downloading a large file. To do this, just use the format= parameter in the citation templates and insert PDF. That's all you have to do. By the way, in the future could you respond below the reviewer's comments instead of putting check marks before them? I missed them at first, and if the question wasn't here I wouldn't have known to come back. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Taken care of. Mgrē@sŏn 14:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Is a page number possible for ref 6? I'll have to get back to the library to look it up again. When I went to get the info on April 28, the book was checked out, but it was due back May 10th. I have it reserved, so they will call when it is returned. Mgrē@sŏn 12:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC) The book cited did not contain the info in my article, so I found another source and used the book as a reference for another section. Mgrē@sŏn 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC) All that's needed now is a pp. instead of the p. for the new book ref, and an en dash for the page range. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Done. Mgrē@sŏn 02:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments— I'm not too sure about having both of those images in the lead. I say you just pick one to use. I don't see a need to have the paragraphs separated out so much. Some of them can surely work together as one. Some of the titles in the table's are too long for its content. "Pop. rank" could simply be "Rank", "Government type" could be "Government", and "Incorp. year" could be "Incorporated". I think the notes would look better if they were in paragraph form, just before the table and the key. It looks a bit messy to me, personally. Other than that, I see no issues with the article. — Statυs (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed each of your comments. Thanks for your input. Mgrē@sŏn 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I support this article becoming a FL. Everything looks good. — Statυs (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• lol, IMHO the font you used for header seems really strange...--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments The second para is a sentence long, that is not good practice, so I would suggest adding it onto the end of the first para. The note explaining the table is way too small, people with poor eyesight will have a hard time reading it. I would either incorporate it into a table, or list the separate points as bullet points. I think you should use the florida municipalities image in the lead rather than the current one, and reduce the size when doing so. I don't see what purpose the population comparison section serves, I would remove it altogether as I don't think its needed. NapHit (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I believe I've addressed your comments; thanks for your input. Mgrē@sŏn 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Can you confirm that ۩ is accessible to screen readers? "utilize the strong mayor-council form " en-dash needed. I see two municipalities with the same population (400) so surely their rank must tie? "Council." why the period? Be consistent with decimal places. You have several xx.0 so why not xxx.0? E.g. "46 sq mi (119 km2)" vs "45.0 sq mi (116.6 km2)" Also, be consistent with conversions: "55.3 sq mi (143.3 km2)" vs "55.3 sq mi (143 km2)" Ref 9 appears to have an odd "/" starting the title and probably should be an en-dash in the 2-2. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Responses From what I read, the ۩ is not processed properly by screen readers, so I changed it to a "#" which is in the standard character set. Taken care of. Everglades City is now ranked 378, same as Jupiter Inlet Colony Oversight from table creation. Has been corrected. 5/6/7 I originally dropped the decimals where it was needed to make the area fit within the table's box and not expand to a second row. I'll concede that it is more important to be consistent than to be neat. Those few are resolved, also. Corrected url for ref 9. Mgrē@sŏn 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support--GoP_T^C_N 15:04, 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.

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 20:05, 28 May 2012 [2].

---

List of 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that this is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment shouldn't the albums be in the first column and the artist in the second? It is a list about albums after all. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Having the artist first and then the album/single next seems to be common practice both on Wikipedia (e.g. here, here or here) and off (e.g. here, here or here). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Don't need to reproduce the table headers after every year, its redundant, and does the reader when using the sort function. I'm willing to make that change, but my reasoning is that, given the the sheer number of rows that the list has (about 276), it makes sense to repeat the table headers so that they visually break up the table. It also means that a reader wouldn't need to keep scrolling back all the way to the top to see which column is which. Additionally, that particular format is also used on similar Wikipedia articles (e.g. here and here) – I feel that it might be somewhat jarring to a reader to go from a series articles that all follow the same layout to another that does not. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC) There is no need to visually break up the table, I see where you're coming from, but repeating the headers is redundant. The table may be long, but I think the columns are quite self-explanatory anyway, and its not hard to just scroll up the page if you forget. The fact the format is used on other lists is beside the point, if anything they should be changed as well, if uniformity is an issue. NapHit (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Okay, I've removed the headers. Personally, I prefer the list with them, but I'm not massively passionate either way. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC) we have 3.29 million and four million, be consistent in your use of digits. On that four million, you give a precise figure for the simply red album, why not do the same for the oasis album? instead of saying over four million Just for the sake of variety of prose, I think. Have now changed to the precise figure. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC) "It went on to spend nine weeks at number one during the nineties..." -> "It stayed at number one for nine weeks during the decade" Done. "Stars was also the second biggest-selling album of the decade, being outsold only by (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, the second studio album from Mancunian band Oasis." -> "Stars was the second biggest-selling album of the decade, it was outsold by Mancunian band Oasis' second album, (What's the Story) Morning Glory?" Done. "Following the success of this album..." -> "Following the album's success..." Done. "It was also the highest-certified album of the 1990s, achieving platinum certification 13 times over." Done. Think it would be simpler make the key a table, instead of having init current state. Would look a lot neater NapHit (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Done. Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC) MOS:HASH advises against using the hash symbol to indicate rankings, would change to No. NapHit (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC) typo on Tom Jones reload, just got 199, instead of 1999 which I assume it was. NapHit (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Corrected. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I think this article is suffering from a case of Overlinking. Do we really need repeated links to the same article? Should only be linked the first time.

Just a note, over linking does not apply in sortable where every instance is linked. cheers NapHit (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this article suffers from the same problem I found on the 1970s article - all the dates are inconsistant with the references given. To come up with your own system of dating is major WP:OR across the whole article. To ignore the information in the references given would prevent this from ever passing.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I echo this sentiment, after looking at this ref the first two dates are not what is in the table. NapHit (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be one of those issues where there doesn't yet seem to be any clear consensus either way. My reasoning for using the dates that the albums that they reached number one, rather than the week-ending dates given by the OCC, is as follows:

• It's more intuitive for the reader. We've had a several comments left on the talk page of the 2010s singles article from confused readers not understanding why entries aren't listed by the date that they first topped the chart. I believe that the main reason why someone might view this Wikipedia page is to learn which album was number one on a specific date in the 1990s. At the moment, they would simply need to find whichever album was number one either on or immediately before the date in question – asking them to first add on six days makes it far more prone to errors, particularly for albums that were at the top for more than one week.
• I don't feel that it's necessarily original research. I can find a few reliable sources that talk about singles/albums reaching number one on the Sunday, rather than the following Saturday (e.g. BBC News; The Independent; STV; Newsbeat).
• I don't think it's any less verifiable either – all the dates can be taken from the OCC site (although obviously the article would need a note to mention that the dates that they list are six days after the dates that the albums reached number one). Also, searching on the OCC's search facility for, say, the number ones on 21 January 1990 shows that the Colours by The Christians was number one, rather than ...But Seriously by Phil Collins. This method continues throughout the decade.

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but that links says 27th January 1990 not 21 January 1990. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the URL states "1990/1/21". So if you search for 21st January 1990, those are the number ones that comes up. This is my reasoning, at least. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• While listing by the week-ending date may be the "official" way of charting British number ones, my understanding is that Wikipedia does not necessarily use official names and methods. For example, Flea's official name is Michael Balzary, but he's referred to as Flea throughout his article, as that is more intuitive for the reader. I applied the same reasoning for this list.
• It's also how other articles have listed number ones (e.g. the list of 1990s UK Singles Chart number ones, and the list of 2000s UK Albums Chart number ones). Obviously I'm aware that "Other stuff exists" isn't necessarily a valid argument for inclusion, but both lists have gone through a significant community review, so I assumed that it would be okay to repeat the practice here.

Using the Sunday dates for 1970s albums wouldn't be appropriate, as each week's number one was first revealed on Tuesday (I've actually been meaning to change the 1970s dates; I just haven't got round to it yet). But I feel that, for the 1990s albums, when the weekly chart show was broadcast on Sundays, it would make sense to list them by the date that they reached number one, rather than the week-ending date, for the reasons that I've given above. Now, if I'm wrong about any of this or if anyone disagrees, I'm willing to change the dates. I just wanted to explain the logic behind why I've listed the dates in this way. Thanks very much, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to explain the issue, but the problem at the moment is that to the average reader and reviewer the table appears incorrect. This is especially so when note a states: "The artist, album, date of reaching number one and number of weeks at number one are those given by the OCC." yet the dates in the table do not match the references. You could add a note stating the discrepancy, but the problem would still be there a vast section of the table would not be referenced. I think that would stray a little too close to original research to me. I think you should use the dates given by the OCC, as that is the primary source for the tables, unless there is another reliable source which gives the dates from sunday then I think you should use the OCC's method. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the change. Bear with me though, as there are nearly 300 entries to get through, so this could take quite a while. On a semi-related note, is there nothing to be said for having some way of visually separating out each year in the table? If not repeating the headers, then maybe having 10 rows that span all seven columns and indicate where each new year begins? At the moment the list looks to me like a huge, unwieldy table, rather like a page of text that contains no paragraph breaks. Just a thought. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have now made the changes. Didn't take too long after all... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – After "(What's the Story) Morning Glory?", the period should be removed as a case of double punctuation. Done. Period needed after "and sold 4.16 million copies". Done. In the key, the Silver and Gold on the left look a bit unusual since they're not centered. My thinking was that, since they appear right-aligned in the table itself, then that is how they should also appear in the key. If I'm wrong about this, I'll change it. In the Christmas album table, the Reference column could be shortened to Ref. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Done. Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments When I sort by No. the first time, all the re-entries disappear to the bottom of the list. I would have expected them to stay put... Changed. UK Album Chart is really UK Albums Chart. Changed. "by Mancunian band " picky perhaps but I'd rather see that as "Manchester band"... Changed. Peter Andre doesn't have an accent. On his e, I mean, not when he talks... Haha! Changed. Any reason that the months have been truncated to three characters? The code for the Dts template (which this page uses) was recently changed to abbreviate all months to just three letters. Given the umbrage that this alteration has caused, it seems very possible that it will be changed back again sometime soon. Can't see a really good reason for the certification column to be right justified. I right-justified the certification column so that the platinum multipliers all lined up – it just seemed neater and clearer that way. Hypothetically, I could change them all to, say, "Platinum ×8" and then have them left-justified, but an album is usually described as having gone "eight times platinum" rather than "platinum times eight". The "out" in "Bat out of Hell" should be "Out". Changed. Our article on Celine Dion also refuses to use an accent. Changed. Spice Girls shouldn't have "The" in the link (in the caption). Changed. "1991–2," perhaps a personal preference, but for year ranges, I usually expect to see the decade repeated, so "1991–92". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Changed. That actually agrees with the MOS, so it really should have always been like that. Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Oasis Noel and Liam WF.jpg needs cleanup. Goodraise 22:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done (I think). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• All seems to be in order now. Goodraise 00:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• London doesn't need to be linked repeatedly in the references: in fact given that it is a pretty well known place, I think you can safely remove all the links to it.
• Support other than that I don't have any issues with the list at all, and as it is only a minor point, I'm happy to support this article. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 13:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Removed wikilinks to London. Thank you very much for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Great list--GoP_T^C_N 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments from Crisco 1492 "From July 1998 onwards, compilation of the chart was overseen by the Chart Information Network, who were jointly operated by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and the British Association of Record Dealers." - Wouldn't something like "From July 1998 onwards, compilation of the chart was overseen by the Chart Information Network, jointly operated by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and the British Association of Record Dealers." or something similar be safer under WP:ENGVAR? Changed. "Throughout the decade, the chart was based solely on physical album sales" - Why does physical link to CD? I seem to remember audio cassettes being available until at least the mid 1990s (in North America, at least) Removed wikilink. I think capitalisation should be standardised for reference titles Done. "Like ...But Seriously, Come On Over remained at number one into the following decade, and was the biggest-selling album of 1999." - I doubt ...But Seriously was the biggest selling album of 1999. A rephrase may be in order. Hmm... Reworded slightly so that it's hopefully clearer. That's it. I can't see any issues with the lists themselves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much for the review, Crisco! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks like it fits the FL criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 22 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 10:57, 16 May 2012 [3].

---

List of Georgia Bulldogs head football coaches

I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the six previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Arkansas, LSU and Vanderbilt). Hopefully this will get through with minimal issues, but as always am grateful for any comments to make this list even better. Thanks again to all who take the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC) :Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Support – "Four of those coaches also won conference championships". The first coach mentioned after this is Herman Stegeman, who didn't lead a team to a bowl game. This means the sentence is inaccurate. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  Good catch. Reworded to make better sense. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments I never noticed it before, but you don't link head coach on any of these lists. I think in most association football lists tend to link manager (football) so I think it's perfectly reasonable here. Good call. I have fixed that here and will go back and do the same on the other articles. "Since 1893, five coaches" why not since 1892? Typo that is now fixed. Thanks for the comments, and please let me know if anything else is needed! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

'Comments " The program has had 25 head coaches since it began play during the 1892 season.[1] Since December 2000, Mark Richt has served as Georgia's head coach." - The term 'program' is used a lot in these type of lists, this is the third time I've seen it used in one these list at FLC. As someone who lives in England, where the word program is not used as a substitute for team, I think it should be changed, as its confusing for non-US readers. I keep missing this as I honestly do not remember to make the change all of the time with these lists. Thanks for catching this usage again! "Robert Winston has the highest winning percentage with .833.[3] Charles A. Barnard has the lowest winning percentage with .167." Think you could merge these two sentences into one Done Citations are supposed to come after punctuation, so would suggest moving refs 5,6,7 and 8 to the end of the sentence rather than after the individual coaches Done NapHit (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks again for taking a look at this! Please let me know if there is anything else you see! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: No complaints. Goodraise 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 17:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Some comments from the football ignorant Goodraise "Since 1892, five coaches have led the Bulldogs to postseason bowl games" – How many coaches have led the Bulldogs to postseason bowl games before 1892? If it's none, and I presume it is, why mention the time span? Good call, removed. "Of the 25 different head coaches who have led the Bulldogs" – You mentioned that earlier. Here it would make more sense to say how many of them "have been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in South Bend, Indiana." Reworded an cleaned up a bit How about changing this to "Four of the team's coaches, Pop Warner, Butts, Dooley and Donnan, have been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in South Bend, Indiana"? That does sound better. Done. What's the purpose of note A 1? The purpose of this note is to differentiate between a "—" and a "0" in the columns as postseason bowl games did not exist prior to 1916 with the exception of the 1902 Rose Bowl. Please adjust the note to be self-explanatory. Done What makes College Football Data Warehouse a reliable source? It has been identified and utilized by WP:CFB for quite some time now as a reliable source. A further explanation of the CFDW as a reliable source can be found here. You may want to link to College Football Data Warehouse in the citation. Unlike the project page, it makes a decent case for the source. "Football History: Former Head Coaches" – Where do you take this title from? If you go here and click the link for "Former Head Coaches" is where I came up with the page name. I did amend it to "Georgia Football History: Former Head Coaches." Might be back with more. Goodraise 15:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look at this and please let me know if more needs to be addressed. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "Georgia Coaching Records. College Football Data Warehouse. Retrieved February 20, 2012." – Why are you using Citation Style 1 templates for all other citations, but not for this one? Also, there should be quotation marks around the title. Converted to proper Cite Web template. In the template line of the second citation, the publisher parameter is set twice; one of them isn't displayed. Fixed The website linked to from the third citation names CBS Interactive as its owner. Why does the citation name University of Georgia Sports Communications as publisher? Good catch, fixed to reflect CBS Interactive. Please look over the references to find any more errors like these. Goodraise 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Went back and addressed the additional comments as best I could. Thanks again for taking the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 04:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) The URL in the fourth citation links to an abstract. This makes me rather unhappy for two reasons: A) it is not clear whether the abstract is cited or the document summarized by it, and B) WP:CITE unsurprisingly doesn't seem to have anything substantial to say about situations like this (Template:Cite journal/doc even encourages linking to abstracts through the URL parameter). An easy way out of this would be finding another source. Alternatively, you could, for example, start a discussion at WT:CITE or Help talk:Citation Style 1. New source added. Regarding the specific reference #5, please see WP:MOS#Quotations within quotations. Fixed My apologies for these piecemeal comments. I'm investing a lot more time into this, than it might appear. Goodraise 04:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC) University of Georgia Sports Communications (2011). 2011 Georgia Football Media Guide. Athens, Georgia: Issuu. Retrieved February 20, 2012. – Are you sure Athens, Georgia is the location of publication and not the location the document was written? I doubt it somehow because Issuu is an online publisher. Removed Athens, Georgia In the references, decide on using title-case or sentence-case, and stick to it. (Example: "Georgia Football History: Former Head Coaches" vs. "Magazine honors Dooley") All now sentence case You may want to link to Walter Camp Football Foundation in reference #18. Linked Some more. Goodraise 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC) "National Football Foundation's College Football Hall of Fame" – That's quite a mouthful. Isn't the publisher simply the National Football Foundation? Changed to NFF "Hall of Famers" (in the title of several references) – Where does that bit come from? I don't see it on the linked pages? Amended it to read "Hall of Fame inductee search: Wally Butts" and so-on In references #4 and #9, NCAA.org is not the publisher, but a domain name used by the publisher. The publisher is the same as the author. CS1 doesn't seem to have a rule for this specific situation. In APA style, you'd write "Author" instead of repeating its name. Either would be fine here. Also, these are very similar sources; they should use the same citation template for a more coherent look. Corrected and amended for consistency You may want to link to American Football Coaches Association in reference #16. Linked "Current head coach Mark Richt" – This will become incorrect at some point. How about switching this to "Mark Richt, 25th head coach of the Georgia Bulldogs" or something? Done That should be it from me. Well, a few more pictures might be nice, but that's no must. Goodraise 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC) All comments addressed. Thanks again for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• One last thing, could you add page numbers for reference #9? Once that is done, I'm glad to support this nomination. Good work.Goodraise 17:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for the support! Patriarca12 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support A nice article overall. Although I am supporting the article, could you link to our article on Winning percentage in the lead? I know you already do in the Key, but given the fact that "winning percentage" is a misnomer, I think for laypersons a link would be best in both places. Also, the table is a little wide in my opinion, and will require a horizontal scroll bar on some screens, but again this isn't enough for me to withhold support. Well done. Harrias ^talk 19:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Linked and thanks for the support! Patriarca12 (talk) 10:49, 16 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 10:27, 16 May 2012 [4].

---

List of Major League Baseball player–managers

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

My last nomination appears to be set to pass. I only have one question about the presentation of this table: is it best to have each player-manager get one row, or should there be one row per tenure, even if that means some players are listed in multiple rows? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "to serve as a player-managers" en-dash, not hyphen, per the article title. Fixed Check that throughout the lead. Fixed "The dual role as player-manager " I would read that as "role of player..." not "role as" but I think it's personal taste. Fixed. "among the winningest managers " I cannot begin to say how much I loathe the word "winningest", can we not use regular English with "with the most wins" or more generally "most successful"? Reworded "Today, the player-manager has become rare in baseball. Pete Rose is the most recent player-manager, serving in the dual role from " a touch repetitive, no need to repeat p-m and we already know it's a dual role... Fixed. "Whereas some player-managers, such as Lou Boudreau, were full-time players as player-managers, by the time Rose became player-manager, he was a part-time player" count the repeats... I know what you're saying but can you rephrase. "hit record" I would find a suitable link for "hit" here for the non-baseball audience. Link to hit (baseball) added "One tough decision " doesn't read particularly encycelopedically. Rephrased Last lead para, p-m repeated too much for my taste. "Cap Anson was a player–manager for thirteen seasons" I count 22? I derp'ed in my maths. It's 23 (1875-1897). "Lou Boudreau won the Most Valuable Player Award while a player–manager in 1948." ref? Ref'd. "Player–Manager" in col heading is "Player–manager". Fixed. "El Tappe served in the College of Coaches while still an active player." ref? Ref'd Can you just check all other factoids in the captions are referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC) "The then-Cleveland Bluebirds were renamed the "Naps" in honor of Nap Lajoie." ref? Ref'd – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC) "1883, 1884–1889", why not "1883–1889"? Fixed – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC) "back to John Clapp in 1872" could say who he player-managed? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Done – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "In early baseball history, it was not uncommon for players to serve as a player–managers". Remove "a". Recommend linking to bullpen in the third paragraph, as that is a bit of baseball jargon that could use the wikilink. Decapitalize "General Manager" in the fourth paragraph. "the White Sox considered hiring incumbent first baseman Paul Konerko to seve as manager in addition." "seve" → "serve". To expand on TRM's last point, the John Montgomery Ward caption needs a cite. I found a citation, and it corrected my error - he didn't become player-manager until later in the season. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Minor, but ref 6 could use a space between the pp. and numbers, for consistency with the other cites to the Stein book. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Corrected. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Wikilinked bullpen. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Hello Muboshgu, are you intending to address these remaining concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry. I've gotten busy with things at work. I hope to have these settled by tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I have resolved all of the above concerns. Now it's a matter of getting more reviewers. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Prose comments, from Crisco 1492 "shot down" - A little informal. "Rejected"? "offseason" - worth a wikilink? "the White Sox considered hiring incumbent first baseman Paul Konerko to serve as manager in addition" - In addition to...? "The then-Cleveland Bluebirds were renamed the "Naps" in honor of Nap Lajoie" - Should we indicate that he was a player-manager? Not many comments from me, leaning support Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC) All fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks to me like it meets all 6 criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:57, 10 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 10:27, 16 May 2012 [5].

---

List of Somerset CCC Twenty20 players

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 16:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Another cricket list! This one is based upon the international player lists. It details the players who have played Twenty20 cricket for Somerset County Cricket Club. As usual, all comments and advice is welcome. (Note: I am competing in the WikiCup). Harrias ^talk 16:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: The one image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 17:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Somerset have reached the domestic Twenty20 competition final on four occasions: the club won the 2005 Twenty20 Cup, and were runners-up in three consecutive seasons: 2009, 2010 and 2011." - sentence probably needs a ref References added. Harrias talk 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) "Arul Suppiah has the best bowling figures in an innings, having claimed six wickets against Glamorgan in a 2011 match, while only conceding five runs" - not keen on the use of having, perhaps change to he? Added a colon and changed to "he". Harrias talk 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) "Jos Buttler has affected the highest number of stumpings: 9" - the use of affected sounds a little odd to me, is that common terminology in cricket? I have watched a bit (mainly the ashes), can't remember hearing about a wicket-keeper affecting a stumping NapHit (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC) It isn't common, but it is used. Nervertheless, changed it to "made". Harrias talk 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Minor, but the semi-colon before "100 since his debut in 2004" feels like it should be something else: either a comma or colon. Changed to a colon. Harrias talk 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Just my preference, perhaps, but I think the "amongst"s are better stylistically as "among"s. There's a couple here. Agreed, changed. Harrias talk 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) I still see a couple of them in the lead. Did the edit in which you changed them go through? I've seen issues with that a couple of times. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Ha! I meant to change them from "amongst" to "among", but instead made them all "amongst"! I must have been knackered when I made that change. Harrias talk 09:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Lead image could use alt text. Added alt text, per WP:ALT. Harrias talk 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Formatting of reference 11 is buggy at the moment. The link isn't showing up in the citation. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Fixed; it was missing the "http://" Harrias talk 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead says Tresco scored 1,954 runs but the table says 1,899. Odd, I swear I'd already done that. No worries, fixed now. Harrias talk 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) "was the highest score" surely "is" the highest? Done. Harrias talk 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Is there a "Statistics accurate as of..." anywhere? Done. Harrias talk 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Ref ->Ref(s) Done. Harrias talk 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, pretty sure all points have been addressed now. Harrias talk 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Looks good! Meets the criteria. Sahara4u (talk) 03:21, 16 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 18:42, 9 May 2012 [6].

---

List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks

Nominator(s): Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this meets the criteria and is on par with other NHL FL draft lists. Cheers. Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Two dab links (Southeast Division, Southern Conference). Fixed. Loads of blank cells, what's that all about? Should either be zeros or en-dashes where it doesn't apply. If not known then this list is not ready. Added the dashes. The FL list I looked at before nominating had blanks so I followed suit, which is why there were so many blanks. In the key, not need for so much bold linked text. Removed the bold from the definition links. "Player stats" -> "Player statistics" after all, this is an encyclopaedia. Fixed. WP:DASH needs to be observed. I removed the slash in the key table, which is what I think this is referring to. If I have over looked something please let me know. It was "dash" not "slash", I've made the edit here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC) How absentminded of me, I clearly did not look at the ref titles, thank you for fixing that.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Ref 8 links the NHL, the previous ref that used NHL didn't. And most of the others don't link their publishers. Be consistent. Removed the link for consistency, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I have addressed the above concerns if I missed something or something is still not correct please let me know. Thanks for the review.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support (made a couple of minor changes, hope that's okay). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes are good. I always appreciate a helping hand. Thanks, again.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments (edit conflict) "The franchise was founded in 1999 and existed for 12 years before relocating to Winnipeg, Manitoba to become the reincarnation of the Jets in 2011." as someone who lives in Britain, I had no idea that winnipeg used to have a nhl, as this article is about the thrashers, I think you should just mention they were relocated and became the winnipeg jets, adding reincarnation, is about confusing, especially as relocation happens very rarely in British sports. Makes sense, I have changed. "with the 2010 draft being their twelfth and final daft." typo Sorry, I'm not sure where the typo is. The sentence has been changed os there isn't one now. NapHit (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT, that includes the tables used in the key gave the key table titles a more specific description. Would also removed the bold links in the tables in the key, bold the abbreviation is fine, but no need to bold the full term Removed the bold links. No need for the table to be less than full size Changed to 100%. Table has a lot of empty cells, would use — instead of just leaving them blank Added the {{sort dash}} Would also indicate that the dash means they didn't play in the league, I assume that's why they are blank Added a sentence that states a dash indicates they did not play in the NHL The position column should sort by position not alphabetically Not sure how to have it sort other than alphabetically. none of the position abbreviation overlap in terms of letters though. Use the sort parameter and have goalkeeper sorting as one and then 2 for next position and so on. The same method has been used in this list. NapHit (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Would also just use colour in the player column, no need for it to goes across the whole table Changed to just use color in the player column. don't think ref 7 needs the whole title, bit before the colon will suffice Shorted up the ref and another long running title. NapHit (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I have addressed the above concerns, except where noted, if I have misconstrued the meaning or the changes are not up to snuff please let me know and I will work on the changes ASAP. Thanks for the review.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Looking better, just one thing you need to do, you need to add rowscopes as well colscopes to the table, i've done an example for you, make sure you have the info on separate lines as I've done, otherwise the whole table will be highlighted instead of just the rowscope. I finished adding the rowscopes and changed the sorting on the positions. Thanks for providing the example it made making the changes much easier Cheers--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – In the Key, Shootout doesn't need to be capitalized. Fixed Same goes for the second words of Left Wing and Right Wing. Fixed Pick #198 in 2002 (Nathan Oystrick) has a blank round column. Either the round should be here, or an en dash if there was no round for whatever reason. Added Photo caption: "The thrashers selected Evander Kane...". Team name needs capitalization Fixed Another caption: "Alexander Burmistrov was the Thrashers final first round pick selected 8th overall in 2010." Apostrophe would be helpful at the end of the team name, and a comma would be nice before "selected". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Added comma and apostrophe. I corrected all of the errors listed above, please let me know if any other issues arise. Thank you for the review. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 17 April 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 18:42, 9 May 2012 [7].

---

List of New York Yankees owners and executives

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This list has been structured similarly to List of Philadelphia Phillies owners and executives, which recently passed FL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The GM controls player transactions, hiring and firing of the coaching staff, and negotiates with players and agents regarding contracts" - use the same verb form throughout this sentence (Parallelism (grammar)). "George Steinbrenner headed a 12-man group which bought the team." - when did this happen? Use the same date format for retrieval dates throughout the sources. Why is "The Baseball Cube" a reliable source? Alt text for Brian Cashman does not match the picture. Alt text for the Jacob Ruppert plaque picture is just a rewording of the caption Add alt text for the images of Gabe Paul and Lou Piniella. Jujutacular (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Grammar fixed, Steinbrenner sourced, same date format used. Will fix alt text. "The Baseball Cube" is a reliable baseball statistics site. However, I used those sources when this table used to have statistics, so I'm beginning the process of finding better news sources to replace them. Also, some sources used go to BR Bullpen, which is a wiki and a no-no. I'm in the process of changing those to appropriate sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Sources have been fixed. I assume we can agree Baseball Reference is a reliable source of data relating to playing and managerial careers. Limited partnership has been wikilinked, alt text fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Everything looks good! Thank you. Jujutacular (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Jujutacular (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Not sure why General Manager is a proper noun. "following his behavior " needs explanation. " limited partners," what's a "limited partner"? " as control person of " is that a general manager or something else? I have never heard the phrase "control person"...! Ref -> Ref(s). "commonly referred to as "The Boss"." reference please. "served as field manager and General Manager in 1988." again, any reason why field manager (what is that, by the way?) and General Manager should be capitalised differently? "Gabe Paul was General Manager of the " same thing... Check for WP:DASH violations, like ref 19. Don't SHOUT as you do in the title of ref 10. New York Times or The New York Times... the latter I think, but be consistent. Time Magazine is a work so should be in italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Just a quickie, New York Times should be The New York Times. Will re-review in due course. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC) D'oh, I know that, just missed it. I'll fix and see if there are any other minor things I've missed. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Always a sad day when I oppose a Yankees-related page, but I don't think the sourcing is up to par, among other issues. Overall this feels a little underdeveloped. "Jacob Ruppert purchased the team in 1915. Larry MacPhail was forced out of the Yankees ownership group following his behavior after the 1947 World Series." First, this is extremely awkward to read as one sentence has nothing to do with the other. Second, Ruppert was only a co-owner, as the list itself indicates; Huston was the other co-owner. Third, for what behavior was MacPhail removed? There still isn't anything on how Ruppert wasn't the only one who bought the team at that time. I believe that is relevant, if the sale is worthy of mention in the prose (which I believe it is). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) On it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Done. I've beefed up the description of the timeline of Yankees owners, including Huston, Topping, Webb, and CBS through its sale to Steinbrenner. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC) From ref 6, the quote does not show up as a quote in the New York Times story, and it does not what is presented there, which is "nothing more limited than being a limited partner of Steinbrenner's." That's closer to how I remember the quote being said, from when I've heard it. The lead could say something about the general managers, other than what they do. There have been more of them than owners, yet they get almost no representation in the lead. This is what I'm talking about when I say that I believe this is underdeveloped. In ref 1, the publisher (Baseball America) should be italicized, in addition to the one TRM mentioned. The above issue is fixed, but new ref 52 needs a similar fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Weird. I guess I changed the reference but forgot to change the source in the cite template. It's fixed now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC) The all caps in ref 10 should be removed, and the hyphens in the title should be converted into a dash. Time for the major concern: source reliability. I also question Baseball Cube, and the Baseball America database accepts user submissions, so I'm not sold on that either. Given that almost half of the total references are to these two sources, it leads me to have serious doubts about the list as a whole. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Well, hopefully I can prevent you from opposing a Yankee-related page. I just need a little time, but I feel that I can address those concerns, including improving the sources from statistics pages (and pages that accept user submissions, I was unaware that BA works that way). Tuesday is probably the day I'll have time to really go in depth on these comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I fixed the McMullen quote with a source, fixed up all the BA and BR Bullpen sources, and altered the lead based on the above linked Phillies list, moving some prose to the owner and GM sections, so this should be good for a re-review. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I see supports from four users. Shouldn't this list be promoted? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I see two supports and two sets of resolved comments from two of the FL directors. Perhaps engage folks from the baseball project to come over and have a look? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I interpreted your resolved comments as supports. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support List is clear, concise and has all the necessary sources. Looks good to me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:31, 8 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 Gimmetoo 11:25, 15 May 2012 [8].

---

2011 IIHF World Championship rosters

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Been awhile since my last nomination, hope anything hasn't drastically changed. Anyway this list follows the same format as the 2010 IIHF World Championship rosters and is basically the same as the 2009, 2008 and 2007 lists all of which are also featured. Salavat (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Run by the International Ice Hockey Federation..." could probably use a better word than run perhaps organised? or something similar? Changed "run" to "organised". Salavat (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC) "Finland won the championship for the second time after defeating Sweden men's national ice hockey team 6–1 in the final." after is redundant, and no need to use men's national hockey team, already established the context just pipe the link to Sweden. Removed and piped. Salavat (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC) We have championship and tournament used in close proximity be consistent use one term. Changed all of the championship's to tournament's. Salavat (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC) You have 16 and fifteen, I would be consistent in using one method, as you have 16 in digits in the first sentence I would continue this throughout the article. Changed the fifteen and twenty to 15 and 20. Salavat (talk) Could provide a link to positions on first usage in lead Linked. Salavat (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Tables do not meet the requirements of MOS:DTT, you need to add col and rowscopes to the tables. Added colscopes to all of the team tables. I dont think rowscope is needed anywhere unless I need to add it to the "Legends" table? Salavat (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC) You need to add rowscopes, the primary reason for using is for people using screen readers. Without them they are unable to read the table correctly. I would add them to the players rows. NapHit (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC) rowscopes added. Salavat (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Images could do with alt text Alt text added. Salavat (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "A minimum of 15 skaters and two goaltenders and a maximum of 20 skaters and three goaltenders had to be selected. A country that had selected fewer than the maximum allowed were required to choose the remaining players prior to the start of the tournament...." the first "selection" was prior to the tournament so it's a little bit odd to then say the "remaining players" were selected "prior to the start"... Are there three selection points? If I have understood the reference properly a team has to select a minimum of 15 players + 2 goalies before the tournament. After the start of the tournament teams can add additional players to the roster up to the maximum of 25. As a result I have removed that middle sentence, which wrongly said the team had to add to the maximum prior to the start of the tournament. Salavat (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC) "switch which national team they play for" -> "change which national team they represent"? Changed. Salavat (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Is there a reason why skaters don't have the games W or L in their stats? W & L isnt a statistic for skaters. It is used for goaltenders to record the games they win or lose when they are played. Goaltenders can be dressed for a game but they dont always get on the ice. Salavat (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Shouldn't "Club" sort by e.g. KAC, Red Bull Salzburg etc, since EC is simply like put FC in front of a football team? Should be all sorting properly now without the club parts. Salavat (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Our article has Juergen Penker with an e. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Similarly, Artyom has an article at Artem Demkov and Alexander an article at Aleksandr Kulakov. Fixed both. Salavat (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Is David Henderson really French? That's not a very French-sounding name... Born in Canada but became a french citizen, playing for the french national team in 1981. Salavat (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Our Färjestad BK article has no s. S's removed. Salavat (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC) "Evgeni Nabokov started fpur games, winning two." spot the typo. Spotted and fixed. Salavat (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Alexei has his article at Alexei Emelin without the Y... Fixed. Salavat (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "After the start of the tournament, each team was allowed to additional players to their roster." What were they allowed to do? Add players?
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Photo caption: "Georgis Pujacs lead the Latvian team in penalties with 33 PIM." "lead" → "led"?
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Another caption: "Miroslav Satan played six games, recording three goals and two". Word missing at the end; I assume it's assists, based on earlier captions. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for the comments so far guys. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Question – Is there a reason the save percentage is in the XX.XX format as opposed to the .XXX format?

• The article page linked to states that it is listed in the decimal first format and the 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007 pages, all featured lists, have the .XXX format as well.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No reason. I have changed it to the more commonly used format (.XXX). Salavat (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't sure if there was something I was missing. Thanks.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, all looks good to me, no concerns. Harrias ^talk 21:31, 6 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.