Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2010

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 11:49, 31 March 2010 [1].

---

List of Gunsmoke television episodes

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because Gunsmoke is a television classic and warrants a good episode list page. This article has had a peer review and a previous FLC listing. All comments for improvement were addressed. All that is needed now is some support. Thanks Jimknut (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I supported this list before the re-insertion of Amazon.com as a reference. Since it is being used only to verify release dates in this case, I'm willing to overlook my personal concerns with its reliability. I see only two comments that would need to be addressed before I confirm my support: Blacksmith (in the lead) is not a proper noun; de-capitalize. Fixed. Reference formats are not consistent. Some use only the author's name, while some use the name and year. One is also misspelled. Fixed. Once those are fixed, I'll be glad to re-support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Just noticed a major issue: dates don't sort. They are sorting alphabetically by month name, when they should sort chronologically. You'll need to use {{dts}} for all dates. I used {{dts}} on the airdates. It worked fine for seasons one thru five, but beginning midway into season six the dates were replaced with Error: too many #time calls. From what I read in what help I could find this is a result of too many sortable entries. I have chosen instead to make the airdate columns unsortable. (After all, this is a huge list.) What order would anyone like to sort them in anyway? Chronological? They're already in that format. Reverse chronological order? You can achieve that by sorting either of two episode number columns. Good solution. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Also noticed that there is an extraneous period/full stop in "Calvin Clements" in season 13. Is there a difference between "Calvin Clements" and "Calvin Clements, Jr."? If not, this needs to be standardized throughout the entire list. Extraneous period removed. Yes, there is a difference between Calvin Clements and Calvin Clements, Jr.; both worked as writers on the show. Were they related in any way? Just checking. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Neither of the two books that I have on Gunsmoke (the ones I used for references) list them as being related, and I can find much info about them on the internet. I think, however, it's a fairly safe bet that the two were father and son. Jimknut (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) IMDB, while not reliable, does say that they are father and son; I think that it might make sense to make it Calvin Clements, Sr. and Jr. to make the distinction clear. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Changed Jimknut (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Sentence fragments should not end with a period/full stop (for example: "39 half-hour episodes, black-and-white." is not a complete sentence). Fixed. "Amanda Blake left this series" - should be "the series" unless she stayed with the radio program (if she did, that should be noted). Fixed. (Georgia Ellis played Kitty on the radio version.) "for the final season. (1974–75)." - extra period/full stop. Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Some of the "Robert Stewart"s are "Robert C. Stewart", there are some "Robert C. Stewart Jr."s. Are these the same person? If so, they should be standardized; if not, they should be unambiguously named. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Now standardized as "Robert Stewart" Jimknut (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - great work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The final first run episode aired on March 31, 1975." You lost me on this sentence. What is a "final first run episode"? Gunsmoke still airs on television, although now in syndicated reruns of episodes from its twenty-year run (1955–75) on CBS. "Final first run" means that it was chronologically the last episode broadcast that was not a rerun. I'm open to suggestions as to how this sentence could be re-worded to sound better. I added a hyphen for clarity. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) No chance for creating separate articles about each season? Plenty of chances. But this article is about the entire run of the series, not individual seasons. I prefer to do one thing at a time, so let's get this polished up to FL status and then do articles on individual seasons. OK, just making sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "Saturday, 10-10:30" Needs an en dash. Fixed. Why are the tables not sortable by date? I used {{dts}} on the airdates. It worked fine for seasons one thru five, but beginning midway into season six the dates were replaced with Error: too many #time calls. From what I read in what help I could find this is a result of too many sortable entries. I have chosen instead to make the airdate columns unsortable. (After all, this is a huge list.) What order would anyone like to sort them in anyway? Chronological? They're already in that format. Reverse chronological order? You can achieve that by sorting either of two episode number columns. Unfortunate, but not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) I doubt you need to link "color" or "black-and-white"; would readers have any doubt about what those terms mean? The word "color" links to the article on Color television, so I think it's a valid link in case some one may want to brush up on the history of the color TV. I can't make a link to "Black-and-white television" since no article currently exists, so I suppose the black-and-white link could be ousted. I still don't think either link is necessary, but won't push further. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) In the Nielsen ratings section, why are the programs airing opposite Gunsmoke mentioned? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Gunsmoke aired on American television before the rise of cable TV and the home video market. During its twenty-year run three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) dominated US TV broadcasting. Unless they tuned into a local broadcast, audiences of the day had to watch one of the shows from these networks. I thought it was a good idea to give readers on opportunity to have a wider spectrum of TV from that era by listing what shows aired opposite Gunsmoke. Jimknut (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I have a few issues that should be addressed before supporting.
  • Could you state in the lead why the show was eventually cancelled?
    • A statement has now been added.
      • "According to Alan Wagner, who was the network's vice president at the time, "It's better to get rid of a program one year too soon than one year two late." Should it be "one year too late"? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Whoops! This is what happens whecn your up two too late editing Wikipedia pages! It's now fixed.
  • Before each season, producer is followed by a colon (as well as notes), but starring is not. To remain consistent, it would be helpful to add colons after each of the "Starring" for all of the seasons.
    • No, I disagree. I think "Producer" and "associate producer" warrant colons unless I change then to "Produced by" and "Associate produced by" (of which the latter sound tacky). "Starring James Arness ..." flows better without a colon. I could change this to "Stars:" or "Regular cast:" but I think it's fine the way it is.
      • To be consistent with the formatting of the other lines before the tables, a colon makes more sense. It seems out of place and starting off with "starring" makes the line appear to be a sentence, when it is only a list of the cast members. I think "regular cast:" would work well or actually writing it as a sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, I give in. It's now changed to "Regular cast:"
  • There seems to be a lot of overlinking. Could the directors and writers be linked to only once in each season?
    • See resolved comments from the last FLC; these are not overlinked. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
      • KV5 summed it up right ... and I've gone over this linking routine numerous times.
        • Sorry, I didn't view other reviewers' comments. The rationale in the guideline doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not going to fight it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Unless there are guidelines that state otherwise, consider renaming the section "home release" to "home media release". Also there should be a brief mention in the lead about the releases to better summarize the article.
    • Now changed to "Home media release".
  • Are there any relevant external links that can be included?
    • Amazing but there doesn't seem to be any significant web site devoted to this epic TV series. I have, however, included a link to the web site of the Museum of Television Broadcasting, which seems to be a somewhat scholarly site.
      • Would the IMDB and TV.com links be helpful for including in the external links? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

These shouldn't be too hard to address. Good job on this list, it's great to see a FLC attempt for an older show instead of all the recent ones (where sources are must more abundant). If you have any questions or when you are finished, please let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Anything else? Jimknut (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Concerns address and another external link added. Jimknut (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support All of the above issues I raised have been sufficiently addressed. Good work on the list! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Overall, a very nice article. Just some nitpicks before I support (mostly prose-related). In the first sentence should "is" be "was"? Also, "television series, which was developed by" No. Correct: "Gunsmoke is an American western television series" Incorrect: "Gunsmoke was an American western television series" It may no longer be in production and no longer airing first-run episodes on the CBS network, but it is still a television series and can still be viewed as such (by way of syndicated reruns or playing video cassettes or DVDs). "Was" indicates that it no longer exists or has changed into something else. Consider this: "Charles Dickens was a British novelist" or "Orson Welles was an American filmmaker" (past tense because both men are now dead); however, "A Tale of Two Cities is a novel" or "Citizen Kane is a motion picture" (present tense because both works still exist). "which was" has been cut. "All episodes of the series were broadcast" – it's clear that we're talking about Gunsmoke "of the series" has been cut. "episode originally aired" – as the subject of the sentence is the first episode, one would guess this is the original airing "originally" has been cut. "series expanded to an hour-long series" repeats "series". Also, the series isn't an hour long, but the episodes are Changed to "The series expanded to an hour-long episodes" "Beginning with its second season" is ambiguous; how about "During its second season"? Changed. "moved quickly to number one" switch around "moved" and "quickly": "quickly moved to number one" Changed. Beginning a sentence with "According to" makes the sentence sound out of place; I suggest "Alan Wagner, who was ... at the time, said" followed by the quote. Also, you can take out "who was" in "who was the network's vice president" Changed. When you say "a fifth character was added to the cast", does this mean a fifth regular character? Changed to "fifth regular character" Is Miss Hannah an alternate name for Kitty? If not, the last sentence of the third paragraph should be clarified Changed to "Amanda Blake left the series at the end of the nineteenth season (1973–74) and was replaced in the final season by a new character, Miss Hannah, portrayed by Fran Ryan." Throughout the list, the dash before "Part 1" and "Part 2" should be spaced on both sides. For example, ""Guns of Cibol Blanca The Guns of Cibola Blanca"– Part 1" should be ""Guns of Cibol Blanca The Guns of Cibola Blanca" – Part 1" Changed. I don't think any episodes have more than one director (except season 2), so you can take out "(s)" in the heading Heading changed to "Writer" and in season two the one episode listing two directors has now been changed to one. (This is per my sources. I've made a valiant attempt to be accurate, but with 635 episodes to deal with a flub can creep in here and there.) In episode 266, is the producer name of "Robert E." correct Corrected. I would avoid using "two-parter" (season 16) as it sounds a tad too informal Changed to "two-part" episode. In the Nielsen ratings table, some columns are centered while others aren't. I can see why the "Season" and "Nielsen rating" columns are centered, but one date column is centered while the other isn't Corrected. Also season numbers have linked to the episode listings. In the Home media release table, I would get rid of the thin empty rows (i.e., the | height=5px colspan=6|). This is just a personal preference, though. Also, none of the section links in the "Season" column works (missing the dashes in the link) Changed and correct. Empty spaces are out and the "umbrella" titles are in a silver background. Italicize "Gunsmoke" in the See also link Changed. None of the Barbaras {{harvnb}} templates work. Also, note the year typo in reference 34 Typo fixed and {{harvnb}} should work now. In reference 2 (Newcomb), the name should be "Last, First" Changed. Remove the two "(MBC)" abbreviations in reference 2 and the second external link as it's not used elsewhere in the article Removed. Reference ten needs an en-dash Corrected. As I said, I'll be happy to support once the above issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Okay now? (I also tidied up the headings for the episode numbers) Jimknut (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The series ran for 20 seasons" from when? "The first episode aired in the United States on September 10, 1955.[4][5] The final first-run episode aired on March 31, 1975.[6][7]" merge these. Merged and moved into the first paragraph. I think it more or less answers your first comment. "were a half-hour in length" nasty, maybe "were 30 minutes.." or "were half an hour in"? changed to "30 minutes" "and quickly moved to number one" specify. changed. I think it reads better now. "following a shift in its programming time" specify. Expanded to "following a shift in its programming time from Saturday to Monday night" Ref 51 is malformed. Fixed. Can you tell me why tvshowsondvd.com is a WP:RS? It seemed like a good idea at the time. I've changed the ref to Amazon.com. The statement is that episodes of Gunsmoke were released on DVD. Since the Amazon page clearly shows that they have these DVDs for sale I think we can safely consider them a reliable source this time around. Jimknut (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:49, 30 March 2010 [2].

---

Savilian Professor of Geometry

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Another list of Oxford professors for your amusement. This one includes such stars as Edmond Halley, after whom the comet is named. All comments gratefully received. Bencherlite^Talk 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Do our whole audience know what a "classical scholar" is? Linked classics (Repeat warning) Also, might there be something specific to which you could link Warden and Provost in this context? Linked Warden (college) and Provost (education) I'm wondering if there's a legitimate case to link geometry in this article.. Found one usage to wikilink Pending comment - the first was "appointed" while, say, Titchmarsh applied. I'm hoping to learn in subsequent paragraphs how the position has been/is selected. Have now found a copy of Savile's original provisions and will try and add more detail. In short, he reserved the right to appoint during his lifetime, then gave the power to elect to various worthies such as the Archbish of Canterbury, Bishop of London, Lord Chief Justice, Lord High Executioner etc. In the late 19th century, this was changed as per the article; then (from what I can tell) the whole system of university statutes was reformed in the late 1990s/early 2000s, removing specific rules for appointment boards for professorships. Update, now done. " degree at a minimum" (my own ignorance warning here) I would as "as a minimum" here, but that could my own poor upbringing... Typo fixed Euclid et al get a link but not Aristotle or Plato. How rude.. Linked. I'll apologise to them in person for my rudeness next time I see them "in basic mathematics in English" did I miss the bit where the instructions would be otherwise provided in a foreign language? Education was in Latin in those days, added this in brackets (in fact some Oxford formal ceremonies are still in Latin although fortunately the lectures aren't. Well, not in Law, anyway. Although I had to study Roman Law, so there was some Latin there...) I'd link ∞. Didn't think of that "it seems that " not tremendously encouraging, can you say why it "seems" this way? Because the source says so, I think. I'll double-check Update: source made reference to Gregory's name appearing in a rate-book in 1701, so explained this Halley, while prominent, doesn't need to be linked in every section of the article... Delinked a bit Stow on the Wold is actually Stow-on-the-Wold. "- - -" added "brother at the age of 15, a year before he entered Cambridge" who entered Cambridge? Reworded Betts' description is a sea of blue links. I don't often get too worked up about but there you go, anything you could do about it? reworded slightly, Prime Minister delinked "run (unsuccessfully) an evening " don't like this construct, I'd prefer just "unsuccessfully run an". And now you have it I'm wondering, second wrangler ought to be Second Wrangler per our own article. OK " The Times in its obituary called him" - commas after Times and obit. Reworded as "In his obituary, The Times called him..." for one comman rather than two You say where some Oxford and London colleges are, is it worth clarifying that Princeton is in New Jersey? And St Catherine's is not clearly located. NJ added. Reworded the rest of the sentence to put Catz near Oxford without repeating the O-word "University of California Berkeley" missing a comma after California. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Here's my work to date, more to come. BencherliteTalk 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) And here's the rest. What do you think now, sir? BencherliteTalk 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I like – Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ta very muchly. Bencherlite^Talk 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) "his successor Nathaniel Bliss both held the post of Astronomer Royal in addition to the professorship" - The word both seems unnecessary. Well, it's both Bliss and Halley, not both AR + chair; reworded anyway. "after alleging assaulting another student" - The word allegedly would make more sense to me here. Typo, fixed "'neither numerous or great importance.'" - In the cited source, it says "neither numerous nor of great importance." Well-spotted, thanks "one of the few exceptions to his claim that nothing he had done ... had made ... 'the least difference to the amenity of the world'." - In whose opinion? The clue's in the phrase "his claim"... reworded to "his own claim" to make it even clearer Whose claim it is was perfectly clear even without the added own (which I'd prefer to see removed again). What I wish to know is who thinks that the Hardy–Weinberg principle is an exception. Goodraise 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Ah, we were at cross-purposes. It was a biographer's claim, Béla Bollobás, so reworded and clarified. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC) "Hitchin taught in the United States at Princeton University in New Jersey and at New York University, returning to Wolfson College for further research before becoming a fellow and tutor at St Catherine's College." - He returned to Wolfson while teaching at Princeton and NYU? No, but reworded to resolve the slight ambiguity File:James Joseph Sylvester.jpg states that the image is in the public domain because its author has died more than 70 years ago, but it doesn't say who the author is. Uploaded a replacement to Commons, File:James Joseph Sylvester by Alfred Edward Emslie.jpg, which does. References 33 and 34 give the cited website's domain name (shawprize.org) instead of its publishing entity (The Shaw Prize Foundation) or the website's name (The Shaw Prize). Well, in my defence, that's how they are cited on the FL Shaw Prize... switched to "The Shaw Prize Foundation" The notes section could use some citations. (In case you're wondering, here's an example of how to do it.) Cumbersome, isn't it? Added Most alt texts are somewhat dry and colorless, not really aiding the reader in visualizing the depicted persons. This is not a deal breaker though. Good, I'll leave it then, unless you have any specific ideas for describing a succession of middle-aged/elderly white academics in any better way than I have done.... Goodraise 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your review, and for that handy demonstration of how to give a footnote for a reference, which I hadn't seen before. No doubt I'll speed up with it with some more practice! BencherliteTalk 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak support. Alt texts have some room for improvement. Otherwise, the list meets the criteria. Goodraise 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, but I'd like to try and get this to a regular support if I can. So, once again, if you have any specific ideas for improvement, I'll see what I can do to try and improve the alt texts. I'm afraid that saying they are "somewhat dry and colorless" doesn't really help me, frankly, particularly given the limited material I have to work with here. BencherliteTalk 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Well, if you're looking for help, you may find WP:ALT worth reading, the sections on portraits and neutrality in particular. Goodraise 01:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Funnily enough, I know about WP:ALT, having written the odd FL and FA since the world went alt-crazy. What I was hoping for from you were some specific comments for how the alt text falls short of what you think that it could be, not a "vague wave" (as it were) at a style guideline. Given the OR / not-obvious-to-a-non-expert descriptions at WP:ALT#Portraits, though, I think my alt texts are fine as they are, . (Where's the "low bun" in the second portrait? It's pure guesswork that it's there at the back of her head. "Slender" - really? Hard to say either way. "Her deep-set eyes gaze solemnly over the viewer's shoulder." Oh please, are we writing Mills and Boon now? In the first: "Edwardian-style" - says who? "In her forties" - looks younger to me. You get the point.) As I've asked twice now and you haven't given me any specific examples of how to improve the alts, which is a shame, I'll think I'll leave this point and settle for your support being lukewarm. BencherliteTalk 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know about WP:ALT. I meant what I said, nothing more. My initial (now capped) comment was not a vague wave at a guideline (I didn't even mention or link WP:ALT from there). As for giving specific examples, what for? You seem to be perfectly aware as to how your alt texts go against the guideline and seem to have made them so intentionally. You may think that your alt texts are superior and maybe they are, but that doesn't matter to me. My votes are based on whether I think an article conforms with the criteria (including linked guidelines) rather than with what I think is best. Goodraise 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC) No feelings hurt by your reference to WP:ALT, don't worry. However, as for your questionable assertions, without any evidence, that I've "intentionally" written alt texts to violate a guideline and that I'm "perfectly aware" of how they fall short, I would have thought that the fact I twice asked for how they could be improved (and you ignored my question first time, and gave a "vague wave" the second time) was actually fairly good proof that I was genuinely trying to improve the alt texts and was welcoming—nay, asking for—suggestions on how this could be done. If I didn't want to make you happier with the alt text, I would have left your "weak support" comment alone and not tried to get an upgrade. As you can see, I have my doubts as to the alt-text concept and how to use it, but that doesn't mean that I'm deliberately trying to write a list that doesn't comply with the guideline. Interesting that you hadn't actually said before your last comment that the current alt text violates the guideline; your initial comment was that it could do with "some improvement", examples of which you steadfastly refuse to give. Go ahead; "I'm listening..." BencherliteTalk 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Most of my concerns have been addressed by the nominator. The one that hasn't has become invalid because of recent developments at WP:ALT. Goodraise 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Question How did you derive the inflation factor from 1620 to 2010 which makes £150 equal to £24,000? (and shouldn't be 2009, not 2010?).Sandman888 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Using ref 4 I would suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What I mean is I'd like the formula used which gives a factor of 24,000/150 Sandman888 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It's generated by {{inflation}}. Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The source provided doesn't have the inflation rate for 2010. Neither is it an entirely routine calculation, so it might be helpful to write how it's calculated Sandman888 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair point, I've changed it to "in present day terms", which is the wording suggested by {{inflation/doc}} (hadn't spotted that before). As for setting out the calculation to avoid it being "original research" (which is I assume what you're getting at with your link to the essay WP:NOTOR), well, no. (1) It's a calculation carried out by an established template; (2) it can be replicated from the website if one chooses to do so; (3) updating an old value for inflation is a routine calculation, I think. I'm not going to give a footnote along the lines of "to work out the present value of £150 from 1620, we divide £150 by the RPI figure for 1620 and multiply it by the most recently available figure". Bencherlite^Talk 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Given that none of the persons are redlinked, I'd prefer if the educational background was skipped so the 'Notes' column would focus on their contribution to science, which, I presume, is why the list is noteworthy Sandman888 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, that's the first time I've been asked to make an FLC less informative, I think. I'd prefer to keep it, as in a university-based list, it's interesting (I think) to see which of the names were educated there and which were educated elsewhere. Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I've wondered this since I reviewed Bodley's Librarian, given the limited number of entries and relatively few things gained from the sortability of the table, is there any particular reason the data is formatted in a table and not as a text list like List of Major League Baseball awards? I would never ever ever oppose over something like this, just a theoretical question. I would think it would both remove the large whitespace for the fields with less text and avoid squishing the notes. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Do you think the inclusion of "professor from" or "professor" as a parenthetical note in the prose (John Smith (professor 1988-2010)) is necessary? I get that you want to avoid it looking like their birth and death dates or something like that, but every list I've worked on generally assumed the parentheticals were referring to that list and only had notes if it was absolutely necessary. List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks, for example, simply lists their draft years in () except when discussing the MVP winners (to make it clear those are draft years, not their MVP-winning years). Couldn't most of these instances read "The life and work of James Sylvester (1883-1894)", eg? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Can you clarify what exactly the duties of the position are following the removal of geometry lecturing requirements to suit Titchmarsh? The article mentions it, but I don't quite get what this means for the position. Is it now more of just a "Savilian Professor of Math" or what? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) For the most part though, excellent read. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. As for the "text vs table" approach, I think the text approach works for List of Major League Baseball awards because it's a list of supporting lists (and, indeed, the lead article/list of an excellent Featured Topic of lists). Here, I've got a list of supporting articles, and so I wonder if having it as a text-only format (and losing such sortability as there is) would make it look too much like an article, leading to the "go to GA" review from less discerning reviewers, at the very least. I think for shorter lists of professors (e.g. Jesus Professor of Celtic), text might be the way, since a table would add very little. I agree that's the thing to do with shorter lists, I guess I just consider this a reasonably short list. And, while there is some sortability, it's not like coaches lists or whatever which are dominated by stats and thus gain a lot from the table format. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I'm in two minds about the year ranges. I can see that in many instances, it's clearly not a YOB-YOD range and so isn't ambiguous. But for "John Wallis (professor 1649–1703)", it could be either and overall I think it's best to be clear and say "professor X-Y" for all, lest someone think that whenever it's not said, it's the more usual birth-death range. For the draft lists, there's no range so no similar ambiguity arises. I'm finding out far more than I ever knew before about baseball, by the way, through reading your comparisons - my previous baseball experience was a rain-affected match somewhere in the NYC suburbs in September 1996... I forget who was playing, but boy did it rain that night... Heh, sorry about that. As you might see from my userpage baseball-content dominates my Wikipedia contributions, so will tend to dominate my range of experience to compare against. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) As for present duties of the professor, as I understand it, the university statutes and regulations no longer specify what he has to teach; no doubt his contractual terms and conditions will say something, and then I assume any loose ends will be sorted out by agreement with the other professors in the mathematics institute. I've added a ref saying that he's one of the members of the Maths Institute's Geometry Group of researchers, so it'd be fair to say that geometry is still a part of the professors' work, despite Titchmarsh! Gotcha, thanks. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Let me know if I can improve further. BencherliteTalk 22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Like I said, it's quite solid. I'll give it another look see, but probably cap/support quite soon. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

Some very light issues, not much to complain about here at all:

• "Savile reserved to himself" - is "reserved to himself" a British English turn of phrase? Reserved for himself sounds better to my American ears (as in He reserved the right for himself if the sentence is restructured), but you all are the experts over there.
  • Yes, that works in Brit Eng.
• "straight away" - is that two words or one... or can it be either?
  • My Concise Oxford Dictionary tells me that "straight away" is Brit Eng and "straightaway" is US Eng...
• In Wallis: "He was appointed as keeper of the university archives in 1658"
  • Zapped.

That's really it! Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. Bencherlite^Talk 14:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:12, 27 March 2010 [3].

---

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list status. The comments from the previous nomination were all resolved but the nomination was closed for being a stale FLC. I still feel this meets all FLC. NThomas (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Should an interim coach be counted as a head coach? What I'm getting at, is should the lead say "14 head coaches", as it does now, or, "13 head coaches and one interim head coach"? I like the last one, but you didn't include (so it would be 14, 15 with Tuberville). NThomas (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC) What is the source for Note 2? The general reference. Does it need an inline citation instead? NThomas (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I already gave a more thorough review last time around, so most of my issues have been resolved. Hopefully, this list has better luck this time around.—NMajdan•talk 16:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking another look at it! NThomas (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Support – My comments were all addressed at the first FLC. Before supporting, I decided to take another look at the list, and I found only one additional issue: an excess period at the end of the first paragraph. When that's resolved, I'll end up in the support column. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Took the initiative to resolve this on the submitter's behalf.—NMajdan•talk 16:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wow. Can't believe I missed that one! Thanks for the edit Nmajdan. NThomas (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my nomination. I'll no longer be addressing any open comments for this list. If anyone else wants to renominated it feel free. NThomas (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note I originally archived this, but Mm40 agreed to take over this FLC, so I have reinstated it. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  Done. Mm40 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

Comments: "under first year head coach DeWitt Weaver" - I'm not sure, and it may differ in preference between US and UK English, but I'd use first-year here. "both won four conference championships each, ..." - Ouch! No need to use "both" and "each" together. I'd suggest "each won four conference championships, ..." I'm probably being stupid here.. but how come Tommy Tuberville isn't on the list? I guess I can answer this question since I was involved in the decision. We decided to exclude him and other first year coaches since the list only goes through the end of the 2009 season (as is indicated above the table). Tuberville has yet to coach a game and therefore has no stats. We are not including him for the same reason we don't include placeholder rows in other tables. At the end of the 2010 season, Tuberville will be added.—NMajdan•talk 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC) That makes sense! As I said, me being stupid then! Harrias (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Mostly a good looking list, just a few concerns and then I'll be more than happy to support. Harrias (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks for your comments. Mm40 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, well done. Harrias (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:12, 27 March 2010 [4].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Mahela Jayawardene

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet another centuries list (sorry guys :)), following the format of already existing FL's. Jayawardene has the most Test centuries for Sri Lanka and has the fourth highest score in Tests, so I thought he deserves his own list. I'm looking forward to your comments and suggestions. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking part in the WikiCup, BTW. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Sure, we don't want this to become a glossary of cricket terms, but I think a link to batsman would be useful for the non-cricketing expert readers. Done. Stupid mistake. Shouldn't twenty-seven just be 27 in that sentence? I was using numerals only for runs and wickets, but Dweller has changed that as you suggested. I don't have a problem either way. I'm wondering if fourth highest should be fourth-highest? Done. What's ICC? Mentioned. Another careless mistake. "chosen.. selected... chosen... selected" - a good attempt at mixing it up a bit but two consecutive sentences with this construction gives the repeat game away for me. Reworded. How is it now? '"century an year later" - a year. OK Any links for ICC World Cup One Day International, ICC World Test? Possible links would be List of World XI ODI cricketers and List of World XI Test cricketers, but these were teams which were selected to play a match. The ICC world teams are selected each year and are made up of the best players from all teams. So I don't think linking to those articles would be very accurate. "decided to recall" I get it but it may be difficult to understand that this action of a captain resulted in two batsmen being retired out. Clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestions. I think I have addressed the problems. Sorry about the late reply BTW; I couldn't log in for a few days. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Found no issues with the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias you say "leading run-scorer" for Tests, "fourth-highest run-scorer" for ODIs and "fourth highest scorer" for T20Is. They don't all need to be the same, but can you make "fourth-highest" and "fourth highest" consistent. I don't think "run-scorer" and "scorer" need to be the same as the context is reasonably obvious. so that Africa XI lines up with the rest, can you use {{noflag|[[Africa XI cricket team|Africa XI]]}}? Otherwise, everything looks good. Harrias (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Both done. Thanks for the noflag suggestion, I never thought about that template. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The noflag template just makes it all a bit neater. Another fine list, congrats. I'm hoping to get Viv Richards' list up to scratch in the next week or so.Harrias (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:12, 27 March 2010 [5].

---

List of birds of South Carolina

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The birds of South Carolina mimics the structure of the Maryland birds list, which passed less than a year ago and was largely agreed to be a template for future state bird lists. It is comprehensive, including all birds the record committee does, organized, and well-illustrated. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nice to see WP:BIRDS back at work on lists. One thing that this list needs that the Maryland birds list does not have is alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I added alt text to the lede image. Is this what the alt text is supposed to be? Also, are the pictures in this list purely decorative, as they just illustrate examples of common SC birds instead of illustrating a key point? If yes to both, I'll run through and add alt text. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Decorative has multiple meanings, but I don't think these images are "purely decorative", so they all need alt text. The lead alt text is excellent, by the way. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll get started on it, will report back when done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a conference this weekend and am not sure if I will have internet. Alt text should be done by the 8th if not sooner. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that took longer than expected. Sorry for the delay- midterms and conferences kept popping up. Anyways, done with the alt text and I think all the comments. Thank you for your patience. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments a good, comprehensive, well-illustrated list. Some thoughts... Is the state bird referenced anywhere? "as appearing in " do you mean it's been seen? " If the record is accepted, it will be the first recorded appearance of the species in the state." is repeated verbatim five times, this is not great for the prose. Same with "was/were reported in South Carolina"... Is there any reason that the (I) etc is bold? "Birds marked with asterisk (*) not identified to species" are we missing an "are" between asterisk and not? And an "a" between to and species? Should measurements (e.g. metres) be in USEng to be consistent? Is it "Carolina Bird Club" or "The Carolina Bird Club"? Refs/See also need to be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I've bolded the (I) etc to make the species they mark stand out more as they mark birds with something unusual about them being in the state. Otherwise I think I've changed everything else. The first records section for the other two lists I've done only includes one or two records, but South Carolina has had five since their committee last met. Hopefully they will meet this year. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Good stuff, will re-assess when you finish alt-text. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I revisited the alt text and on a random sample I found three from six being grammatically incorrect. Could you check the rest please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that, I think I fixed it up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I can't see any glaring prose or comprehensiveness errors. Looks good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support and nitpick. Although it's implicit that the article is following the SC list, I don't think that is actually stated explicitly in the lead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Possible omission: A map showing the location of South Carolina would be useful for those that do not know USA very well. The map could show some of the geographical features relevant to birds. Snowman (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 09:25, 27 March 2010 [6].

---

1984 NBA Draft

Nominator(s): Martin tamb (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's up to FL standard, similar format to 2007 NBA Draft and 2008 NBA Draft which are already promoted to FL. Martin tamb (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments All images need alt text. Done Instead of saying "worst team in each conference", say something like last place teams in each conference. Seems less POV. Done the Bahamas Shouldn't the be capitalized as it is in the wikilinked article? Done I would prefer the numbers listing the number of NBA championships, MVPS, All-NBAs, etc in paragraph three to be spelled out, but WP:ORDINAL is a little contradictory with this, so I'll leave it to the editor. Older version of the page used the number spelling for 1-9 and numerals for >10. However it looks strange and WP:ORDINAL mentioned that Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures. So I changed all to numerals because I think it would be weird to spell 11 and 14 and write "one Defensive Player of the Year award, eleven All-NBA Team selection and fourteen All-Star Game selection." That's the contradiction I was referring to. Although it does say you can spell out numbers with two words or less, so you could spell eleven. But, as you point out, the way you have it follows the guideline.—NMajdan•talk athlete Carl Lewis, who has never Should be past tense. Done Center (and maybe bold) the indicators in the first column of the key. Done the centering, but I don't think the indicators should be bold. Most of the WP:NBA's FLs, where I get the key formats, do not use bold indicators. Works for me.—NMajdan•talk What does a dash in the Position column indicate? Surely those players had a position in college. It means that the main reference (basketball-reference.com) does not have the information for those players position, mostly because those players have never played in the NBA. I'll try to find another reference for those players' position. Yeah, I think you need to find the position for these players somewhere else. Just because they never played in the NBA doesn't mean they didn't have a position. I'm sure you could find the media guide from the players' college. They usually have historical rosters and that might have the position.—NMajdan•talk Well done with this list. I really enjoyed reading it.—NMajdan•talk 14:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Hopefully I addressed all the comments, and thanks for the reviews. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - My issues, in addition to a few additional ones below, have been resolved to my satisfaction.—NMajdan•talk 13:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - The only nitpick is that the lead is a little long, so it may need some copyediting. Otherwise, it looks comprehensive and everything seems to satisfy the criteria.—Chris!_c/t 21:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Nigeria-born Olajuwon became the second international player...". Needs "The" in the front. I believe. "Olajuwon's achievements includes...". Last word should be singular (include). "University of Houston's track and field athlete Carl Lewis...". Remove the 's from Houston? "by the Chicago Bulls with their 208th pick in the 10th round." "their" → "the". They didn't have 208 picks; all the teams combined did. Noticed one reference to the Los Angeles Times from 1991 that didn't have a link. If you're interested, here's a link that could be provided in the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Done all, also added an "n" to the first point so now it reads "The Nigerian-born Olajuwon...". — Martin tamb (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No issues from me, a good list. Harrias (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Portland Trail Blazers is overlinked in the lead. Is there a ref for it being held at the Felt Forum? "named to the" perhaps this is USEng, but normally people are named "in" a list. "controversial drafting" this is a little odd since surely the controversy didn't arise until well after the draft? Removed "controversial", less POV and the issue already emphasized in the "... one of the biggest draft busts". Chicago Bulls is overlinked in the lead. "(an) All-Star Game(s)" yuck, why not "one or more All-Star Games"? Changed to "at least one All-Star Game", which I believes is the previous format on the other NBA Draft's articles. Image captions which are complete sentences need a period. Note 1 has "United States" three times in three sentences, reads clumsily. Any chance of an elegant rephrase? I'm separating Note 1 into two different notes, because his nationality and his name are different issues anyway. Interesting question of completeness, but possibly discussed elsewhere. You have different inclusion criteria for rounds 1 and 2, and subsequent rounds. Perhaps this needs declaration up front as I was expecting the full list of 228 players. I'm just following the tasks on WP:NBA which mentions that the draft articles should have at least the first two round. Previously in the article there is just a section called "Notable other picks" without any clear inclusion criteria, so I create an inclusion criteria and added the other players. I could add the whole 181 players from round 3–10, but as only 18 of them made it to the NBA, the full list would have a lot of red links. I just don't see the point to have the full list with plenty of red links in this article when it could easily obtained from the second and third general refs. But if it's really needed, I'll add the full list of the players. I, too, don't think a full list of draftees is necessary. Most of them never played in the NBA and are probably non-notable anyway.—Chris!c/t 23:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Third general ref needs an en-dash. Ref 29 is missing a publisher (inconsistent with other NYT refs) Not 100% relevant but it would be so much better if the NBA drafts template was the same width as all the other templates. The template has been in that width for awhile, but I agree that it's better to have the same width as the other templates. I'll see what I can do with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC) All other minor things fixed, thanks for the review. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 09:25, 27 March 2010 [7].

---

List of counties in Florida

Nominator(s): Jujutacular ^T · C 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Recently closed candidate, as the nomination had gone stale. Re-nominating as I feel it does meet criteria. All issues from previous nomination were resolved. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Not an "upside-down" L, it's an L rotated through 180 degrees (alt text). " Florida became the 27th U.S. state in 1845. The last county was created in" maybe "in 1845 while its last county..."? Five paras in the lead seems a little over the top (see WP:LEAD) "showing the influence two hundred years of Spanish rule had on the area" - influence of 200 years of Spanish rule"? "The average land area is 805 sq mi (2,085 km2) The largest county" missing some punctuation. Still don't see why County has to be bold (perhaps fix the template as this goes against MOS). And why are the County cells a different colour? Why are the references in the table column headers on a different row? Is there a linebreak between the text and the heading? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Addressed all the suggestions except for the last three. The two related to the {{countyrow}} template, I have been unable to figure out how to change. I have made an inquiry to the creator of the template to see if he can make the change. As for the references being on a separate row in the column headers, this is done by the {{Countytabletop}} template. I removed the linebreaks as suggested, but the result was very undesirable – looking very disorganized. You're welcome to try the change yourself and see the effect it has on the county lists. Jujutacular T · C 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Okeydokey, the templates aren't your problem. Thanks for trying anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but a few things that caught my eye. Are there 2009 Census estimates for the counties? Where were the proposed counties to have been? Also, Dade County isn't really a former county, it was just re-named. Same with the rest of them. Maybe retitle that section "Renamed counties". Former county makes me think of one that once existed, but was merged with another. Otherwise looks good. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no 2009 estimates for counties. In 2009 they did however do an estimate for the entire state, as well as do a new estimate for the entire state for 2008. To be consistent, I think it would be best to use 2008 figures, so I've changed it to reflect the updated 2008 estimate. I also changed section title to "Renamed counties". Thank you for your suggestions. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support That makes sense, and I'd imagine you'd update for the 2010 census once available. Since that won't be for a while, I'm happy to support. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Should spell out 'United States' in the first sentence (not just U.S.) and link to the country. Even more critical, there is not link to 'counties of the United States' or whatever the article is called. Perhaps also add a few lines on what a county actually is. Also, add a few lines if there is any differences in jurisdiction or other things from other states (if there are any, I don't know). Comma after 'Florida became the 27th U.S. state in 1845' to give the reader a natural break. Could stick in a second if you like. Why is exactly Miami-Dade and Osceola used as examples of who counties are names after? Stick in a sentence on the total area of Florida. The statement "To distinguish from counties in other states, one must use Florida’s FIPS code, 12" should be rephrased to passive, avoiding the "one". According to MOS:BOLD, the use of boldface the way it is here should not be done. Anyhow, never wikilink boldface. Emphasis is already established through a separate background color. I would have thought the 'formed from' counties should also have been linked. How about a short introductory text before the 'renamed' and 'proposed' to present the table, and give a short explanation for why/how counties were renamed, and the circumstances of proposals. Ref 7 should have page numbers. Arsenikk (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Addressed most of these. The first link on the page is already County (United States), is that not what you want? I used Miami-Dade and Osceola as an etymology example as I found it to be the most interesting case: two counties named after leaders of opposing sides of the Second Seminole War. As I explained to TRM above, the bold county names in the table is done by the template {{countyrow}}. I am unsure of how to remove this bolding; however, I made an inquiry to the creator of the template to see if he could do it. I did not add introductory text before the 'renamed' section, as every piece of information about the renamings that could be found is already in the table. However, I did include an introduction to the proposed counties section. I removed Ref 7, as this was added prior to my editing of the article, and I have no access to it. It is unnecessary for the verification of the list. Jujutacular T · C 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The template was difficult to understand, but by replacing a ! with a pipe, the first row is no longer odd-colored, nor boldfaced. Arsenikk (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much, looks great. Jujutacular T · C 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC) In case it is not clear, I am awaiting my support until either a short introductory text is placed above the "renamed counties" list, or a plausible reason to not include such a text is provided here. Arsenikk (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Jujutacular T · C 17:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - no issues at all from me, a nice list. Harrias (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Florida's counties were originally subdivisions of the state government. Throughout its history however, county governments have grown increasingly important." The flow here is quite rocky. The first sentence says nothing about about the importance of the counties, so "Throughout its history however" seems out of place. Removed that sentence. Jujutacular T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "FIPS Code"-->FIPS code, since "code" is not a proper noun. Same thing for "Proposal Date" in the proposed counties section. Fixed. Jujutacular T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Notes in the table that are not complete sentences should have periods (full stops) at the end, such as "James McNair Baker (1821–1892), a Confederate senator and later a judge in the fourth judicial district." I assume you mean they should not have periods. I believe that was the only one. Jujutacular T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "Two counties were previously proposed in Florida's state legislature" Redundant word. Fixed. Jujutacular T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "but a clerk kept the bill from the governor, keeping it from creation." "kept ... keeping" repetition is clunky Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Many thanks for taking a look. Jujutacular T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) What makes http://floridanabob.hypermart.net/floridians.htm a reliable source? That is a textbook written by M. C. Bob Leobard, a professor of American History at Hillsborough Community College - which satisfies WP:RS as an academic source. Jujutacular T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) I'm still a bit wary. I think http://www.alachua.fl.us/government/history/?era=2500 might be a higher-quality source. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Changed it out, thank you. Jujutacular T · C 01:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Another very nive counties list. Reywas92^Talk 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 22 March 2010 [8].

---

List of Olympic medalists in curling

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm now attempting to start a new consecutive months streak, though this one will probably end in the summer. This is the second of a number of Olympics-related FLCs that will be heading this way in the coming weeks. This one is modeled after the many current medalist FLs, such as List of Olympic medalists in figure skating, but with a few key differences, such as the lack of a fancy ToC (with just two events there isn't a need for one), lack of a "Medals per year" section (with just two events there isn't a need for one), and images added to the athlete medal leaders table. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu: Make sure you are consistent with the English variant you're applying to the whole page, as I noticed both "programme" and "program" in the lead section; Fixed. Disambiguate The Herald; Done. You first link "demonstration sport" on the second paragraph, but you have "demonstration event" showing first in the previous paragraph; Fixed the first usage. "Teams from Canada have been successful in the event since it's return to the program" — event or sport? "it's return" → "its return"; Fixed. [Note 1] and [Note 2] would be more visible if they were placed just after  Great Britain (GBR) and  Sweden (SWE); Done. In the "Notes" section, I'd place a bullet before each note, to make them more perceivable as describing distinct things; Done. In the "See also" section, lowercase "Champions" to avoid redirects; Done. Update the link to the IOC results database; Done. Some inconsistency regarding the format of specific references: The IOC references #1 and #13 don't display the website name as in #10; Fixed. Why isn't "BBC Sport" linked as well? Link added. Check here on how to format citations based on data from Sports-Reference.com. Fixed. A suggestion (you can follow or not): add the World Curling Federation and IOC main pages in the "External links" section. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Pages from both sites are used as references, so I don't know if it's necessary. Thanks for the review! -- Scorpion0422 18:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC) You're right Parutakupiu (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC) One last issue: the first four sentences on the second paragraph all sound like a continuous repetition. Can't you rewrite them so that it says that curling was contested as a demonstration sport in 1932, 1988 and 1992? Parutakupiu (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Opening sentences... it's much more than a sport contested at the Olympics. Perhaps give a brief historical description of the sport and then say it's been contested at the Winter Olympics since.... It does go into history in the next sentence. I tried something like that at first, but in the end the first sentence always became too long and/or cluttered, and it's usually good to start with something simple. " men's curling tournament was held at the 1924 Winter Olympics, then the sport was" perhaps "Olympics before the sport was removed..."? Done. And instead of just "until 1998", maybe "until the 1998 games" appropriately linked. Done. "For 82 years, the curling tournament at the 1924 Olympics .." I'd turn it around. I'd say that the "1924 tournament was considered a demonstration..." etc, "until, in 2006..." Shortened sentence to "For 82 years, the 1924 tournament was considered a ..." "who were representing Great Britain." just "who represented" Done. "and turned up evidence that the sport " don't like "turned up" at all. Maybe, "published"? Switched to "found" The 98 winter games is quickly overlinked. Fixed. "curling had a strong following in Canada.[6] Curling returned as a " quick repeat of curling, could use a rephrase. Fixed. I think you could use a few words to describe the fact curling is a team sport. I added "team" to "sport" in the first sentence. " In 2010, Anette Norberg, Eva Lund and Cathrine Lindahl of Sweden won the gold medal in the women's tournament, becoming the first curlers to win consecutive gold medal" - maybe you should say that "In 2006 and 2010"? The way the sentence is phrased, it would be inaccurate because they didn't win a second gold in 2006. "According to the IOC, Carl August Kronlund of Sweden was the oldest Winter Olympics medalist, winning silver in 1924 at the age of 59. Robin Welsh of Great Britain was the oldest Winter Olympics gold medalist, winning in 1924 at the age of 54.[10]" can you merge these to avoid the repeat of "the oldest Winter Olympics... medalist, winning ... in ... at the age of .." in consecutive sentences? I don't think that merging would be the best idea, it would make the sentence too awkward. I switched the second use of "at the age of" to "when he was". Medal winners table is normally sortable. Do you mean the medal leaders table? Because none of main table lists in any of the current FLs are sortable. Why abbreviate when you don't go onto to use, e.g. ISOH, NWOOC? Habit. Removed. Second gen ref doesn't make any relevant sense to me. It's a link to the WCF database. When you pick a championship (ie. the Olympic tournament), it gives a quick list of links to complete results. Unfortunately, it wouldn't let me link directly to the Olympic portion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC "Although it was removed from the official programme, curling was contested as a demonstration sport in 1932." seems to contradict "A men's curling tournament was held at the 1924 Winter Olympics, then the sport was removed from the programme until 1998." to me. Not really, demonstration and official events are completely different things. Well the sentence says it was removed "from the programme" after 1924. Does this mean the "programme" only includes official events? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Added "official". Canada is overlinked. No it's not, Canada is linked once and Canada [at the Winter Olympics] is linked once. That's a little confusing. Easter-egg style... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Why is it confusing? There are a bunch of easter egg links in there for other nations. It's the best way to insert relevent links without making it repetitive. -- Scorpion0422 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) "IOC subsequently awarded the top three teams honorary" so, still unofficial then? No, it was official. Considering that all of the members were dead, they couldn't just give them all medals, so there were posthumously recognized with honorary gold medals. Okay, is it possible that "honorary" could be misconstrued as still unofficial (as I did)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I suppose, what do you recommend? Perhaps something like "posthumously awarded official medals" or similar? That way there's really no way for getting it confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Regarding demonstration sport and medals won, the article states that the 1924 team did not win "official" medals. This was because the sport was considered a demonstration sport in 1924. This sentence seems to indicate that medals were awarded in 1924 but they were not counted as official by the IOC, "For 82 years, the 1924 tournament was considered a demonstration sport, so the medals were not officially counted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)." Then the article states that the IOC awarded "honorary" medals. Also later the article says the two oldest Winter Olympic medallists are Kronlund and Welsh, who won medals in 1924. Does that mean the 1924 teams won two medals, one in 1924 and another around 2006? I think if the medals awarded posthumously are considered to be official then you should remove "honorary" and explicitly state that the teams were entered into the record books as Olympic medallists. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a bit confusing, but what happened was that the sport was apparantly contested as a full official event in 1924 (and remember, the 1924 games weren't considered full Olympics until afterwards, I think that may have added to the confusion). Then, for whatever reason, it was became considered a demonstration event, and remained categorized as such until 2006. They weren't given new medals in 2006, they were just given the "honorary" official medals, meaning they were now considered full medalists (this article explains it much better than I can). I switched the bit about being awarded posthumous honorary medals to "The IOC subsequently recognized the top three teams as full medal winners". Does that help? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand a little better now. I think your wording is good. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support happy now the "official", "demonstration", "honorary" thing has been resolved. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support another fine medalist list. Reywas92^Talk 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 22 March 2010 [9].

---

List of Missouri Tigers head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 18:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 coach list #6. Hopefully, I have addressed all issues.—NMajdan•talk 18:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comment:

• In the lead, you have Missouri joined the Western Interstate University Football Association in December 1891, later winning the championship in that conference three years in a row. The conference disbanded after the 1897 season and Missouri remained independent until joining the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association in 1907. but in the first note: Missouri did not join a conference until 1892. Shouldn't the note read Missouri was not in an athletic conference from 1890 through 1891 and 1898 through 1907.

Everything else looks great! NThomas (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they joined the conference in December 1891 but didn't participate until the football season of 1892. But your suggestion is more specific so I'll update it.—NMajdan•talk 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - another perfect Big 12 list. Congrats! NThomas (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I've been finding many more lists recently that require few or no fixes upon review, and this is another of those. Couldn't find anything to complain about. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from Mm40 (talk)

• In the one image's ALT text, I think "microphone" would be more formal than "mic"

• Done.—NMajdan•talk

• "the championship in that conference" → "the conference championship"

• Done.—NMajdan•talk

• When did the Big Eight disband?

• In 1996. This is in the text already.—NMajdan•talk

• "have played in 1,180 games"

• Done.—NMajdan•talk

• It's a shame Miller doesn't have an article
• "highest winner percentage" → "highest winning percentage"

• Done.—NMajdan•talk

• In the key, "A running total of the number of coaches." shouldn't have a period

• Done.—NMajdan•talk

• I guess there was no coach/play in 1918 because of World War 1? I don't care if it's added in-text again, just making sure the list is correct

• That is correct.—NMajdan•talk

• The publishers are not "MUTigers.com" and "Big12Sports.com", but "University of Missouri Athletics" and "Big 12", respectively.

• Done.—NMajdan•talk

Another very nice list. Not directly related to this article, but you may be interested in this CfD for the common category of the lists you've been making (I just started the discussion). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

All issues resolved, supporting. Mm40 (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support moderately impressed that all the sorting is working for me, and I have no major issues with the prose, MOS or references. Nicely done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 22 March 2010 [10].

---

Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I only recently realized that this page, which was nominated a few months ago, was not actually promoted. This is because Geraldk (talk · contribs), who nominated the page, disappeared during the process (this is exactly what happened before with List of 2008 Summer Olympics venues). I have cleaned up and updated the page and addressed the minor concerns from the previous FLC. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Speaking of List of 2008 Summer Olympics venues, why is the name of that list different from the title of this one? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments yeah, liked this last time round and it was a shame it didn't quite creep over the line. "The games ran from February 12 to February 28, 2010. A total of nine competition venues were used during the games, spread across Vancouver, Whistler, and the neighbouring areas of West Vancouver and Richmond." merge? "2010 during which nine venues were used, spread.."? Done. "will host the snow events" past tense now please. Done. "and will provide athlete housing" ditto. Done. "of the scheduled start " past now, so we can just use "actual" start of events. Done. "when he flew off the track" can we be more accurate here? This is a little tabloidy for me. Fixed " He was going" - not great English, perhaps "he was travelling at ..." Done. " the ice profile was changed" what does this mean? Basically, that they filed the ice on the track down a bit to reduce the speed. "A forest of cranes tower over" beautiful. But not encyclopedic. Fixed. Isn't there a commons template rather than awkward external link? there used to, but a user went through a bunch of pages a while back, switiching the template to the link. I think the link is better for now, since there are no other ELs and there is already a wikibooks template there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments In the first table, shouldn't 'University Endowment Lands' actually link to University Endowment Lands, and not UBC? Fixed link Similarly, in the prose above, it would be more accurate to state that UBC Thunderdome Arean is in the University Endowment Lands. Well, UBC is on the endowment lands, so I think it's simpler to state it's on UBC. UBC also has a campus in Kelowna. UBC is an institution, UEL is a geographic area, akin to Richmond and West Vancouver. As it reads now, the prose is inconsistent. Arsenikk (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 'Olympic Villages' is a common noun at least when used in plural. Why are the locations linked in the first, but not the second, table? Because they are all already linked in the above table. For the matter of linking, every line in a table should be independent of each other, including independent of other tables. It could be that a reader chooses to consult the non-competitive table, because that is what they are interested in; the lack of linking also created internal inconsistency. Arsenikk (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I was sure there was consensus to not use the {{commonscat-inline}} and {{commons-inline}} templates. Fair enough. Switched. I would have though 'List of 2010 Winter Olympics venues' is more appropriate to the naming conventions of Wikipedia. Anyhow, consistency must be established. Arsenikk (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support great list; nice to see list covering "current events". Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I found both "games" and "Games" when the text refers to the Olympics. Capitalize the lowercase instances; Done. "The games ran from February 12 to February 28, 2010 during which nine competition venues were used during the games, spread across Vancouver..."; Done. "... have been completed and provided athlete housing" — unnecessary now that the Games are over; Done. "According to the CEO of VANOC, Joseph Furlong, the Committee..." — that last "Committee" is not directly clear (VANOC or IOC?). How about "According to its CEO, Joseph Furlong, VANOC..." or "According to CEO John Furlong, VANOC..."? Done. "... as early as possible." — the original quote does not end with "possible" so place ellipses (...) at the end, and move the period after the closing quotation mark; Would the ellipses really be necessary? The major problem was the sentence in which that quotation was inserted not ending with a period, but you already fixed that. As for the ellipses, I was just following WP:ELLIPSES. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "... all three of the competition venues at Whistler..." Done. "The last competition venues used during the Games were completed in February 2009..." — what do you mean? The venues used for the last events of the Olympics? Or the venues that were completed last? Fixed, switched everything before "were completed" to "Final construction" "... tested prior to use for Olympic events." — "prior to use" is so formal, how about "... tested before hosting the Olympic events."? Done. Since University of British Columbia Thunderbird Arena (which does not exist per se) is pipe-linked to the redirect "UBC Thunderbird Arena", might as well display it as such in the text, to agree with the naming in the competition venue table below; Done. "... were pre-existing and have required minimal renovation to prepare in preparation for the Olympics."; Done. "Of From the venues that were newly constructed venues in preparation for the Games,..."; Done. "... the Richmond Olympic Oval in Richmond and UBC Thunderbird Arena..." — add a comma after "and"; Done. The lead image (BC Place) can be increased to 300px as per MoS; Done. Update the links from all the references concerning the venues (references #12–20 and #22–27) as they no longer point to the venue-specific page. Fixed links. No external links? Then why a section for them? Above I was told to switch the commons embedded link to the template, so I did that and left the two templates in the section. There is no alt text for the Richmond Olympic Oval image, and the alt text for the ski jumps image is wrong as it describes the place in a warmer period... without snow. Don't forget this one. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I didn't forget. I really really dislike that policy and I refuse to go along with it. -- Scorpion0422 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Parutakupiu (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Alt text issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 15:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Comma should be put after "February 12 to February 28, 2010". "began in March 2006 and completed only eight months later." Missing "was" in there. Another "was" missing in "Final construction completed in February 2009". Two Whistler Sliding Track links with a grand total of one word in between. Give the New York Times italics in reference 9. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC) All fixed. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Scorpion0422 23:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Support – Was waiting on the comments below to be addressed after all of mine were. The list meets FL standards (note that I added a comma to an addition made since my review). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coments

• Why did VANOC need to create an external cauldron? This should be answered in the article and should be easy to reference.
  • The original text did say "with BC Place being an indoor stadium", but I've made that a bit clearer and expanded it with a new ref.
• Alt text is needed for all the images per #5 of FL Criteria.
  • Alt text has been added. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• A big deal was made about the First Nations tribes whose land was used for the venues. Would something about this be appropriate for the list or is it more suitable in an article about the venues?
  • I think it's more suitable for the more specific articles. This is really just meant to be a rundown of the venues.
• Otherwise everything is good and I will happily support once these issues are addressed. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 22:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Looks good, I am happy to Support. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was nearly happy last time round, and I'm actually happy now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Rather short, but I see no problems. Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 22 March 2010 [11].

---

List of Smithsonian museums

Nominator(s): Found5dollar (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on this list for a long time. I have gone through peer review and addressed all their concerns, and I feel that this list is finally at its finishing point (until a new museum is opened). This is my first time nominating anything for featured anything. I appreciate everyone time and input on this list.Found5dollar (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Two image-related issues: The satellite image (File:National mall (east) satellite view.jpg) is up for deletion on commons. Also, the image on {{Washington DC landmarks}} (a navbox at the page's bottom) needs alt text. Mm40 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok Fixed Both, used the USGS image of the mall, and i had the alt text in that navbox before, but some one removed the "Alt" parameter. I replaced it.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the satellite image, but the Washington Monument image still needs more descriptive alt text. "The Washington Monument" isn't helpful to blind readers. Mm40 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok brought it back to what i had originally put as an alt text. Another editor edited it down the "The Washington Monument" a while ago saying that it should be more simple. Apparently he was wrong.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Don't particularly like the reference to "museum" twice in the first sentence of the lead. "Additional museums are in ..." presumably you just mean the remaining museums? "Currently" and "(as of 2010)", don't need both. I'd stick with starting the sentence with just "As of 2010,.." I'd quite fancy a link to the US Mint. "The National Museum, which is now known as the Arts and Industries Building," You've already mentioned the A&I Building, so perhaps this explanation of an alternative name should go with the first mention. The first mention has "The Arts..." not "the Arts..." either way you should be consistent. "and have over 25 million people visit them " -> "and are visited by over 25 million people"? Picture column shouldn't be sortable. The empty picture cell would be best served to include an en-dash rather than leave it blank. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Ok i fixed all of your comments except for two. For the first, the two "museums" in the first sentence, i simply can not think of another way of stating this. Should i split it up into two different sentences? The second, the explination of the past name of the Arts and Industries building, I think moving that up to the first mention of the buildign will muddle the sentence. Also, with the first mention I am merley stating special circumstances surrounding two different buildings, while the second time i am getting into the history of the museums as a whole. I feel explaing the past name is more appropiate to the historical section. I can still move it if you disagree, but it is just my thoughts.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Continuing comments I know I haven't suggested an alternative, but six uses of "museum" in the opening paragraph still reads a little repetitively to me. Ok think i fixed this. reduced the number of "museums" in the lead paragraph--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "entire Smithsonian collection and offices" at this point, what was the "collection"? OK fixed this i think--Found5dollar (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) "of the Smithsonian Joseph Henry"perhaps a comma before Joseph. done--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "and another, The National Museum " (with The not part of the link) vs "the Arts and Industries Building" (with the not part of the link) - any reason for the odd capital T? No reason, just typo. Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "It was opened in 1881 to provide the Smithsonian with its first proper facility for public display of its growing collections" It, its, its... again, a little repetitive for my taste. Done--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "in their collections,[1] and and are " spot the rogue word? found it and removed it.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Are we sure the images of the buildings comply with the US's freedom of panorama? I looked into this and from what i understand. in the USA, pictures can be taken of any building so the majority of these pictures are fine.([12]). The only two that may pose a problem are the Hirshhorn and the National Air and Space museum since there are sculptures in the images. Since all these pictures were in Commons already i just assumed that they checked out ok. I will try poking around a bit more to find out for sure if they are ok to use. --Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Ok i asked here and i have been told that it seems to be ok. I will wait longer and see if anyone else has any problems with any other images.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) "the Washington Monument (1), The United States Capitol (7), the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial (8), and the United States Botanic Garden " (see above re:The or the). Fixed.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "more than 161 museums" 162? Just that 161 is a bit precise for a statement like this. Perhaps "more than 160"? ok. Went back to the source and changed it to what it says there.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Ref 5 seems to have a dead link (two days dead now, so not your fault). Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) There is absolutely no mention of that this is in the United States while discussion either the institution or its geographic location. Unfortunately, this type of systemic bias frequents Wikipedia, particularly in US-centric topics. Put this in the first sentence.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Can a more specific "willed" be established: to the federal government for instance? According to an excerpt of James Smithson's will (found here ) "In the case of the death of my said Nephew without leaving a child or children... I then bequeath the whole of my property subject to the Annuity of One Hundred pounds to John Fitall, & for the security & payment of which I mean Stock to remain in this Country, to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge among men." He was no more specific in the will then "The United States".--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) The history in the lead tends to overfocus on the establishment and less on the growth. I can not fix this right now, but i will add a paragraph or two tomorrow expanding on that.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) added more.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC) How is the location referenced? location is referenced on the page of each museum and is usualy evident in one of the two cites for either "type" or "year oppened". if it needs it's own cite i can do that easily. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Added refs.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Cooper–Hewitt should have an endash, not a hyphen. See WP:DASH fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I believe that the dash where the image is lacking should be an em, not an en. fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I find the additional museums almost an appendix. Perhaps it could be merged into the lead or something, or given a more prominent place. It does, after all, constitute an exception to the list, and should therefore be presented before the list itself. moved section into the headdign of the "Museums" section. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) A most enjoyable list. Brings back fond memories of the couple of days I spent wandering among the museums while visiting DC. Arsenikk (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support seems in good shape to me...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me as well. Jimknut (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support my comments addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Excellent list. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 13:58, 20 March 2010 [13].

---

List of Major League Baseball home run champions

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As per KV5's new nomination below, here's my first piece of a planned MLB FT. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments You use the phrase "home run" before you link it... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) "Hall hit 5 home runs" why not "five home runs"? Fixed, I'd just gotten used to the double-digit numbers. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) "22 season" would hyphenate. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) "mark of 60 stood for over thirty years until Roger Maris hit 61 " that thirty could be 30? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC) " Finally Barry Bonds, who also has " - Not keen on "Finally..." Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Changed to "Most recently". Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) " lead a major league was 4, " Four You have "player" and "runner-up" Why not "winner"? In both cases there appears to be multiple winners, so surely "runner(s)-up" for instance. Changed both. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Babe Ruth's caption: En dash not hyphen. Four not 4 Same for Pike & Hines caption. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Schmidt's caption - home runs 8 times - eight times. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) What constitutes a "major league" in this context? A league with major-league-level records recognized by Major League Baseball, as sourced by the inclusion in the Major League sections of Baseball-Reference. The Texas League and the Grapefruit League are parts of MLB but not "major" (in the sense of highest level of professional sport, they are minor/training leagues) and Nippon Professional Baseball is the highest level of Japanese baseball but is not a part of MLB. And I fixed the 4. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Is there a note with a reference or a link you can use to stop me asking the question again? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Not directly. Take Al Spalding. He is listed at a similar FLC right now, List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions, as he led the National Association in several seasons. MLB.com doesn't always list this league, for example their no-hitter page only discusses the NL and AL. However Spalding has a player page that recognizes those seasons, and he is listed in his place with the third lowest career ERA. Would you accept this? Hardball Times is a pretty well-recognized source, they put out annual books, etc, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC) It's definitely a good start. I think my basic question is "how do you define what you consider to be a "major league" when most of us non-experts just associate that with "Major League" if you get my drift..." Anything based on RS which supports your choice is fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 08:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, no more complaints from me on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I know zero re:baseball but wasn't there a huge kerfuffle over the fact that Barry Bonds should (or even does) have an asterisk next to his records for various reasons?

• This is the one thing I was uncertain about with this list. Should any (and if so to what degree) mention be made of Banned substances in baseball and their relation to this list. Many players on this list have connections to performance enhancing drugs ranging from being blatently caught by the testing program (Palmeiro, Manny), to admission (ARod, McGwire), to federal cases (Bonds, Tejada), to heavy suspicions (Sosa). The so-called "asterisk" (a favorite of vandalism on baseball articles like this) is the notion that "cheater" records should be marked to separate "pure" numbers of the past from these. But, for example, Tom House, a 1960s/70s pitcher (far before the usually discussed late-80s start for this drug use) openly admits to steroid use and says many were already using. Heck he was Hank Aaron's teammate and caught one of his famous home runs over the wall! And Roger Maris drew criticism at the time for breaking the-then heralded record of Babe Ruth, because he played on a 162 game schedule (and needed them all to break the mark by 1) while Ruth only had 154. This is the subject of the film 61*. I just don't know how much, if any, of this stuff should be included. Perhaps a general statement after noting the recent rash of 50+ HR seasons like "Some have pointed to the rise of performance enhancing drugs in baseball in the so-called "Steroid era" as the cause of this rise in home runs" followed by many sources? I just don't know if that belongs here, plus then why is that more notable than 162 vs. 154 games, or live vs. Deadball era? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• As I said, I know nothing. But it would be interesting to hear from others. I think there may need to be something but as of yet, I'm not sure exactly what. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Frankly, I can't think of a way to resolve the drug question in this list. However, I do think a nice addition to this this would be some stats like number of games played that season, or home runs per game or home run every # at bats.—NMajdan•talk 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• It would just come down to arbitrary choices, though, and doesn't pertain to the simple thing this list models which is "Who hit the most home runs?" Why games and not at-bats? Why at-bats and not plate appearances? And adding much more would make the table a bit too big, IMO. I discussed this back when we started with KV5 and my suggestion was that largely no other stats are really directly connected enough to be clearly needed. Maybe losses on the wins list, or caught stealing on a stolen bases list, but for the most part the inclusion of other numbers would be an arbitrary choice. My earlier work on .400 OBPers has just OBP and plate appearances (the unit of measurement for OBP and the standard for inclusion on the "career" list). Not batting average, or walks, or other kinda-related-but-not-directly stats. As for drugs, yeah... Like I said, maybe a generic sentence? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• While I don't think its absolutely required, I think noting the number of games played in that season is appropriate. It gives context to the information: it doesn't state that any particular performance is more or less remarkable, but gives the reader an opportunity to decide for themselves. I know that it's a different sport so different things might be right or wrong for it, but when cricketing record lists are displayed (both in the wider community on websites and TV coverage, and on Wikipedia such as List of Australia Test cricket records) that sort of context is given: lists of most runs scored in a career/season/tournament/etc are generally displayed with the number of innings/matches played in that time frame. (Given the numbers involved they also show the average for the player, but I don't think that part applies quite as well here.)
• And on the drugs question: given that the records are recognised (or not) by MLB, until or unless they start denoting records with asterisks, sad faces or anything else, I would think that any such notation by an editor here would likely be a case of WP:ORIGINAL, and if it wasn't that because the notation was sourced from who knows where, then I'd think that would be in breach of WP:VERIFY and probably also WP:NPOV.  Afaber012  (talk)  23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mkay, I'll add the games column later tonight. As for drugs, I completely agree on no markings (since there is no official marking). The real question, IMO, is if steroids should be mentioned at all, even in a boilerplate statement not mentioning names like "Some have suggested that the use of performance enhancing drugs have affected the performance of some hitters on this list." Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I said earlier, I know nothing about baseball so I wasn't sure if Bonds' records were officially marked or not. I would agree that if they're not, it would be incorrect to note it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pike & Hines double image is showing very strangely on FF 3.6, a large amount of whitespace to the right of the pair of images before the frame. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) Alt text You should not describe things that aren't actually shown in the image, like the writing on Barry Bonds' uniform. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Same goes for the writing on Babe Ruth's cap. (The characters are so small that I had to open the file's page in order to read them.) Ok, but it is there... Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "he is holding a baseball upward." - This is supposed to be a baseball bat, right? Yeah, fixed, many of these alt issues come because I largely just grabbed the image code from other FLCs and stuck on new captions. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Again, the character on Jimmie Foxx's cap is really hard to read. If a detail is not prominent on the picture, it should not be prominent in the alt text. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "looks out having taken a left-handed baseball swing." - This is more of an interpretation than a description. In what way? He's a left-handed batter in the clear stance which follows a left-handed swing. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) That he is "a left-handed batter" and that he is standing "in the clear stance which follows a left-handed swing" are two pieces of information that I wouldn't have derived from that picture even if I had stared at it for hours. The alt text goes even a step further by stating that the man "ha[s just] taken a left-handed baseball swing". Could he not have stood there for half a minute, posing for photographers? Is there no other way he could have gotten into that stance? Goodraise 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Altered. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC) "A Hispanic man walking while shouting at someone out of the picture." - Misses a comma after walking. What follows after that comma is, again, too interpretative. Fixed, another copied alt issue. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "holding both hands up preparing to catch a ball." - Missing a comma after up. Suggest adding "as if" after the comma to avoid interpreting the image. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) On his picture, Mike Schmidt is wearing a cap. Whether or not he has a "receding hairline" is not visible. Fixed. Yay alt copying! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "The bat is behind him over his right shoulder." - From what I can tell, it's above his left shoulder. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "the back of his jersey reads 'McGwire'" - See above. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "His white uniform reads "Orioles" across the chest (obscured)." - See above. Adding "(obscured)" doesn't make the alt text any better. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "Baseball card of a man in a white baseball uniform, black socks, and black shoes holding a baseball bat against his chest." - The picture is monochrome. What if the actual uniform was gray and dark-blue? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "Text on the bottom reads 'CONNOR, N.Y's.'" - This sentence leaves the reader who has to rely on the alt text with the false impression that there is no other writing on the bottom of the card than this. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (I strongly suggest and ask that you read WP:ALT before fixing these issues.) Several alt texts suggest that the person shown is African American. That is something that cannot be seen on a picture. Goodraise 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC) General There are several links to disambiguation pages. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "Links to the corresponding "year in baseball" or "Major League Baseball season" article" - This strikes me as very awkward. I think you should describe what is in the column, not where the text links to. Removed all-together. "Year" is self-evident. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC) In "Philadelphia Athletics (NL)", what is the "(NL)" denoting? Whatever it is, if it is worth noting, is it not worth noting in prose form? It is to separate the short-lived National League team (NL) from the very old and still existing Philadelphia Athletics (who have become the Oakland Athletics). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I see, but why use this cryptic form over an explanation in prose form? Goodraise 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Better? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC) "The American League was established in 1901, and Hall of Fame second baseman Nap Lajoie led that league with 14 home runs for the American League Philadelphia Athletics." - No comma. Suggest changing the sentence to "In 1901, the American League was established and led by Hall of Fame second baseman Nap Lajoie with 14 home runs for the American League Philadelphia Athletics." Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "The most recent champions are Albert Pujols in the National League with Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira sharing the title in the American League." - Suggest changing to to "The most recent champions are Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira, sharing the title in the American League, and Albert Pujols in the National League." Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "29 (1919) then 54" - Missing a comma before the then. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "Most recently Barry Bonds" - Misses a comma after recently. Also, "Most recently" is somewhat redundant to the "current", which appears later in the sentence. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "more home runs-Greg Vaughn" - Use an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash instead of the hyphen. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Hate to be overly pedantic, but you used an unspaced en dash. Goodraise 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) No problem. Giving it another go, the various dashes are one thing that still tend to trip me up. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC) "A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times, with 24 of these seasons occuring since 1990." - Suggest changing this to "A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times. Of these seasons, 24 occurred since 1990." Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) No concerns on image licensing and the sources are looking good too. However, I'll oppose for now. Goodraise 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Switching to neutral. Going to give the article another pass before supporting. Goodraise 13:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

*"A man looks on after swinging at a golf ball with a club." - Again, this is too interpretative. I see no ball and no club. Even if I did, I couldn't tell that he had just swung. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Many of the alt texts insufficiently describe "what the person looks like." Weak support. Though the alt texts have room for improvement, the list as a whole meets the criteria. Goodraise 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I honestly have no idea how to meet that alt text suggestion. I mean, look at the first example of improved alt text, "serious and dignified woman in her forties". How is that not interpretive? You don't know her age, and serious and dignified are 100% interpretations. Plus about 90% of these photos are just guys in baseball jerseys, not sure how to delineate based on things you can see in a thumbnail. Fixed your other comment. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:ALT#Neutrality may be of help. Goodraise 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Again, that just doesn't make any sense to me. The so-called "flawed" alt text is a far more NPOV statement of the image than the "improved" one. Stating it's the artist isn't something you see in the picture, nor is his youth, nor the "ill-kempt" nature of his hair, nor the nature of his expression. The so-called better alt text is filled to the rafters with the exact problems you just had me remove of interpreting the image. If you can provide specific examples of pictures you want fixed, great, but this is just making the whole thing more confusing to me, not less. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC) May I ask you something? Have you actually read WP:ALT? I mean, have you read it from top to bottom? Goodraise 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I've read lots of it, but not all. I'm happy to fix up alts, but this is how I've always written them so more specific pics you take issue with would help. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Hi Goodraise. I don't consider myself an alt text expert by any stretch of imagination, but I think I've mastered it to a pretty good extent. I looked at the alt text of each of the images, and found only one glaring error, which I've fixed (see WP:ALT#Provenance). I too think that at this point it would be helpful if you could offer advice for specific alt texts. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry guys. If my EPD (edits per day) was as high as it used to be, I'd be happy to indulge you, but seeing as it's not and considering that I'm already in support of this nomination, I'll only say this: Go and study WP:ALT. Unlike some other guidelines, ALT is actually worth reading. Regards, Goodraise 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Last remaining issue has disappeared after recent changes to WP:ALT. Goodraise 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Several pics show "modern pics" such as Mike Schmidt's. Get what I'm saying: The "modern" pic of Mike Schmidt -- playing golf -- is not pertinent, I repear, NOT PERTINENT to the article. Please post pics of players AS PLAYERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.123.49 (talk • contribs)

• Obviously if we had a period picture I would use it. But until then this does at least show something about what he looks like, which is certainly pertinent. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• To comment on the hot-button issue here, I don't think there's a good way of incorporating the steriods mess. MLB hasn't issued any kind of asterisk on any of the totals and has shown no inclination that it will do so. As long as MLB lists their totals as valid, we pretty much have to go with them.
• "that the batter is able to circle all the bases, ending at home plate scoring himself and each runner who was already on base". Something seems off with the punctuation. Try moving the comma before" ending" to after "at home plate", and see if that looks better.
• The Players League is listed with an apostrophe in the Roger Connor card caption, but not in the table. Should be made consistent, whichever way it is. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Note I have not added the playing time as KV5 has not added it to ERA champions, and style should be consistent. I really don't think it belongs or is necessary, particularly for a counting statistic like this that does not even have a playing time qualifications. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I still think having another column indicating the number of games played would complement this list nicely. I don't think it would apply to the ERA column since ERA is already an average of sorts. If other editors disagree, then I'll support but I'd like to see a broader discussion.—NMajdan•talk 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC) But what does it tell you? If anything it's more pertinent to ERA because you have no idea what time period that ERA is over (is a 2.99 ERA over 150 innings more impressive than a 3.00 over 250?). What does playing time tell you about who hit the most home runs in a season? That is the only question asked, and thus the only question addressed by the list. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I could go either way with the ERA list, but that's for there not here. Something to indicate the frequency that the player in question hit home runs at (so showing games played or at bats/plate appearances) would be very useful. Having the runners-up listed seems to me to make it even more important: it either offers further proof to the winner's dominance by having the same or fewer games to reach his total, or (like with comparing winners from different seasons with differing schedule lengths) raises the possibility that had the runner-up had the same number of opportunities perhaps they would have been the winner. If at bats instead of (or in addition to) games, differences in schedule lengths might be counteracted by the reduction of at bats a guy got because he was hitting with so much power that he got walked more often. It establishes context, and provides a more meaningful basis for comparison. Without adding that extra column there would be room for interpretation such as "Player X hit 50 homers when he won, but Player Y only hit 25, so X was twice as good as Y", when the number of games for the respective players was not the same; X might have been three or four times as good because he had fewer games, or he might have been only slightly better or perhaps even worse because he had many more games. (Obviously I'm using "better" and "worse" as very simplistic judgments here.) I've generally found the difference between data and information to be context.  Afaber012  (talk)  00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC) There's also the difficulty of implementing this, though. There are numerous ties, for example, but not tied in playing time. It seems like all of this would be complex, time-draining, and ultimately only tell you something related to the list, not anything about the subject (who hit the most home runs). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I would think the simplest way of implementing it would be to have the numbers listed as "HR (GP)" or "HR (AB)". That way where there are ties, the extra context can still be supplied without a major overhaul of the entire table structure, just an extra row to the key at the top. By your argument, excluding the info because its related to the list and not about the subject, the team they played for, the runners-up and how many they hit should be removed as well. We're talking about this potentially being a featured list, and in my opinion without the context of the number of games played or at bats faced, the list would not truly meet WP:FL? 3A: "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". So are you saying put the data in parenthetically in the HR column, or a new column? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Parenthetically. That way there isn't as much hard work in adding two extra columns of data to each table, and keeps the format simple for when there are ties in leaders or runners-up. So it would look something like this: Year Winner(s) Total Team Runner(s)-up Runner(s)-up total Ref Year Player A 45 (140) Team A Player B 38 (139) [1] Year Player B 42 (140) Team B Player A Player C 35 (119) 35 (140) [2] And I've been thinking about the possibility of using at bats, plate appearances, or even something like their batting or slugging average as alternatives to games played: I think games played would be the best to use because it provides a way of comparing the results that doesn't itself introduce another concept that would need to be explained for non-baseball people. If someone doesn't understand the concept of a game played by a sports-person, then they will likely have difficulty with a lot of other concepts, whereas an at bat is something that even some baseball players need to have explained. (The number of guys and girls I've played with who didn't understand why their batting average didn't go up when they walked all three times they went to the plate in a game is pretty big.)  Afaber012  (talk)  03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Yeah, but games played are wildly inaccurate. You appear as a defensive replacement and you get a full game played even if you never bat. Plate appearances are perfect, but AB are the traditional measure and the requirement for other batting stats, so I'll use AB. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Then I'd make sure that in the key when you add in that part, you explain what an at bat is: "every time you go to bat, but don't walk or sac". (Obviously a slightly better prose form would be needed.)  Afaber012  (talk)  04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Wait, walks and sacrifices are excluded from at bat counts? I didn't know that. Well, that kinda changes things for me. With that, I think the proportion of home runs to at bats will be more disproportionate than it actually was. Even more so that counting games. Obviously, most home run leaders aren't usually just coming in for a defensive series.—NMajdan•talk 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) At-bats are the traditional measure of playing time. They are the qualification for batting titles. AB/HR is a common stat tracked by B-Ref. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note I have added playing time as requested. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco General Everything checks out fine from the tools in the toolbox. Lead A home run is scored when the ball is hit in such a way that the batter is able to circle all the bases ending at home plate, scoring himself and each runner who was already on base, with no errors by the defensive team on the play.-- that last part of the sentence is confusing, what is trying to be said? If you, for example, get safely to third base (a triple), but someone then starts bobbling the ball or whatever in a way that allows you to score that is scored as a triple and an error, not a home run, even though you round all the bases. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The most recent champions are Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira, sharing the title in the American League, and Albert Pujols in the National League. -- their stats should be noted, ie. home runs. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times. Of these seasons, 24 occurred since 1990. -- would you mean 'of these feats' instead? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Inconsistency with acronym usage in lead, you have one instance of the National League as NL while the others are spelled out. Yes. Because constant repetition makes for bad prose. Varied slightly to make it more readable. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Babe Ruth set the Major League Baseball single-season home run record four times, first at 29 (1919), then 54 (1920), 59 (1921), and finally 60 (1927). -- you mentioned him already before, so like the others, the sentence should be started with his last name instead of his full name.--Truco 503 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• What's the status on the remaining unresolved issues? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• The only unresolved issue is adding AB to the NL and other league results. I was actually going to do that right now! :) I'll cap my discussion on it and notify those involved when it's done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good!  Afaber012  (talk)  08:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:12, 19 March 2010 [14].

---

List of Milwaukee Brewers first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the description of a featured list. It is based on other featued "List of [MLB team] first-round draft picks" lists. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "two catchers were taken as well" "California follows closely with nine players" "Two Brewers first-round picks have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Robin Yount was elected in 1999 and Paul Molitor in 2004. The Brewers have retired Yount's number 19 and Molitor's number 4. Yount was named the American League Most Valuable Player in 1982 and 1989. Ryan Braun won the National League Rookie of the Year award in 2007." - since this is about draft picks, it would be nice to mention when all of these players were drafted. "Two Brewers first-round picks have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Robin Yount was elected in 1999 and Paul Molitor in 2004." - the second half is a sentence fragment. Change "Hall of Fame." (with a period) to "Hall of Fame:" (with a colon) to correct this. "The Brewers have failed to sign three of their first-round picks," - comma should be a colon General convention in these lists is that players who are still in baseball (i.e., if they are currently in the minor leagues) should be redlinked in case they do become notable at some point, even if they are not yet notable per WP:ATHLETE. You have outfielder everywhere except for one "centerfielder". If it's staying that way, it should be spaced, but they aren't differentiated anywhere else, so just change to outfielder. "for failure to sign" - should be for failing to sign; occurs twice in footnotes. Add a "See also" link to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players, which may (should) cover some of the draft picks who will be redlinked. Well done otherwise. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) All done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox check

• No dabs.
• No deadlinks.
• All images need alt text.

Will support once that's completed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text added to images. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Using a person's name in the alt text doesn't help a person who doesn't know what that person actually looks like. The alt text guideline, linked above, provides more insight into that. I'd read over that and then check it out again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You might use the alt text at List of New York Mets first-round draft picks, a recently promoted FL, as a model to write the alt text for this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think I've got the idea. How about now? NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Much better, though I think you've got a reference caught in Fielder's text. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back to the caption. Thanks. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Note a doesn't work for me, currently. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, is wrong with it? I'd fix it, but don't know how. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cap error. Fixed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, it worked for me before and after KV's fix. NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another addition to the family! Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I read the list and cannot offer a way to improve it. Well done! Royalbroil 02:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Found no problems here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Under Safari, "Pick" doesn't sort correctly after year is selected in ascending order. Once again this could be me being too strenuous on checking the sorting and having an odd browser but hey... How do you know that's a batting lineup card in the alt text? Would expect the pitchers to sort together, I don't believe there's a position called "right-handed pitcher" - it's just Pitcher so you need to {{SortKey}} these fellas... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I haven't expereinced any soring problems in IE8 or Chrome. I removed the part about the lineup card and changed the sort so pitchers are together. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) No I'm sure IE8 and Chrome are fine, but as I'm sure you're aware, not everyone in the interweb uses those two niche browsers (!)... perhaps you could attempt to replicate the problem, although I'm not sure it's possible for a PC user to do this... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I checked it out in Safari. I haven't the slightest clue of how to fix it. Just click the "pick" sort button three times after sorting by year. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Perhaps drop a note in at Help talk:Sorting? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I added {{sort}} to every number in the "pick" column. Now Safari doesn't put them in some crazy order like it did before. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Works for me. Well done for persevering. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:35, 20 March 2010 [15].

---

List of Texas A&M Aggies head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 coach list #5. I think I've made all the necessary fixes for this one. Time for the true test...—NMajdan•talk 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

*Quick comment - you'll need to work on the sorting. #12 & #13 seem to sort out of order per term, CT sorting ends up with two lines of some info (#26, #27) then about 8 lines of en-dashes, then the rest. Check each col carefully per Safari, IE7 etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) AHHH! I even checked Safari! The term thing was something I didn't even notice when I created the list. The CFBDW source had the terms, but I didn't notice that one coach's term was actually inside of another coach's. Checking my other source, I found the issue. The list has been corrected. Still trying to identify the CT sorting issue, which I am not seeing in Safari on Windows. It's sorting the en dashes, then zeros, then numbers as it should. #26 & #27 are en dashes, so not sure why you explicitly mentioned them.—NMajdan•talk 22:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I still get an odd effect when sorting by, say, PW. I get #s 11, 12, 14, 20, 17, 19 (C% from .600 to .250 in descending order), then I get #'s 1 to 10 (em-dashes in the C% col), then I get #s 18, 27, 26 etc (with C% seemingly randomly ordered). I get a similar effect when ordering by most of the post-season cols. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Again, it looks fine in Safari on Windows. There is literally no way for me to replicate this issue to resolve. It is using the same method of sorting as all my other coach lists. Might I suggest you try this?—NMajdan•talk 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC) You can suggest that, sure. I prefer Safari. I guess this issue won't be resolved, so I'll leave this uncapped, and provide a further review at some point in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I've posed the question again at the village pump. Hopefully, we'll get some help.—NMajdan•talk 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC) An editor at the VP has been unable to replicate the sort issue in Safari. Says it looks fine to him.—NMajdan•talk 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I just used Safari to look at the list (on a Mac), and I was also unable to replicate any problems. Jujutacular T · C 17:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NThomas

Comments Shouldn't the first mention of the Southwest Conference be wikilinked in the lead? Fixed Oldag07 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Not really important, just my taste in words but, I would have used charter member instead of original member when talking about the joining/forming the Southwest Conference. Fixed Oldag07 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC) known as Texas A&M College Before the school changed their name to Texas A&M Univeristy, it was Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas and abbriviated as Texas A.M.C. not Texas A&M College. Also, there seems to be a theme that when Texas A.M.C is mentioned in other TAMU articles that it links to History of Texas A&M University Fixed Oldag07 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC) ...Since my List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches's FL nomination was closed and our discussion about how to incorporate/whether to include interim head coaches was never resolved, lets continue it here. I still believe that any interim head coaches should be included on these lists as the games they coached are still counted as wins and losses. Your statistics in the lead reflect that interims should be counted as HCs as the overall number of games played is incorrect without the interim's coached games. Also on lists like List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches still include an entry where the was no official head coach even though it is a coaches list and not a season-by-season list. Adding an Int. between Franchione and Sherman won't compromise the other coaches but instead, reflect the real record with Darnell's bowl game. This one too. prefer to wait for the creator of the page to sort this out. Oldag07 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I still disagree, but I guess I don't care enough to continue debating it. I'll add Darnell.—NMajdan•talk Keep up the good work! NThomas (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC) TAMU was never part of the Big Eight Conference but you still have it linked to Big Eight Conference football in the lead and table when talking about Slocum's CoY awards. Even in the citations, it's mentioned as the SWC. I would prefer the person who put the source in to fix this Oldag07 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, this was my fault. Got in the habit of dealing with Big 8 teams. Changed this to SWC.—NMajdan•talk 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC) TAMU has played 1,155, not 1,154 games as as Gary Darnell coached one bowl game as an interim head coach which ties in with... According to my source, its 1154. And this is the first article where I have given the exact number as opposed to saying "more than 1,100". Maybe I should revert back to that method.—NMajdan•talk My mistake. I just assumed that Darnell's bowl game wasn't included. I went ahead and checked and all 1,154 games are there. For what its worth, the list will have to be made annually anyway, so I wouldn't worry about 1,154 vs. >1,100 in the lead. I prefer the way you have it on this one with the exact number. NThomas (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - Everything looks good now. NThomas (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks great, good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments - besides the odd sorting above, some other things: The list is not sorted in order to start with - #12 and #13 are the wrong way round. Fixed an issue in the previous review and these numbers got off without my notice. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk C% doesn't sort correctly in Firefox 3.6 - Darnell with his .000 sorts before the en-dashes, then onto Stiteler. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk Any reason Bachman isn't linked in the lead? Nope, just missed it. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk "the worst coach" POV - perhaps, the least successful? I believe I'm neutralizing any POV with the prefacing "in terms of winning percentage."—NMajdan•talk You don't mention what "Int" is, nor do you comment that the Aggies have had 27 coaches plus one interim coach. It is also worth noting why this is an "interim" position. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk Note 1 isn't referenced (and I'd prefer to see notes as A, B, C etc so they aren't confused with references but that's a personal preference so no big deal) Its actually covered by the general references. Can I have a reference in both the general and specific references? Which regards to your other issue, the notes are labeled [A 1], [A 2]... so I think that helps readers avoid confusion.—NMajdan•talk Not a major issue for me, just couldn't see easily where it was referenced. I wouldn't object to a specific reference being used as a general ref too, but no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 1 needs an en-dash. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "with a 6–1 record (.857) his only year." missing a word? No. Try removing the parentheses when you read it: "with a 6-1 record his only year." Sounds fine to me.—NMajdan•talk No. I see it could make some sense, it's not good English (a year doesn't equate to a score) but adding "in" makes it absolutely indisputable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Easy enough. Done.—NMajdan•talk Is the Aggies nickname referenced anywhere, in particular the first year of its use? I can get references for the nickname (thankfully, there is already a lot of Featured TAMU content), but I have searched and nothing indicates the first year of use. The term Aggie derived from "agriculture" as in Texas Agriculture & Mechanical University. The term is common for a lot of schools that began primarily focused on agriculture, so I'm sure the nickname was born out of convenience and not decided by a governing body. Just a guess.—NMajdan•talk It's just that you have the statement "..started playing organized football in 1894 with the nickname Aggies." i.e. you're asserting they've been called Aggies since day 1, in 1894. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I see that. But, again, I can't find anything that has the origin of the name Aggies, so maybe I should just remove that part of the sentence.—NMajdan•talk 20:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Sure. A reword would work fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) OK. I reworded to remove the inference that the nickname has been around since the beginning. Now I'm just saying what the nickname is. Let me know if this works for you.—NMajdan•talk 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work on my comments. Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Found no problems with the list when I went through it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:12, 19 March 2010 [16].

---

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meet all the criteria for a featured list and is the next in the Medal of Honor recipient lists to meet this criteria. Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Why is South Vietnam linked over and over again, and a lot of the provinces and cities are not? Even when pages exist. Surely you can't just avoid redlinks by choosing not to link? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will look at adding more link for the provinces. Although having red links on a page isn't in itself bad, I also don't think we should create a sea of red links for provinces which may never have an article created. --Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "occurred from " not sure I like the use of occur here, I guess it's picky (I feel occur is like an instantaneous thing) but would "took place" be acceptable? No big deal. Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) "The term Vietnam Conflict is often used to refer to events which took place between 1959 and April 30, 1975." this seems to be repetitive... Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) "United States supported" needs a hyphen to be consistent. Done I think. --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Don't see the point at all of having sortable tables which are then split by letter. Further annoying because the cols change width from section to section. Done - I combines all the tables into one. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Don't think "west of Da Nang" should sort by "w", perhaps by "d" would be more useful. Same with instances of "near...". Please check all others. I can't seem to remember how to do this, could you point me to a list --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What's "a satchel charge"? Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) "extreme heroism", "extraordinary efforts" etc - unless these are direct quotes (which then need ref) they're somewhat floral. These are mostly direct quotes but I'll clean them up. The references for all the comments are in the notes column header. Do I need to add it next to each quote as well? Seems kinda unecessary since the same ref applies to all of them. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) "August 26, 1967-March 4, 1973" check WP:DASH for the correct dash. Done --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) "to aide critically wounded" isn't that just "aid"? Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Refs 5 & 6 need en-dash. Done --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I also noticed I missed some alt text on some of the images so Ill fix that as well. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) "himself" (see my PC comment on the other MoH review). On this one, there has only been one female and she was a civilian during the civil war Mary Walker who later had her award rescinded and then had it given back about 90 years later. Other than that one case they are all men and although the medal rules don't specifically say a woman can't recieve it its extremely unlikely to happen. In order to receive the medal it must be received in a combat situation and women are not currently eligible for combat military specialties. With that said there are a lot of women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan so it is possible that it could happen. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I think this should become a (useful) footnote on these lists... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Done - I have added a cleaned up version of the note to the Vietnam and boxer rebellion lists and I will add it to the other lists by the end of today. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Good but refs needed for both the female recipient and the current status of females serving in combat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Ok, but to me this is really steering a long way off the subject. I am thinking that removing the quote and rewording the Medal of Honor explaination might be more appropriate. Otherwise we risk diluting the explaination with a bunch of info and references that pertain only loosely to the message...IMO --Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It may be off the subject to a degree but your assertion that it is awarded only to males is not strictly true, and being an encyclopedia, all I'm hoping for is a complete and correct picture of the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Could you take a look at the new wording and see if its more accurate?--Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Speaking strictly for myself, I would like to see an inline citation for each of the individuals in their respective notes tab within the table. If you can show me that this requirement is not necessary for a featured list I will rethink my position on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

again the notes in the column applies to all the individuals. Also for this one, this list is very large and adding text to each row isgoing to add a lot of extra bytes. --Kumioko (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'll accept the length grounds on this one since its long, although this is an exception and not a rule. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Communist–supported and United States-supported Using two different dashes. I think the hyphen is more appropriate here. Done --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Also, please explain to me the {{ACMH}} template. This is the first time I've seen it and I feel it falls short of adequate sourcing. I'd like to see something more specific and where this data came from. Its just a hatnote stating that some information may be from the Army Center for Military History. The references refering to this also pertain to this. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, it seems the list is covered under references 5 & 6.—NMajdan•talk Marvin R. Young needs the reference in the note column properly formatted. Done I removed this reference. It was a poor one. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) A suggestion and maybe other reviewers can voice there opinion on this. Maybe use a hidden sort key in the Rank column to sort by, instead of alphabetically, by actual rank. So, for example, instead of 1) Captain, 2) Colonel, 3) Lt Colonel, and 4) Major it would be 1) Captain, 2) Major, 3)Lt Colonol, and 4) Colonel. Thats a good point I will look into that and leave a comment here when I am done. It shouldn't take long. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, great. Again, this won't affect my eventual support or opposition, but I think it would be a better sort order.—NMajdan•talk Already done - I checked and it already sorts by rank vice rank name. Its kinda confusing though because different ranks mean different things for different services. For example a Captain in the Army, air force and Marines is an 03. A captain in the navy and coast guard is an 06. --Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I think you need another source in the first paragraph of the lead. Lot of statistics there with no references. Done I can't find a reference so I removed it. I will try and put it back at some point in theh future if I can find a suitable reference. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Thomas R. Norris and Delbert O. Jennings have minor capitalization issues. Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Is there a more appropriate cite template or format for the first reference? This is just a note and not really a reference. --Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Then it should probably be moved to a Notes section per WP:REFNOTE.—NMajdan•talk Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The recipient must have distinguished themselves at the risk of their own life recipient is singular but themselves and their are plural.

• Im a little confused at the problem here. This is worded correctly. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is it? Again, recipient is singular by the rest of the sentence reads as plural. I think recipient should also be plural.—NMajdan•talk

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some images are still missing alt text.

• Thanks I just noticed this earlier today myself. Not sure how I missed them other than there are just so many recipients. I should have that done in the next day or so. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Done All images now have alt text. --Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some notes have periods, others do not.

• This is because some notes are in full sentance form and others are too short to be a full sentance. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some, yes. But not all. For instance, Carlos J. Lozada and Andre C. Lucas have periods while Donald R. Long and Allen J. Lynch do not and yet they appear to be of very similar syntactical styles. At least, in my limited grammatical knowledge that appear the same.—NMajdan•talk

• Done I went through all the comments and cleaned a bunch of them. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• absorbing the full blast with his body. ,He continued This note needs to be fixed and the second sentence needs a period. Later became a U.S. Senator Needs a period since its the second sentence in the note.—NMajdan•talk

• Done --Kumioko (talk)

—NMajdan•talk 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I am going out of town tomorrow and will be gone for a week so I wanted to provide my support for this article prior to leaving. My support is dependent on the above issues being resolved. I humbly ask the FL directors to verify that my requested changes have been made (unless other criticism of my review is raised) before counting my support.—NMajdan•talk 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What's the status on NMajdan's final comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Done I just finished the last of them. --Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Truco

General

• Dabs, external links check out fine.
• Since User:Jwillbur had a fair amount of edits to the article, he should be contacted to inform him of this nomination.

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• There are a couple of images without alt text, as seen in the tool run in the toolbox.

Lead

• The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, Vietnam Conflict, and in Vietnam as the American War, took place from 1959 to April 30, 1975. -- why not have the other names in parenthesis? To prevent disruption of sentence flow with all the commas and names.

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Theres no direct link to a wiki article as to what the exact US foreign policy was in Vietnam at the war's conclusion?

• Thats an interesting point do you have any recommendations to an article to link too? --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• During the Vietnam War 246 Medals of Honor were received, 154 of them posthumously. -- comma after Vietnam War

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• He also led a group to defeat an enemy force causing them to retreat and leave behind 54 of their dead and many weapons including grenades. -- This is a bit confusing, did the enemy lose the dead and weapons, or did his group?

• Done I reworded it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thomas Bennett was a conscientious objector who received the medal for his actions as a medic[7] and three chaplains received it including Vincent R. Capodanno who served with the Marine corps and was known as the Grunt padre. -- comma before including

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

List

• I see a random |. and — above the table?

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Stephen Doane's entry is not formatted correctly.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: please check that the use of endashes is correct. I found a few that weren't, where endashes were used instead of hyphens. I've fixed a few, but it needs fresh eyes to find them. Endashes should be used for page and date ranges, as well as denoting interconnectedness. For adverbs, homophones, etc. hyphens should be used. (For example it should be hand-to-hand, not hand–to–hand; also it should be 42-man, not 42–man). Otherwise the list looks fine to me. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I fixed a couple based on your comments...I think but you might want to double check to make sure I didn't accidentally change one I shoudln't have. The whole endash or hyphen thing is still a bit fuzzy to me. --Kumioko (talk)
    • They look fine to me. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:12, 19 March 2010 [17].

---

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Boxer Rebellion

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next list in the Medal of Honor series of list that meets the Featured list criteria. I still have a few red links for articles that need to be created but I will have those done in the next couple days. Kumioko (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold

*Comments Hans Hansen has a } instead of a " in his note. Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Where are the cites for like 95% of these guys? I realize some FLs don't have it while others do, but what makes (for example) Harry C. Adriance get his own cite? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Done they are all cited. The citations are all the same so the citation is in the column heading rather than clutter up the table with extra bytes. The ones that are individually cited are those that are also mentioned on the Marine Corps whos who site and I identified them by exception because there are only a few. --Kumioko (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I know the language is just boilerplate from similar lists (such as Korean War), but is there any reasoning for the split between "is commonly awarded posthumously" and only one guy winning posthumously? What was different about this war? Was it not common practice at this point in time? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the commonly received posthumously partially comes from the MOH stats page, partially from the fact that the rules have changed over time to the point were in order for a person to recieve it they almost have to have been killed, comes from the fact that over time the rules a lot have been back then it was still pretty common for people to receive it. During this conflict it was still common to recieve it for non posthumous actions. I hope that helps to explain it a little. Also, the first part is intended to explain the medal itself and the second bit is more to explain the recipients from the conflict. --Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All articles for the recipients have been created. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Don't like the linking of Chinese and then China. Perhaps just unlink China. done --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "The uprising began..." followed by "They attacked..." - I think we've lost sight of the subject here? Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "was not helpful" can you provide context to this statement? Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "distinguishes himself " don't want to come over all PC but is it only awarded to men? On this one, there has only been one female and she was a civilian during the civil war Mary Walker who later had her award rescinded and then had it given back about 90 years later. Other than that one case they are all men and although the medal rules don't specifically say a woman can't recieve it its extremely unlikely to happen. In order to receive the medal it must be received in a combat situation and women are not currently eligible for combat military specialties in the US. With that said there are a lot of women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan so it is possible that it could happen. --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "Of the 59 recipients" no need to repeat 59 since the previous sentences made this clear. Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) " receive it posthumously was a marine named Harry Fisher, who was also the first marine ever to posthumously receive the Medal" reads clumsily for me, you repeat posthumous and marine and receive... any chance of a re-word? Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Why is Adriance's note referenced (and with capitals in the title, please make them lower case)? Done I did this because thats how it appears in the reference. I made it lower case though and I also changed the other one for Dan Daly--Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "Crossed the river in a small boat while under heavy fire he assisted in destroying buildings occupied by the enemy" needs some punctuation. And why this (and others, e.g. Daly, Fisher) have no direct quotation from his citation? Done --Kumioko (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC) " enemy at Tientsin, China, 20 June 1900" different date format from all the others. Done I reworded this--Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "he was thrice wounded" since this doesn't appear to be a direct quote, then "three times" would be more appropriate than "thrice"... Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "Repulsed an attack by 300 Chinese Imperialist soldiers and Boxer militants with a bayonet charge" presumably he led that charge rather than was that charge...? Done --Kumioko (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Further reading has a spare period (down to the template, no doubt)... Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Speaking strictly for myself, I would like to see an inline citation for each of the individuals in their respective notes tab within the table. If you can show me that this requirement is not necessary for a featured list I will rethink my position on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference is currently in the notes column heading and it applies to all the individuals. I can add it to each one but since the reference in the column heading applies to all of them, adding it to each and every row looks a bit cluttered. --Kumioko (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Here I think you could add the citations since length is not an issue; ive held this standard for A-class lists and after thinking it through I will hold to this standard for this list page since to me there really isn't a good reason not to. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Done - I still think its uneeded and makes the table look cluttered but its done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The use of citations just for the sake of it makes the table look cluttered, and there's precedence for F-lists to not have ind. citations if one fits all, therefore I suggest you get rid of the citations and write in the lead that [4] cites everything. Sandman888 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose from Truco General Alt text, contributors, external and dab links check out fine. Lead The Boxer Movement or Boxer Rebellion was a Chinese uprising from November 1899 to September 7, 1901, against foreign influence in areas such as trade, politics, religion and technology that occurred in China during the final years of the Manchu rule (Qing Dynasty). --> The Boxer Movement, or Boxer Rebellion, was a Chinese uprising from November 1899 to September 7, 1901, against foreign influence in areas such as trade, politics, religion and technology that occurred in China during the final years of the Manchu rule (Qing Dynasty). (In addition, is there no exact date for November '89?) Done I also went through the refs and cannot find a specific start date. They all mention November 1899. --Kumioko (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC) It began as an anti–foreign, anti–imperialist, peasant–based movement who attacked foreigners who were building railroads and violating Feng shui. -- the first who should be that Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) They also went after Christians they felt were responsible for the foreign domination of China. --> Christians who they felt were responisble for foreign domination of China were also targeted. Done--Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC) They also went after Christians they felt were responsible for the foreign domination of China. In June 1900, the Boxers invaded Beijing and killed 230 non–Chinese. -- non-chinese what? invaders? or just in general? Just in general, if they lived there and werent chineses they were subject to retaliation. --Kumioko (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Before it ended tens of thousands of Chinese Christians, Catholic and Protestants were killed, mostly in the Shandong and Shanxi provinces. -- Comma before tens Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) The government of Empress Dowager Cixi gave her support to the boxers causing foreign diplomats, civilians, soldiers and even some Chinese Christians to retreat to the legation quarter. -- what was the legation quarter (link? explanation?) DoneI added a link --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC) During the Boxer rebellion 59 American servicemen received the Medal of Honor for their actions. -- comma before 59 Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Be consistent with numbers, per MOS:NUM. You have instances of digits greater than 10 as fifty-five and 59. (the only exception to spelling out in this case would be for sentences that start with numbers.) Done--Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Add an overall summary and overview of the list, ie. who was the first recipient, last, other notable recipients. I would have done this however the recipients for this action received them in groups so there was no first last or middle recipient. Most recieved it for the same days, and the medal was presented on the same days. If you have some suggestion as to some notable thing to call out specifically please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Table The table looks very stretched and some columns don't present the info really well. I would say decrease the size of the notes column and expand columns like the 'place of action' I don't understand the problem here. It looks ok on my computer using IE8. --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC) The use of near doesn't fly by me, unless is it being used by the ref? If so, explain what it means in a footnote and why its not considered in the actual location. Not sure why there is a problem with this this one. If you are referring to the near in the table for the locations that is from the reference and I think it describes as accurately as possible where the action took place. If the action didnt take place in the city, then they typically say near. The references usually don't get as specific as saying something like in a wooded field one mile south east of the city of X. They just say near. In some cases other more detailed biographies might get into that detail, but in most cases they don't or it hasn't been done. --Kumioko (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 4 is used a lot, make it a general reference. (See this example) Cannot do this - I completely agree with you about the reference issue and in fact I previously only had the reference in theh column of the table to denote that it applied to all. User TomStar protested and required me to change it. Based on this I cannot change this until a consensus has been reached about which is more appropriate. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC) That's incorrect, why would the current version be correct? The same reference is used more than 26 times, which is the purpose of the WP:REF#General reference.--Truco 503 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Further reading Is this used as a ref in the article or just a see also type link?--Truco 503 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Yes this is just a reference that contains more info about some of the individuals. --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC) But its not being used to source info in the article right?--Truco 503 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- --Truco ₅₀₃ 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments anti–foreign, anti–imperialist, peasant–based and non–Chinese Per WP:HYPHEN, these should be hyphens, not dashes. Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I made a comment on another FLC regarding the ordering of the Rank column. While not a requirement, I would like to suggest it here as well. Ok, the sort seems to be working correctly as far as I can tell. Again, the problem you encounter is that the ranks differ from service to service so its a little confusing. --Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• "[D]istinguished himself by meritorious conduct" Served under the name of Henry W. Davis. I think you need some type of punctuation after the closed quotation whether a period or semicolon.
• I actually disagree with the need for the same source to be used on every single line. I have worked on various sports-related FLs (like this one) and I get by with separating out General references, which apply to the whole list and more specific ones that back up a certain statement. Frankly, I think having nearly every column header and every note tagged with the same reference looks bad. Having General references does not violate WP:FL? and WP:SAL nor does is violate my interpretation of WP:FOOT and WP:CITE.
  • I agree the problem is that another reviewer feels the opposite so the dilemna I face is do I leave them in place to get the first reviewers support or remove them. --Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of improvements have been made to this list over the course of the nomination.—NMajdan•talk 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I am going out of town tomorrow so my editing will be very limited if not non-existent for a week so I want to offer my support for this article before I left town. My weak support is due both to the one outstanding punctuation issue above as well as the reference issue that is being discussed. One editor feels that the same source should be used 50+ times while I am in support of simply using it as a general reference. However, I understand that the editor feels he cannot undo this sourcing change in fear of losing the support of the other reviewer. I have brought this up on the FLC talk page so hopefully other reviewers will voice their opinion on the matter.—NMajdan•talk 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would also advocate the removal of the general reference from each and every line. It looks, frankly, stupid. Even if you have to say in words that, for instance "citations are derived from reference [4]" (if you get my drift) then it's a whole heap better than using the reference dozens and dozens of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Done based on repeated arguments against the use of the reference repeatedly in the table I have eliminated it to one instance and added a comment to the reference itself explaining it relates to all data in the table. If I need to further clarify please let me know. -Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be presented better as a general reference like in the article I mentioned above.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done I moved it as you suggested. I think. --Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not quite, but I fixed it for ya.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Much better with only one reference. Regarding layout, I'd go with the occasional picture on the right/left instead of an almost empty column, but that's a matter of taste. Sandman888 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2010 (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 Gimmetrow 18:26, 16 March 2010 [18].

---

List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I can just hear the groans... because another MLB featured topic is soon to be forthcoming. This is the first list in the set. Trust us, this one's not as huge (seven lists only, and shouldn't have any last-minute rush jobs). Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments (and they'll be picky, but there you go...) Call me picky, yes, I know but the phrase "ERA" appears 21 times in the lead. And a quick "blurred" look at the lead shows this is quite repetitive (screw your eyes up a bit and see how many patterns like ERA you can see). Any way at all this could be reduced? maybe just use "average" instead of ERA on a few occasions? "Average" is a bad choice because it usually refers to batting average (usually abbreviated AVG). I would actually prefer that many of these are expanded to the full "earned run average" instead but I know that will be frowned upon by a lot of reviewers (why, I don't know). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Ok, I understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC) "of 1.82 is the best mark in the history " perhaps USEng, but I'd prefer "of 1.82 is the lowest in the history"? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Walsh's career ERA doesn't appear to be specifically referenced. Forgive my ignorance, but what's the inclusion criteria for "Other major leagues"? Non-minor professional leagues as defined by the second general reference. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1888 Seward vs King, I'm guessing there's a 2 instead of a 3 here? Actually, I just missed one in a copy-and-paste; changed the leader to 1.63 per the source. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Babe Ruth's caption mentions a change of position - is this referenced? In fact, could you check the claims in all captions are referenced? I wasn't sure where Joe Wood, for instance, was "one of thirteen pitchers who have won 30 games in a single season." All caption concerns above should be fixed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Excellent list though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Is there a suitable link for walk here for non-baseball readers? A walk is just another name for a "base on balls"; they are the same thing. If you prefer, I can pipe both terms to the same article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I think so, it's not 100% obvious to us non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Consider it done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – For the Al Spaulding image, there is no proof that the image was published before 1923, not merely created; the PD status of the photo depends upon this fact. Clicking the link provided leads to a dead Baseball Hall of Fame page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• All player pages at the Hall of Fame are down because they are re-designing their site and have been for several months now. I'll comment out the image for now, but that page should be able to establish the viability of that image when the site is back up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the Library of Congress has a free and HQ Spalding image available with a direct statement of when it was published (1910). Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fantastic fix, Stax, I'll get that uploaded and such ASAP. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support – That photo issue was the only one I found when reading the list, and it's now resolved. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Although it has never occured it is mathematically possible for two players to perfectly tie for the ERA lead. As such I would change the lead sentence to read "the league recognizes the player with the lowest earned run average" or something like that to remove the definite statement of one champion per league since that's not cited by anything. It's not a de jure rule, merely a de facto truth given the unlikliness of an ERA tie. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Abbreviate the leagues, perhaps, since you use the two league titles many times. Don't have to replace every instance, but would allow the prose to vary more. I agree, and would love to do so, but there are some editors/reviewers who would insist that the abbreviation be used every single time, which is why I choose not to use them (mentioned to TRM above, I believe). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) You already specifically note that what matters is that the runner reached base against the pitcher, but is it worth adding another short sentence to make it clear for the less baseball-knowledgable that they can score once the pitcher has been relieved? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I would change "count against the pitcher's ERA" to simply "count towards...". Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Should the qualifying requirements be mentioned, as per Rule 10.22b? As with McGwire and home runs there is an easy modern example, CC Sabathia did not lead the National League in ERA despite posting a 1.65 ERA because he only pitched 130.2 National League innings. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC) What about this? I think it needs mentioning. Also, I've said on the HR list I would include some measurement of playing time, so two things. First, should probably be done here as well. Second, should we do simply games or at-bats/innings pitched? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I really don't think it's necessary. With all of the information that's already in these lists, if a reader really wants that information, it's available at B-Ref. I don't want us to push the WP:INDISCRIMINATE boundaries. Qualifying stats are done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Searched, found, and destroyed. I blame Stax. :-) KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- another great list by the baseball wiz KV5 :) Nice work, I found no issues.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Major League Baseball recognizes the player in each league[a] with the lowest earned run average each season." I feel that this statement should come after the general explanation of ERA, perhaps in the beginning of the second paragraph. If Baseball-Reference gives the statistics rounded to two decimal places, what is the source for the three-decimal-place stats in the case of Lemon, Scarborough, Anderson and Higuera? The math formula: any reason why all of the words are capitalized ("Earned Runs Allowed" and "Innings Pitched")? I don't think those are proper nouns, so I doubt they need to be uppercase. What makes http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/is-it-the-nl-al-hall-of-fame-or/ a reliable source? "currently 162 innings/162 games" Two things: 1) "currently" is vague and dates easily (as of when?); 2) slashes are generally deprecated in prose (see MOS:SLASH), the word "per" would work better here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Have done the first, third, and fifth comments. The second was calculated from their individual pages at Baseball-Reference, a routine calculation as per WP:OR#Routine calculations. The fourth, I can't particularly answer, as I didn't add it. Perhaps Staxringold can provide more information? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC) They are a highly notable source within the field staffed by experts who put out an annual print publication. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) However this Baseball-Reference page follows what many others say that the National Association was not a Major League. I'm going to remove and resource the HR list per this page (from our regular source) which agrees with most other things I can find. I'd suggest KV5 do the same, but I'll leave that to him. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Have done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 16 March 2010 [19].

---

Dickin Medal

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I just love the subject matter. An insight into the soft head of The Rambling Man I guess. The list, as I found it, was incomplete, but contained some decent starting material. I have made the list comprehensive, added an infobox and an image (with alt text), checked for dabs, made a sortable table of all recipients and, wherever possible, provided reliable secondary sources for recipients. Per my typical preamble, I'll do whatever I can, whenever I can to assure the community the list is of featured quality. I humbly submit it to your good selves and thank you in advance for time spent reviewing, commenting and making it part of our finest work (hopefully)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 As I mentioned at WT:FLC, I can't wait to review this list, so I'll dive right in: Many references to "Alsation"; is this supposed to be Alsatian? Yes. I can't speel. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I would like to see the animal breeds linked if possible, as they provide information for those who don't know, for example, what a wire-haired terrier looks like. All linked now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I don't know if breed names are supposed to be capitalized or not; MOS:CAP says both styles are acceptable, so I guess we're fine there, unless someone else agrees with me that they'd prefer lowercase. All uppercase right now, which happens to be the same as all the pages I visited for each breed. Happy either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Lots of punctuated sentence fragments. When you have two fragments in a cell, the correct punctuation would be a semicolon between them when the periods/full stops are removed. Fragments fixed per your suggestion, I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "assistie in the rescue" - should this be assisted or assisting? Yep, picked that up as I was going along. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) In "G.I. Joe" - "Flew 20 miles in as many minutes, delivered a message" - I think delivered should be delivering, which would make the prose flow better in this fragment format Corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, and thanks for your encouragement and time spent reviewing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A big old honkin' support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

*Comments (after (edit conflict)) Any particular reason that both Alsation and German Shepherd are used? If it's Commonwealth vs RoW, should Sam (army dog) and Lucky be Alsatians? (related: Wasn't Sam part of the RAVC and just assigned to the Canadian Regiment?) Only one is used now, Alsatian... (I was following the PDSA's citations by the way...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Should some of the entries be red links as they appear to be notable enough, esp given that they've won the equivalent of a Victoria Cross? (e.g. Salty & Roselle, sorry I just think all Labs are entitled to articles!) That's a good question, one I raised at WT:FLC. They've all won the animal VC, but is this substantial enough to get a link? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Should the nationality of the animals be included? I would say this is virtually impossible. No information that I've seen states that any of these animals have any specific nationality, particularly the mongrels!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Really nice work! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Your comments and time reviewing are much appreciated... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) And yes, Sam was on assignment, so I've now reflected that in the list, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Woof Woof support —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Just on a side note, Alsation was the official breed name in the UK for a couple of decades before reverting back to German Shepherd. So any citations given out during that period would have been listed specifically as an Alsatian. Could be worth a footnote (although information is available on the German Shepherd Page, but it would prevent any mix-up with the Alsatian Shepalute which is being renamed to American Alsatian. Miyagawa (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, okay. I'm not sure this is entirely the right forum for notifications about breed name changes, but if it alleviates possible confusion then I'm fine with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Cologne doesn't appear to be sorting correctly on the date column. The plain year 1945 is listed before all the other more specific 1945 dates, but Cologne's plain year 1947 comes after all the other 1947 dates. Looking at the code, you have {{dts|1947|unknown}}. I don't think unknown is a valid parameter, so that may be causing the issue. Revenge!! Yeah, I'm not sure when I introduced that unknown silliness. Gone now. Great spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Some of the notes have periods, others do not. All notes now made consistent per KV5's comments above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 11 appears to be dead. Indeed, it appears that way. I'll need to get onto it at work as I'm having intermittent results on Safari (as per usual)....! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Ooh, no, I think I've got it, could you recheck it for me please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —NMajdan•talk 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments and careful scrutiny of both my inability to sort and use of deadlinks! Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The dates in the table are in MDY format. Since this is a British subject shouldn't they be DMY? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Funnily enough I think the US folks have more of an issue with this than us Brits, but either way, I've EngDated it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Did Rex and Thorn serve with the Civil Defence of London, or is this a different Civil Defence? The citations mentioned "of London" but they also had just "Civil Defence" for the unit in which they served. I've removed "of London" for clarity, Civil Defence was Civil Defence, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) What's the "Special Service" given for four pigeons? Could you perhaps provide a note, if there's no suitable link? The citations for each of these pigeons specifically mentions serving in the "Special Service" but goes no further. I guess I have two choices, either leave it and hope you're happy with it, or remove it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I guess it's all right as it is then. We can't give more info than we know. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC) DD.43.Q.879 warned of a counter-attack where? I mean, where did it take place? Manus Island. Added that detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) This is not really a big deal, but is it possible to indicate non-military animals in the table? Being the equivalent of the Victoria Cross, my first impression was that they had all served with a military unit. None of the recipients were awarded the medal for anything other than military or civil defence acts. Per the lead statement, "conspicuous gallantry or devotion to duty while serving or associated with any branch of the Armed Forces or Civil Defence Units". Perhaps the confusion lays in the opening sentence about animals "in war"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, I was talking about Salty and Roselle (I didn't thoroughly check if there were others, but I think they are the only ones), who are neither military trained animals nor associated with them as far as I could see. Or am I missing something here? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Well, I could be synthesising stuff here, but I guess they'd fall under the civil defence category. After all, they acted with gallantry after an act of war on a civilian target... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Maybe indicate posthumous awards in a similar manner. I could definitively find a few posthumous awards, the PDSA articles on awards doesn't specify them clearly though, so in my opinion, it's better left as it is. I accept that one or two are clearly defined as being awarded posthumously, however, some clearly were but unreferenceable are. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) There's no need to mention it if it's uncertain. As I said, it's not a big deal :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC) It looks like I've created the articles for Sam, Apollo and Commando a long time ago, so I guess I could try to do a few more :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 16:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your interest, and comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like you have the entries for Ricky and Brian mixed up (http://www.pdsa.org.uk/about-us/animal-bravery-awards/dickin-medal-dogs/). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Good spot, switched round, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments from Bencherlite As I said earlier, I wondered whether the news of the latest award would prompt someone to work on this, so well done for spotting the potential and actually doing something about it! The following is in no particular order, I'm afraid, just reading through and putting down points as I think of them. Actually, I'm surprised to say that there's rather more that needs looking at (as opposed to "would be nice to have") for a list that has already had three supports(!) I suggest stating the "nationality" / country of the award somewhere. It's a little unclear, because the infobox says UK but para 3 of the lead says that it was given to three dogs for their work after the 9/11 attacks. Appollo was a NYPD dog; would it be right to assume that Salty and Roselle were American dogs as they were in the WTC at the time? If so, this all needs clarifying. I don't know about this to be honest. The "nationality" of any given animal, particularly mongrel dogs, pigeons etc would be pure conjecture. As for "country of award" not sure either as the PDSA don't state where these awards were all handed out, just cites why they were given. Not keen on attributing nationalities/locations.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Worth mentioning that Appollo was the first search and rescue dog on the scene, according to your source? Not sure really, on reflection. You could "argue" that the Blitz dogs who found survivors of the Blitz were doing the same job... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) "Salty & Roselle" - can we lose the ampersand? Also "Punch & Judy". Les ampersands sont disparu". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) As you have two lines of two recipients, change the "recipient" column header to add "(s)" Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) You've got "September 11" in the list and "11 September" in the lead (and I prefer the wording of the list here - "9/11" is one of the few US-style date phrases that would never be "11/9" in UK publications, and I think it's more often "September 11" in UK publications than "11 September"). Made it Sept 11. I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Do notes [A] and [B] have to be in bold? No they don't. Now they aren't. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Third para in the lead has two "subsequently"s in close succession One gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Refs 31 and 32 have "pp." for single pages, you need "page=" You wanna know something? Huh? Do you? I didn't even add those! So I'll fix them anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) You link Labrador in the list but not the lead. Linked in lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) You could consider adding the breed of dog as a hidden sortkey in the "Animal" column Nice idea, done that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Beach Comber: link to Dieppe Raid? Done deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Jet, Irma, Peter, Thorn, Rex : link to Civil Defence Service? (And lose the "the" too, perhaps, for Jet, Irma and Peter?) Done that sir. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) You used abbreviations such as NPS without spelling them out, also the horrible "MIA" and "KIA". NPS done, horror abbreviations done, tried to find all others, done deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) And as for "awardee", words nearly fail me... how about "animal to be honoured", thus avoiding overuse in that paragraph of "award" and words derived therefrom? Yes. Even User:Dweller thinks I'm becoming, well, native. Fixed in your honor, Your Honor. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Do you serve "in" a regiment or serve "with" a regiment? A BBC [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=5a7&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=served+%22with+the+regiment%22+site%3A.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK

• Minor (and many) as they may have been, I'm hoping I've addressed them all with my usual style and panache, including a minor hissy fit about animal nationality. Bring it on. And thanks for your lovely detailed review. Oh, and it was four supports, not three (you didn't look close enough...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Neatly done. I still think it's slightly odd for the infobox to say United Kingdom but the lead to be silent on country, but I can live with that (I'll just tell myself that the "UK" field represents the country of the awarding body, not anything else – hey, I've convinced myself!) I'm happy to be support no 5. Bencherlite^Talk 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The infobox award template instructions state that the particular parameter in question needs me to "Insert the country of the presenter or where the award is presented", so that's not particularly useful, is it?! I'll opt for the former where the PDSA is a UK-based charity so therefore I'm right, which is of little surprise to me... !! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • No comment... Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 16 March 2010 [20].

---

List of Olympic medalists in skeleton

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Back in August 2009, I performed a major expansion for this list. Before, it only displayed the medalist tables. I added a considerably sized and well sourced lead section, as well as free-licensed images valuable for the list, and a statistics section also present in similar featured lists. I wanted to nominate this list at that time, but with the Vancouver Olympics approaching, I thought about waiting until the 2010 Olympic skeleton events were concluded, so this list could enjoy 4 years of stability. I appreciate all critical input. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

*Comments This actually serves as a great model as I'm working on List of Olympic medalists in baseball in my sandbox which is similarly recent and with a similarly short history at the games. Looks quite good, just a few small things. Repeat citation #3 after the 2nd paragraph statement about the 1928 brothers. Currently their brotherhood is uncited (or at least looks like it, cite 3 covers that). Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Do you have any further information on why skeleton was suddenly reintroduced after decades and decades of absence? It's recent enough I imagine any decent newspaper search engine like Lexis Nexis will provide boatloads of articles from the time discussing it. Well thought, I'll investigate it and add the info if I find it. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I like the Shea image as the lead image, but I would consider adding File:Martins Dukurs, Jon Montgomery, and Alexander Tretiakov.jpg above the two other images. There's space for a third, IMO, and this one is nice as it covers a whole podium. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I like the image and I've tested adding it, but because I have to render it as a thumbnail it gets quite small, so I'm a bit torn... In the end, do you find it really necessary? I already have an image for each of the past three Olympics, each one representing a notable moment: Shea, the first Olympic champion in 54 years; Duff Gibson, the first Canadian champion (now that there's two), and Amy Williams, the first individual gold medalist for Great Britain at the Winter Games in years. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Not necessary, by any measure, but I think it's nice to see a full platform. What about under the subheader for the "medals by year" table (since it shows multiple nationalities of winners)? Then you can up the size a bit (since the table is so small). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Well, I ended up adding that image, afterall. I noticed I was adding unnecessarily the upright parameter, which slightly reduces the image thumbnail width. So I got a reasonably bigger size for the picture with the three medalists, and it looks good now. Plus, its caption mentions the first time medals for Russia and Latvia in skeleton, highlighting the notability. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Now that a Canadian has won in 2010 (really even just with 2010 happening) Gibson's image caption should read "was Canada's first Olympic skeleton champion." Staxringold talkcontribs 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Good eye! Changed. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Mildly perplexed as to why this article is twice the size of the parent article Skeleton at the Winter Olympics. And a lot of overlap. Should this just become the parent article? The expansion of this particular list comes in a sequence of other similar lists being improved towards FLC nomination. In order to get these lists featured it was necessary to add a substantial but concise and relevant lead section. Since this list must concern only about Olympic medalists in skeleton, I tried to restrict the leading text to the medalists. Some info might be overlapping with the parent article, namely history of the sport and nation stats, but it's just to contextualize. The parent article, when improved, should have a content more focused on the sport itself (history, rules, stats, etc.), that will also include the info in this list, in a summarized way. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "this tobogganing sport" any way of merging that into the opening sentence about the sport itself rather than the awkward "this..." construct? Re-phrased. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "a single four-run event for men" not easily accessible to non-experts. Perhaps "an event for men contested over four runs"? Re-phrased. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "for a single Games in St. Moritz, at the 1948 Winter Games" - Games gets a quick (and dull) repeat. I even had "Olympics" before that! Removed "a single Games" (nonsense!). Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "an additional event for women" do you mean that the sport now included women? Or was there something different about the "event for women"? Just sounds a little "out there" when I guess all it means it that the event became co-ed/unisex, however you want to express it. Yes, the intention is to say that the competition was open for women as well. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "behind in the total time" another good reason to explain the "single four-run" business. Rephrased. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "he would repeat this.." why not just "he repeated this"? Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "—conquered the gold medal" - do you "conquer" the gold? or do you win/secure/gain/achieve/obtain it? Re-worded. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Explain NOC. Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "was the first British athlete, since 1980, to win " comma overdose. A normal sentence wouldn't need those as far as I'm concerned. Commas removed. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "Athlete medal leader" table is a bit odd. No gold medal winners, this table just includes "multiple" medal winners. In 99.9% of the world, one gold is ranked above a gazillion silvers. So this table is a little silly right now. Perhaps until 2014 we could call this "multiple medal winners" or something similar. You're right: this should be a table listing multiple medal winners (don't know why I didn't change that title sooner...). It appears a bit unnecessary for now because there's just too few medalists to even have multiple medal winners. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) General ref is work of "Olympic.org", ref 1 is work of "Official website of the Olympic Movement" but both are same website. And general refs don't have a publisher despite them having one in the specific refs. Fixed, work is now "Olympic.org" for all refs. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Current ref 7 has mixed date formats. MOS says date formats in refs should all be the same. Oops, fixed! Parutakupiu (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Hyphen for "first ever" in second paragraph? And another in the third paragraph?
  • Added. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• "gave Great Britain not only its sole medal at the Games but also its first individual gold medalist since 1980 and first individual female gold medalist since 1952." I never like these "not only ... but" types of sentences. They always feel overly wordy and can be done without that phrasing.
  • Rephrased. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Italics for Bath Chronicle in reference 7. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Added. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – After the resolution of the comments above and elsewhere, everything looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments -

• An interesting tidbit use it if you'd like: Duff Gibson is the oldest Winter Olympic champion in history with his win in 2006. [21].
  • Interesting fact! Thanks. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • There have been some pretty old curling champions so I'm not sure if this is accurate. But Sports Reference is usually a pretty credible site. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Be careful in reading the source, "oldest individual gold medalist". Curlers would be team medalists, no? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes good point, thanks for clarifying. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence in the lead, "His younger brother John Heaton finished as runner-up, having spent an extra second to complete a total of three runs..." is worded awkwardly. Consider rewording, "His younger brother John Heaton finished in second place by one second." - Suggestion.
  • Second... second? That would sound weirder, lol. Rephrased the existing sentence. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ha you're right when you actually read it my wording is dumb. Sorry about that. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Who won the bronze in 2006? Leaving this info out but talking about the fourth place sledder and a near-Canadian sweep is a bit unbalanced towards Canada.
  • It's a curious fact, but I understand your point. Corrected. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Once these issues are addressed (top issue about Gibson is of course a suggestion and its use will not affect my support) I will happily lend my support. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, H1nkles! Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 16 March 2010 [22].

---

James E. Sullivan Award

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

From 4,960 bytes to 26,284 bytes in under 48 hours, every athlete is now independently referenced, there are alt-texted images, no dabs, no breaches of MOS (as far as I can see), I've even tried to use USEng (but I could have fouled that up, feel free to correct me). I humbly submit this to the community. As always, thanks for your time and energy in reviewing this list (and all the others), and I'll do my best to address each and every concern as soon as I possibly can. Cheers folks! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "Often referred to as the Oscar of sports awards,[2][3][4] it was first awarded in 1930. The award is named..." - award or a form thereof thrice in quick succession. I would suggest changing the second to presented to break this up. Good catch, I usually hate that sort of thing myself...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Might a link to Amateur sports be appropriate somewhere in the lead? Indeed so, and now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) "Recipients are eligible for subsequent awards." - has this ever happened? If so, who won the award the most times? If not, might be worth noting that this has never happened (especially in the award's 70+-year history). No, it hasn't happened yet, and I believe the rules have changed rather recently to enable it happen although I cannot pin the tail on the suitable reference donkey. Added a statement that it hasn't happened yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Commas after "Curtis" and "Johnson". You have them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) "Florence-Griffith Joyner" should be Florence Griffith-Joyner Indeed it should be. I seem to have developed a kind of-hyphen dyslexia... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Well done otherwise. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Cheers for your comments, all bar the first addressed I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• "'the outstanding amateur athlete in the United States'" - is "the" really a necessary part of the quote here? Might just be me but it makes it seem over-emphasized, rather like "the outstanding amateur athlete". I might suggest a change to "an 'outstanding amateur athlete in the United States'".
  • I guess. It's probably a matter of a taste, and the quotation is directly from the award website. I may leave it for the time being and see if anyone else has issues with it, if that's alright? For what it's worth, I think the emphasis is intentional... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Certainly acceptable to me. I'll leave this comment uncapped so other reviewers are aware of it, but will consider it as ineffective toward my support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Tangent to KV5's point above, could the infobox quote be reworded to replace the "goes" in the quote with "going" outside of it? As it stands the box reads "Awarded for... goes far beyond" which doesn't read nicely. I don't think it's altering the quote to pull that word out and replace it with a proper tense verb. Awarded for: going "far beyond". Yeah, I agree it doesn't read nicely. I'll reword. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Is there a rule that you can only win once? I ask because it seems odd to see no repeats. More later. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I think there used to be a rule which said you couldn't win it more than once, but I'm struggling to find it. I'll have another look. In any case, the most recent nomination form (ref 5 point 5) states that "AAU Sullivan Award recipients are eligible for re-nomination for this honor". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No major issues, well-written and interesting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support –
• In the last sentence, I would move "only" to before "one occasion", the phrase it is intended to modify.
  • Completely correct, modified and much the better for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Spell out WBNA in reference 71. Lacking this, at least correct the abbreviation (WNBA).
  • WBNSNBANSA? Of course... Fixde ni boht locastion. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 68 needs a publisher (Los Angeles Times). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It now has a "work". Many thanks Eagle-eyes.. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Gah, TRM, you devil! I can't find anything about which to quibble, and you know how I just hate that when it comes to your lists. Next time, I'll try to get here earlier and wreck rewrite get my suggested improvements in first. So, through gritted teeth my friend, support. Bencherlite^Talk 15:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 16 March 2010 [23].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (residences)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is another list of the series of lists of National Treasures of Japan. It uses the same structure as the already featured castle, shrine, painting and sculpture lists. I tried to incorporate comments from previous FLCs. bamse (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Seems a shame there's no image for the lead, as it stands it doesn't quite capture my attention. "Most of the structures are located in temples, one is a castle." Perhaps (for my taste), start with "While most..." Followed your suggestion. Done. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Should you consistently captialise national treasure? Done. bamse (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) You say there are 14 items, then you say the Akasaka Palace is presented along with the 14 pre-Meiji treasures, so that'd be 15? Yes, there are 14 items from 15th to 17th century and one item from the 20th century. Not sure what you are referring to. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Just not sure why you make such an effort to differentiate between the first 14 and the last one. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC) The Agency for Cultural Affairs designates national treasures in a number of categories: historical residences, modern residences, castles, shrines,... The Akasaka palace is in another category than the other 14 structures. It differs from these 14 structures in the same way as the donjon of Hikone castle (a national treasure in the castle category) for instance. It only appears in this list, since having a List of National Treasures of Japan (modern residences) with just one entry would not be a good idea. bamse (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I get it, but, as the title suggests, this is a list of "residences", regardless of era, so I suggest you merge the one new one with all the old ones throughout the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I merged the two tables. As far as I can see, the only distinction between old and new residences left is in the lead. Because it is important to realize that there are two types of residences (basically traditional Japanese and western influenced) in this list, I would prefer to mention this in the lead. bamse (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) shoin is overlinked in the lead. Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) favoured vs characterized - BritEng vs USEng - I don't mind which you pick but be consistent within the list. Fixed in favor of USEng. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) "more simple" why not just simpler? Done. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 2 to 8 - two to eight Done. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) why is teahouse in italics suddenly in the last para of the lead? Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Couple of rows in the first table appear to be coloured, why? As in other national treasure lists (see for instance List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines)), the different background colors mark cities of the same prefecture. I admit that for this simple table these colors are not as important as for the readability of more advanced tables such as the one in the shrine list. In order to keep the same style in all the lists, I'd like to keep this color here as well. Is there a key? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Hm, no. The background color is used only for readability and does not need any explanation in my opinion. After all, the headers of the tables are also in another color without having a key. bamse (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) If you're saying the color indicates something (like same prefecture) then this should be (a) denoted somewhere and (b) not just denoted by color, per WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC) The color does not indicate anything. All I did is to use alternating colors for different rows (rows with respect to the first, "Prefecture", column) in order to increase readability. The information conveyed by the color is also accessible through the general table structure (including rowspans), so there is no problem with WP:ACCESS. Interestingly Template:Navbox which is present in more than 1.2 million articles uses alternating colors for rows as a default: See the navbox in Template:Navbox#Parameter_list which has different backgrounds for "list1" and "list2". On the same page it says: The default behavior is to add striped colors (white and gray) to odd/even rows, respectively, in order to improve readability. These should not be changed except in extraordinary circumstances. There is neither a key nor an explanation of these stripes when using the template in an article. bamse (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, so it's purely aesthetic. Then why is it use in just one of the three tables in that section? It's a little confusing... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Because it is the only table with a rowspan (Kyoto (Prefecture) extends over two rows). I agree that this color feature may be not that important here since it is a small table. But for large tables such as this it does help for readability in my opinion. To have the same look in all the national treasure lists, I'd like to keep it for the table in this list as well but don't mind removing it if you think it is too confusing. bamse (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC) At last, my brain box is in gear. I understand. Apologies for being so slow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't Date be Period in the table heading? It contains the year of construction (if known), so "Date" should be fine. The same heading is used in other national treasure lists by the way. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I meant the table in the Statistics section. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see. Changed "Date" to "Period". bamse (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) "four rooms with ten (alcove), eight, six" don't understand "ten (alcove)" here. There are four rooms of specified sizes. The ten mat room has an attached alcove. Replaced "alcove"->"with attached alcove" to make it more understandable. bamse (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC) What is the original sorting based on? I can't seem to get the table back to its default sort after I've sorted with any of the headings... I guess date... I shuffled the table around a bit. The initial order is now (as in other national treasure lists) based on the database for cultural properties. The database and therefore this list is ordered geographically traversing Japan from northeast to southwest. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Don't overlink things like shake if they're in the same cell in the table. By all means do it from line to line, but within the same entry, no. Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) board[nb 5], - move note to other side of comma. Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I see no real benefit in the separate table of one entry with identical entries. Why not merge them? For consistency, the separate table (Akasaka Palace) would deserve a separate list article since it is in another category of national treasures (modern residences versus old residences). For obvious reasons I merged the Akasaka Palace into the old residences list. In order to emphasize that the palace is in another category, I created the table of one entry. If you think it is better merged with the other table, I'll do that.bamse (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Merged the two tables.bamse (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) You have a number of spaced hyphens in the references, these should be spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH. Replaced hyphens with en-dashes in all the "JAANUS – Japanese Architecture and Art Net User System" references. Hope those were all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I started to fix some of the issues (to be continued). bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns (very patiently) addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I added a picture to the lead section as you suggested. There are not many pictures of national treasure residences available so I went with a historic painting which not only shows the style of the building (richly decorated walls) but also its use as a reception room. If you think it is too confusing (being a depiction of a historical event) as an intro picture for this list article, I could offer as alternatives: File:Nijojo-roka-tenjo2.jpg or File:Nijo Castle.jpg though the latter already appears in the treasure table. bamse (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) Check the grammar in the first ALT text: "a group of man" → "a group of men", "and bow slightly" → "and bowing slightly" Done. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) In Nijo Castle's ALT text: "structure with hip-and-gable roof" is missing a word: "structure with a hip-and-gable roof" Done. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Should "Kuroshoin" be italicized? It's not in the lead caption, once in the table, and once in the notes Italicized everywhere. Done. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) "14 pre-Meiji period structures in this list" Done. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I think the column should be "Image" without the "s". If you change this, also change the above sentence about sortability Changed for "Image" without "s", also in the Usage-section. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) In the Karamon description: "on each gable end" is the word "gable" a typo? Not really, but maybe can be made more clear. (How?) The roof is basically a gabled roof (cf. picture) with the two gables in the shape of karahafu gables. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Chopped off the "on each gable end" bit. bamse (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC) In the description for the Kangakuin Guest Hall, there's a comma after a period. "entrance.[ex 2], nokikarahafu" should be "entrance.[ex 2] Nokikarahafu". Also, there's a comma after "1x1 ken, kirizuma style" but the next line is capitalized Fixed. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) "facade" should be capitalized in the description for Kōjōin Guest Hall Done. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Capitalize "nokikarahafu" in Kanchiin Guest Hall's description Done. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Again, "wet veranda" should be capitalized in the next description. Check for this throughout Done and checked (and fixed) the table for capitalization, comma, italics and so on. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Italicize "chashitsu" on all occurences Done. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) This typo is repeated four times: "single-storiied" Fixed. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I think general note three would read much better if either sides of the comma are flipped Flipped. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) In general note 5, italicize "shiroshoin" and "kuroshoin" Done. bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) References 44 and 47 are personal sites (geocities and a blog, it appears) and should not be used Removed the geocities reference (it was not used anyway besides providing some additional pictures). The blog has a drawing of the building plan taken from this book). Not sure how to reference this. Shall I reference the blog or the book (to which I don't have access)? I might as well remove the reference, since the entry is already sufficiently referenced by the two other references (44 and 45). bamse (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for reading the article and sorry for all the stylistic mistakes. I fixed all the errors you mentioned and found a couple more which are fixed now. bamse (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. I've reviewed a few of these lists in the past, and see none of the problems that I have previously encountered. The notes are comprehensive and useful, the lead is engaging, and by the time I reach the table I fully understand the situations with Nijō Castle and Akasaka Palace. A very informative piece of work. WFCforLife (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolve comments from Truco

Comments from Truco General Everything checks out with the tools in the toolbox. Lead Its outstanding the way it is, and an interesting lead. The only thing missing IMO would be like an overall count of the structures (not specific, but overall). In addition to a statement about the first overall listed structure. Thanks. Just to clarify: do you mean the total number of national treasures or the total number of structures (which is larger)? bamse (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Statistics The compound with most National Treasures of the residential building category is Nishi Hongan-ji with three structures.-- comma before with Added comma. bamse (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Is there a way to place the third table (the one located underneath the others) beside the other two? Table placement depends strongly on the browser (and screen resolution). To make it look perfect for all possible browsers and resolutions is virtually impossible. Unless it is a big issue, I'd leave it as is. Doesn't look bad on my screen. bamse (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Usage Why not Key? Because it also explains how sorting works. Don't feel strongly about it, so if you think "key" is better, I could change it. Other FL national treasure lists have "Usage" so far. bamse (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) List I would review the list because some statements in the remarks section have periods but aren't necessarily sentences and are just incomplete statements, such as 12.7 m × 13.7 m (42 ft × 45 ft), tsumairi style entrance. Went through the whole column and hopefully fixed all such occurences. bamse (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC) When I sort by date, is it supposed to jump from 1618 to 1605, and vice versa? Not sure, I understand the problem. If you sort by date, the rows are ordered by date. If you click again on the arrow symbol the ordering is reversed (if it was ordered from old->young it will be ordered from young->old). bamse (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Notes What does The attached room and the connecting corridor between shiroshoin and kuroshoin are included in the nomination. (nomination) refer to?--Truco 503 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Changed "The attached..." -> "An attached...". "Nomination" refers to the National Treasure "Ninomaru Palace". Would "designation" be more appropriate? bamse (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to review. I fixed some of the issues you mentioned and asked for clarification of some others. I'll check for incorrect periods in the remarks column now. bamse (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:30, 14 March 2010 (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 19:44, 15 March 2010 [24].

---

List of Olympic medalists in baseball

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs , — Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

After the Olympics and seeing the skeleton list below I decided to take up a little bit different kind of baseball list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "It was originally played as a demonstration sport in seven Summer Olympics" no need to repeat Summer (per the previous sentence) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure we have a link for demonstration sport somewhere... It was at the evilly hidden demonstration sport. :O Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "first five appearances" not keen on appearances, maybe "first five Games"? Had that originally, didn't like the "one game" "first five Games" semi-repeating, but the caps on the Olympic Games help. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Does the removal of baseball from the roster have a ref or is it derived from the fact that it just isn't in 2012? Ahh, looks like current ref 7 two paras down works for this... Yeah, it's ref'd by all the various links on the trials and tribulations in the last paragraph. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "the first ever official " don't need "ever" Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 62-1 should use an en-dash. And is there a link for the world championships which Cuba won? They're in the see also section. The Intercontinental Cup and the Baseball World Cup. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "reigning gold medalist American team" instead of gold medalist, why not just champions? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "began investigating potentially adding" not keen. Perhaps "investigated the addition of"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "second medal in baseball overall" perhaps just add "Olympic" before baseball. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "Baseball, softball, rugby sevens, golf, karate, roller sports, and squash petitioned the IOC..." - not sure here. Presumably the sports themselves didn't do the petitioning, but were there combined bodies, organisations etc that did? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "an added value - wide appeal" spaced en-dash needed here. Your magic script got this. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "18 of the 25 athletes who medaled twice..." I think MOS dislikes starting sentences with digits, so perhaps "Of the 25 athletes who medaled twice, 18..."? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 4 dab links per the tool (squash, Takeo Kawamura, Park Jae-Hong, Matt Brown) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Medal leaders table - en-dashes for year ranges. Magic script. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) International baseball template could be the same color as the other three templates... Will do. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I've been outstandingly generous and fixed your en-dashes! Check the history, buy the script, it's free you know!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Swoot, stolen. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Sweet, will support when those templates are all the same color... !! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Already done! Staxringold talkcontribs 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support nicely done, and dare I say (without descending into a well of sycophancy) this FLC, as with most of Stax's, has been a pleasure to review i.e. I just nitpick and be a typical Brit knowing nothing about baseball while my comments are treated with respect. All this is a good example of how FLC should work. Nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Andrwsc

• Looks good, thanks for polishing off this list! I've added my name to the nomination since I added all the names to this list back in August 2006. The only problem I see is with the sports-reference.com references, as they don't follow the format that SR.com request of us (see [25]). We created the {{cite sports-reference}} template to help with that. Also, it might be a good idea to use the official reports as references (at least for the four Games in which they are available). See references #33–36 of List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games for the 1992–2004 reports; I've already figured out all the correct {{cite book}} parameters but you'll need to find the correct page numbers. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• The official reports are listed as a general reference. As large-PDFs that really just repeat information at the various other sources I figured better to use Sports Reference for the inline refs (so someone can easily and quickly see the information). I'll change the formatting to "Olympics at Sports-Reference.com" now. Didn't know that template existed! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, you know what, I just saw that the template is for athlete bios only, since it hardcodes the "Biography and Olympic Results" part of the page name. But you can still use:

{{cite web
|author=Kubatko, Justin
|title=.....
|url=....
|work=Olympics at Sports-Reference.com
|publisher=Sports Reference LLC
|accessdate=.....}}

— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, adding the author bit now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Parutakupiu "These exhibitions featured a single game at the first five Games..." — game... Games. Perhaps replace with "Olympics"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Doubt: "...more than any other sport..." or "... more than for any other sport..."? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) There are several instances of "games" which should be capitalized as they refer to the Olympics. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "Despite Cuban pitcher Rolando Arrojo defecting ten days prior to the start of the games Cuba again went undefeated..." — add a comma just after "games". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) You wikilinked pretty much every occurance of "year season Olympics" except for 1996. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "The United States won their second consecutive medal in Sydney, winning gold with Cuba taking the silver." — won... winning. How about "The United States won their second consecutive medal in Sydney, securing the gold medal in a 4–0 victory over Cuba in the final."? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "In 2004..." and "In 2005..." — Add a comma after the year. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "The Cuban team won their second silver medal in 2008 and are thus the only team to have won either gold or silver in baseball in at every Summer Olympics in which it was contested." Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "...winning four medals-two gold and two silver-from 1996 to 2008." — change hyphens for unspaced em-dashes. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "Of the 25 athletes who medaled twice in baseball 18 were Cuban, with 4 South Korean and 3 Japanese players comprising the remaining 7." — Looks weird starting a sentence with "of". Else, the MoS does not say anything against this, but I think it would be better to spell-out the numbers (you only need one word for each number). That sentence was a direct answer to TRM above. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) You need to update the link address for the IOC results database. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Specific ref #4 does not have a retrieval date. No, it doesn't. Since it's a print reference it doesn't change. 3 doesn't either. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Suggestion: display the specific references in two columns. It removes excessive blank space and, well, looks better. There are three refs, and 3 refs packed into a column just looks ugly (or trying to fit three columns just for refs breaks it apart). And what do you mean excessive whitespace? It's like 4 small characters. Cuba + a reference is smaller than United States by itself. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure you understood: I meant the list of specific references at the bottom of the page, which you render with {{reflist}}. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC) OOOOHHHHH. Sorry about that. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Concerning alt text, you need to add the |alt= blank parameter to both baseball pictogram and IBAF world map images, so that a screen reader considers them as "decorative" and does not read them. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Parutakupiu (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC) With a pair of fresh eyes, I made some copy-editing on the lead section, fixing some things that missed me from the first time. One thing I now notice: is it really necessary to have such a huge paragraph on the removal of baseball from the Olympic program? That historical info fits better on Baseball at the Summer Olympics. I think you could summarize it by leaving only the first sentence, the info on the 2008 tournament still being held, and the confirmation on the non-selection of baseball for 2016. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I really think it does fit, as it goes to why there will be no 2012 medalist. It may also belong at the main page, I just didn't feel right inserting that in an article I wouldn't really work on. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC) It could still be summarized, but I won't make a fuss over that. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. User:Parutakupiu's review has tightened up the list and it is good in my opinion. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Found no problems with it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (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 22:35, 13 March 2010 [26].

---

List of Kansas City Royals first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Another installment! The images are coming, ready to jump back in (I'll renom that Dodgers list as suggested in a couple days). Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 You don't use "MLB", so remove the abbreviation from the lead. "Eleven outfielders were selected, while and seven shortstops, three catchers, and two third basemen were taken as well." 'Royals' first-round picks have never won Rookie of the Year or Most Valuable Player awards with the team and no pick has even been elected to the Hall of Fame." Comma after "team" remove "even" "The Royals first ever pick" Royals' first-ever "Kennedy-Kenrick Catholic High School" - should be an en-dash Is Mike Montgomery out of baseball already, that he's not redlinked? "a state which has produced seven first-rounders overall." - sounds ambiguous; I assume that you mean seven first-rounders for the Royals, not for anyone. "one of only three catchers" "one of only two third baseman" and basemen "and is the result of their only first overall pick." - awkward, try and was selected with their only first overall pick. Consider adding the upright parameter to Hurdle's and Damon's images, as Hochevar's picture is forced into the See also section even on my higher-res monitor. I don't have the opportunity to see it at a smaller res here at home, but I can imagine that it might run down into the references. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC) All done. Dunno why I put that "even" in for the HoF. I no-linked MM because Mike Montgomery already exists, but I'll pipe to the likely disambig of Mike Montgomery (baseball). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment In my DYK check, I found reference 5 is dead, saying "Error: Bad Article URL". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• The link checker shows no bad links of any sort. However clicking it you're right, fixed now (I snipped too much off of the end to remove the KC Royals borders to make it a general MLB page). Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Just out of curiosity, how are you picking which team to do next? Are you going from the bottom of the standings now? Pretty much just randomly. This time I realized we had no AL Central teams yet. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Greinke's ALT text can have "baseball" instead of just "ball" In Hurdle's ALT text, it might be worth mentioning that he's middle-aged (or somehow getting across that he's not a player) Two unverifiable things in Maier's ALT text: I can't distinguish the KC on his batting helmet, and it would be better to say "runs on the infield dirt of a baseball field" You may want to include that the franchise was founded four years after the first draft "assigning amateur baseball players from" it's obvious that we're talking about baseball I think "teams that lost" sounds better than "teams which lost" Consider unlinking all the states in the second paragraph: WP:LINK says, to avoid linking "the names of major geographic features and locations" Remove the comma after "Florida and Texas follow" for better flow "at the time of their draft" either cut out "of their draft" or change "draft" to "selection" Have any players won the MVP with another team? If so, it doesn't need to be included, but if not, you can remove "with the team" In the last paragraph, you begin two consecutive sentences with "They have". Use a synonym for one of them, like "The club has" or "The franchise has" Consider centering the left side of the key "indicates the number of the pick" – is this the overall pick number made by all franchises during the draft? Yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC) This might seem odd, but another editor made this change to the LAA draft picks list. It makes sense, but I'll leave it up to you. I don't particularly care either way For Pittsley (1992), it's "DuBois", not "Dubois". Gees, how could you overlook such a mistake! User:Dschwen/highlightredirects.js is helpful for things like these Fix Jeff Austin's (1997) college. It should be Stanford University Italicize USA Today in reference four Refs 3 and 8, as well as the second general reference, don't match their titles Not directly related to this article, but we probably should make a category for all these lists. Perhaps add it to {{MLB first-round draft picks by team}} Sorry for being so picky, the list is fine otherwise, and I'll support once everything is fixed. Mm40 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC) All done. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Support—NMajdan•talk 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments I know this is another list in a series of MLB teams' first round draft picks, but has the topic of sortability every been raised? If so, what was the reason it was decided not to go this route?—NMajdan•talk 16:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC) It was raised the first time these lists came to FLC (Phillies) and it was determined to keep the current format because of the sortability issues with the towns/schools/colleges as well as the colspans used for the years. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Regarding the year column, that's an easy fix. Just remove the colspan and list each entry's year. I had to make the same change to one of my FLCs ([27]). I just think it would be nice to be able to sort by year, name, position and pick. Reading back through the Phillies FLC, I still don't completely agree with your reasoning, and we all know that FLC is a very fluid process and that FLC is over a year old. Might be time to revisit. So let's. Lose the colspan. Sort by all columns except Organization and Ref. Done!—NMajdan•talk Not "done", as you say, because others may disagree with you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC) There, I've added basic sortability. I'll start working on adding {{sortname}} so the names go properly right now. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC) All done! Implementing sort name is a bit tiresome, but that only took about 10-15 minutes, I'll go do it to Mets, Red Sox, Astros, and Dodgers. I leave it to KV5 if he wants to do it to the Phillies list. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC) The pick column isn't sorting correctly. You'll probably need to use some sort of numeric sorting template in that column as well.—NMajdan•talk 20:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC) What browser are you using? I'm in Firefox and one click sorts it properly. Are you getting the 10s with #1, the 20s with 2, etc, etc? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Yeah, the first click sorting works. But once the 1990 row is the first row, it breaks the sorting. The sort order is determined based on what is currently in the first row, which obviously changes when you sort. I am also using FF 3.6 but I see the same behavior in Safari.—NMajdan•talk 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Hardcoding digits less than ten with {{sort}} should do the trick (Phillies works with it}. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I believe that got it. NMajdan? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Looks good.—NMajdan•talk 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Why is Puerto Rico wikilinked but no other state?—NMajdan•talk 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Because it's not a US state. Agreed tho, delinked as a well-known geographic place. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments ka-pow, great lead image! Yupyup, and it's my FPC nom (woot woot). I love articles like this, Mariano Rivera, etc, etc that are featured caliber (IMO) with a featured image. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "primary mechanism for assigning amateur players" (once again, I'm learning, so forgive me...) are there other mechanisms used for the same purpose? Yes, there are; there is the posting system (which is used for both amateur and pro players from Japan), the Rule 5 draft (which is for inter-club transactions), and independent scouts for each teams are responsible for amateur talent from Latin America and other parts of the world. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "to its frachises" tyop. lol Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "on the previous season's standings, and the team that had the worst" I think "standings, and" would read better "standings with"... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "Of the 53 players picked in the first round by Kansas City..." repetitive per the previous paragraph. Perhaps "Of the 53 first-round draft picks..."? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC) (again, forgive me for going on) Is there a suitable link for "compensatory draft"? What are you referring to? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC) The phrase "compensatory draft" isn't obvious to us non-experts.. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC) No, I get that. But I don't find the term "compensatory draft" anywhere in this article. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, me being yet another ass. I meant compensatory pick and I see that it's already linked. I can owe you one for that...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Not sure about this, but not keen on Location being capitalised in the table heading... just me perhaps? Why wouldn't it be? I think all lowercase looks far less professional. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC) No big issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Another typical sorting issue under Safari - if I sort Name, then Pick in ascending order (I would expect the no first-round pick to come last here by the way), then Name order, then Pick (how did I think this up??) then I get Pick sorting "in ascending order" showing as 7, 4, 7, 7, 9, 2, 5, 5, 9, 3, 1, 9 ... which is waaay odd.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what I can do for you. Sortname is used and the single digits are all properly sorted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's an odd one, for sure. Us Safari users (and me in particular) are a real pain in the ass... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• So what can I do to wrap up this last issue? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it can be fixed right now. Can we leave it "exposed" for others to see, but since I seem to be the only "sort pedant" here, there's a good chance nothing will happen. I certainly won't oppose because of inadequate browser development, but it's a shame that I seem to be the only person who can break sorting on a regular basis! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "They club has had 13 compensatory picks...".
• Just to prove that TRM doesn't have the only sensitive system, on my Internet Explorer-using computer the bottom four photos are being cut off by the table. Can anyone replicate this one? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed the typo, thanks for that. What do you mean cutoff? As in the table is on top of them? Let me try setting a width parameter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• That was exactly what I meant, and the parameter fixed it nicely. I subsequently found J.P. Howell's name was missing a period, but took care of it myself. With no other complaints, I support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:44, 12 March 2010 [28].

---

NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ -DK  06:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fullfills all the criterias for FL, I've taken what I've learned from previous successful FL nominations. Re: Redlink - there is currently one red-link article which I intend to write ASAP, the rest of the names are unlinked because I could only find one fact on each of them and that's the fact that they won this title, otherwise nothing. I believe they're not notable enough to be linked.  MPJ -DK  06:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• And now Pak Choo is blue like the rest.  MPJ -DK  13:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments "in the National Wrestling Alliance's" just "in the NWA's.." Fixed "Due to its history, it has been considered the most important title in EMLL/CMLL." is this specifically referenced, and more than once? Well it is listed as the most important EMLL/CMLL title in the general source, I've seen it stated at times when describing certain wrestlers winning the title when I've researched for their articles. I could find one or two specific mentions to go with the general reference.  MPJ -DK  19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Found two additional citations - one on Dixon mentioning he won the title "that would become the most important title in EMLL for many years" and Dr. Wagner won "the top title". That should cover it.  MPJ -DK  07:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC) "of a storyline.The" space needed. Fixed. "higest " typo. Fixed. " Empressa Mexican de Lucha Libre (later renamed CMLL)" - first you've already abbreviated to EMLL and secondly you've already told us this was renamed. what are "booking rights"? Well to be honest they're "the rights to book title matches", but I changed it to the simpler term "control", "in the mid-1980s; From then" just "from" not "From" after the ; Fixed. " El Texano, Jr's" needs a . after Jr to be consistent with the previous sentence. Fixed. Entries with an en-dash need to sort as if they're zero. Fixed.  MPJ -DK  19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Mendoza seems to have a value for days held in the second table but not the first. Be consistent. It is consistent both with previous FLs and with the explanations in the key - one title reign does not have a precise date so in cumulative the lowest possible date is used to "err on the side of caution" for cumulative. Individual reigns with no definite length is a note and sorts by lowest date. It's the generally acceptable format for wrestling championship lists.  MPJ -DK  19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) So this list will be updated in 14 days when the current champ goes ahead of Raul Mata in the combined reign table? Well naturally the article will be updated when something changes, just like if someone else won the title or if it was abandoned, sold or anything else - normal Wikipedia maintenance. Ref 2 should be p not pp Fixed.  MPJ -DK  19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Did a couple of quick ones, I will address the rest ASAP.  MPJ -DK  19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) "Championship vacated when Shocker left CMLL to join Asistencia Asesoría y Administración; he does not show up for a scheduled title defense[6]" why not "he did not appear in a scheduled title defense"? Or similar? And you need a period there. Already rewritten. "<the championship " typo. Fixed Some notes have refs, some don't, some blank cells have refs, some don't, this appears a little strange to me. Well two notes need references because it's not covered by the reference provided in the table row or the general references for title history up until 2000, so those that need it have references. And as the general reference covers up until 2000 nothing before that needs an explicit source, everything after needs a source for the information on the title change, which is then placed in the "Notes" column, irregardles of there being a note or not. What you call strange is just sourcing the information. "The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, so the shortest possible length is used" that also applies in the first table where you have uncertain reigns, so the note should apply in both places. Not in the same form, a comment on why some lengths have "Notes" and not numbers could be needed and I can add that. Footnote 1 and the general footnote lack references. Footnote 1 has the reference in the text, next to the footnote, I could not make it work inside the footnote tag for some reason. I will reference the general one. Don't mix date formats in the references. Done. What makes that external link "wrestling-titles.com" reliable? Removed because the external link would not actually add any information not found in the list if it's FL, I believe that's an "Extrenal link" rule.  MPJ -DK  11:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support--WillC 05:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover's review

Comments Just have the English name of the championship in the infobox, afterall this is the English Wikipedia. Spanish would be better set just for prose.--WillC 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed "It began as an official National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) title and title was given to the NWA's Mexican affiliate, Empresa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL) to control." Remove the second "title" after "and". It reads better without it.--WillC 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed "The title remained under the control of EMLL even after EMLL pulled out of the Alliance and changed its name to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL)." Delink "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre"--WillC 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed "Defeated Al Kashley to win the vacant championship." This isn't a complete sentence but it has a period. Would be better to make sure all notes are complete sentences so they make better sense, or remove periods from them.--WillC 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed References seem fine--WillC 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you MPJ -DK  07:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC) There is still an inconsistency in the table with the notes. Some incomplete, some complete, some incomplete with periods, etc. Would be better to just have one style.--WillC 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Absolutely right, consistency is key in these matters.  MPJ -DK  20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) That will work.--WillC 05:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Caption says Shocker had the 58th and 62nd reigns, but the table shows 57th and 61st. Yeah the list originally mistakenly listed one more champion, I forgot to update the caption.  MPJ -DK  07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) "and was given to the NWA's Mexican affiliate, Empresa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL) to control." Comma after (EMLL). Fixed.  MPJ -DK  07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Hyphen for "NWA mandated"? Fixed.  MPJ -DK  07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) "control of the championship from 1958." Should probably be "in 1958." Fixed.  MPJ -DK  07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Comma after Dory Dixon. Fixed.  MPJ -DK  07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Why is Los Angeles linked twice in the lead. And what does "the title was also defended in the Los Angeles, California area until it closed in the mid-1980s" mean? Did a promotion shut down or something? Also, I don't think the state needs to be repeated in the lead. Should only be linked once, and California is removed the second time.  MPJ -DK  07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Note" "Vampiro defeated Tarzan Boy in decision match for the vacant title." Missing "a" before "decision match". Same for Gypsy Joe and Dr. Wagner notes. Fixed.  MPJ -DK  07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Footnote 1: Comma before "despite weighing 90 kg". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed.  MPJ -DK  07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. I see no other issues.—NMajdan•talk 17:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:44, 12 March 2010 [29].

---

2009 IIHF World Championship rosters

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so based exactly on the two previous featured lists (2008, 2007) here is the 2009 edition of IIHF World Championship rosters. Salavat (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments - big list, quick run-through... "396 players on 16 national ice hockey teams" I'd prefer "from" rather than "on" but it's personal. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "the sport's highest-profile annual international tournament." def needs a couple of references. Removed couldnt find anything. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "The 2009 IIHF World Championship was the 73rd edition of the tournament and was held in Berne and Zurich-Kloten, Switzerland." - reword so you can lose one "was", i.e. "The 2009 IIHF WC, held in ..., was the 73rd..." Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "Before the start of the World Championship" don't see a need to repeat World here as it's clear which championship you're talking about. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "an additional two players, either skaters or goaltenders," reads to me like they could add either two skaters or two goaltenders, but not one skater and one goaltender. Is that right? it appears when reading the player entry form that it just simply thats that you can select 2 more players which can be skaters or goalies, i removed the "either skaters or goaltenders" so it reads simply as an additional 2 skaters. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "to their roster, for a maximum roster of 25 " no need to repeat roster here. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "must follow several criteria" I tend to think you would meet criteria rather than follow them. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "Ilya Kovalchuk" link in the lead (I know it's in the caption). Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "Canada's Martin St. Louis was the tournament's leading scorer[6] and Chris Mason of Canada led..." think of a more creative way of putting this so we don't have a repeat of Canada. Changed. Hows that? Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Why is stats key a table with 5 then 7 rows? The four blank cells look odd to me. I think it was originally used to block out the goaltenders stats from the skaters. I changed it to 6 and 6 though. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Min col sorts incorrectly. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Did you mention in the lead who won the championship? Yep, Russia, first paragraph, last sentence. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Tardif's caption needs a period. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) "seven of his games in the net which includes one shutout" - included. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Being consistent with most other sporting lists, if a player plays 0 times, then the other statistics are usually en-dashes (which sort like a zero). Now i think i read it right. I left the games player as a "0" and dashed out the other zeros. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Now you just need to get the en-dashes to sort as less than 0, so if you had 3, 4, 0 and – they'd sort –, 0, 3, 4 or 4, 3, 0, –. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Salavat (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC) I think MOSFLAG would prefer you add a country name to the flags you're using with head coaches. Did you mean ie change SWE to Sweden after the flagicon part. Thats what i did just thought maybe i misread it. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I seem to recall MOSFLAG suggesting the name of the country had to be mentioned as well as just the flag... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC) It does say it here. However i think it sounds a little strange. I can understand putting the country name next to the flag if nothing else is next to the flag but we have the coachs name directly next to it. the flagicon template does link to the respected country. However after reading this here, sentence 3, maybe they should be removed to avoid confusion. thoughts? Salavat (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC) I'm talking about the section where the MOS says "Accompany flags with country names". Perhaps consider the use of {{flagIOCathlete}}? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Oh im sorry i was thinking in a completly different direction, thanks for your patience. Anyways ive added the country now in the same format as {{flagIOCathlete}}. Salavat (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: No issues at all from me, nice list. Harrias (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "If a country selects fewer than the maximum allowed, they must choose the remaining players prior to the start of the tournament." Shouldn't this be in past tense?

Well its outlining the rules in general to entry procedure. However im not sure on how this can be fixed as my knowlegde on tenses is pretty shocking, any suggestions? Salavat (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well keeping in mind my tense knowledge is poor hows this: "A country which has selected fewer then the maximum allowed must have chosen the remaining players prior to the start of the tournament"? Salavat (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do that and switch "has" to "had", and it works. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Salavat (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• "This switch may only happen once in the player's life." Move "only" to before "once", the word it's intended to modify.

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• "and top foward by the IIHF directorate." Typo. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Support – My issues have been taken care of, and this meets FL criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comment The Min columns for the goaltenders doesn't appear to be sorting correctly (in FF3.6). Take the first one, Austria, for instance. When sorting in ascending order, 299:24 comes before 60:00. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but 299 minutes is greater than 60. This appears to be an issue with all goaltender tables. Well im assuming you mean firefox 3.6 so i upgraded to that version to see it for myself but everything seems to be sorting fine for me. I can go through and completly tag every number for the goaltenders stats if you think it is nessecary. Currently i have used the sort template on all the endashes which makes them a zero, and then any zeros as 1's and then the 1's as 2's if that situation arises. Is it only the Min column your having problems with? Here's what I'm seeing. Its sorted in ascending order, but the larger number is on top.—NMajdan•talk 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Ok im seeing it now, by bad, ill get on to fixing that issue. Salavat (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Great. Don't forgot about the dash issue below. Dashes should be below the lowest value.—NMajdan•talk 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Done, both issues should be fully done, sorry for the delay would of finished it straight away but internet decided to crash of me. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Also, when sorting in descending order, the dashes should be at the bottom. Again that issue seems to be fine for me As a suggestion, I'd recommend archival of the various rosters using WebCitation. I started archiving some of the refs, normal web pages worked fine and the team roster worked for Austria but when i did Belarus it came up with a jumble of code, also same with this one, [30] any ideas? Salavat (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Well done with the list.—NMajdan•talk 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. All my issues have been resolved.—NMajdan•talk 02:47, 8 March 2010 (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 23:10, 12 March 2010 [31].

---

List of invasive species in the Everglades

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I used Willow's List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein as a guide. This is my first constructed list and I started it half-heartedly over a year ago, to re-start it and finish it recently as an accompaniment to a suite of articles about the Everglades. Was fun to do. Please let me know what I can do to improve it. Thank you! Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Go right into discussing the invasive species. Most of the first paragraph should be cut; you don't need the details (river size, speed, borders) about the Everglades like that, just have a link.
• by the year 2000
• Colloquial name → Common name
• I didn't read all the species descriptions, but they look very good. I'll take a better look later.

Great job on this informative list so far! Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I took out the year and changed colloquial to common, but I think there is value in including a brief description of the Everglades, mainly because it is still seen as a great stinking swamp impeding human progress instead of a massive river-fed network of ecosystems, and the urban areas are in the Everglades, not really just bordering them. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should still start with some info about invasive species, then have a brief description. In a way, say that there are many invasive species, which is caused by being surrounded by urban areas, rathen than that the Everglades are this big but are surrounded by urban areas, and therefore have invasive species. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Does this article fully list all the invasive species in the region? I am asking because I want to make sure that this complies to the comprehensiveness criterion.—Chris!_c/t 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it list every exotic species? No. Such a list could not exist on Wikipedia. I have not found a single list to cover all species considered invasive by a single agency or authority since 1994. I have listed species that have received mention by more than one reliable source. Some species, such as the Cuban Tree Frog are on one list but not on another. I do not expect this list to be finished at any point in the present or near future since this is an ongoing problem. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You might consider putting {{dynamic list}} on there, then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant to say.—Chris!_c/t 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Did not know such a thing existed. Seems to be reasonable. Does it go at top or bottom? Or elsewhere? --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Top of "Plant species" section should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Done. --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Looks basically good but some questions.

• Sorting: Please make the "Notes and references" columns unsortable. Also the usefulness of the sorting feature of "Origin / Year(s) introduced" as implemented now is questionable. You could make it (with hidden sort keys) sort such that locations from one continent are together after sorting. Or have it sort by year.
• Why don't you use the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council lists as reference for inclusion instead of having an incomplete list?
• It seems that you use words such as "exotic", "invasive" (and possibly others) synonymously. Isn't there a
• The mammal table has no years. Could you add at least a rough (century) date?

bamse (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Notes/References columns are now unsortable.

• Thanks.bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Century included for mammals

• Thanks bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I included species on these lists that were mentioned by at least two reliable sources with details about their effects on the Everglades ecosystems. The FEPPC is a more inclusive list with much less detail. The South Florida Water Management District includes more detail, naming and detailing the most aggressive species and their effects as a "priority list". Following the FEPPC list would leave most of the information blank. I followed inclusion criteria set by the South Florida Water Management District, author Thomas Lodge, and comments made by the editors and writers of Strangers in Paradise: Impact Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida.

• I see. That makes sense. bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead discusses the difference between exotic and invasive. Are you asking for clarification? --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Must have missed that. No clarification necessary. bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the above comments have been addressed. Before I can support, two quick questions: Is "catfishes" correct? Why are there sometimes two scientific names; are these two distinct species? bamse (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if I would get that question... Fishes refers to different species of fish. Since two species are discussed, Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus and Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus, I used the plural species version of fish. They are similar species with similar effects that are, according to the sources, grouped together, almost interchangeable at least when referring to their invasive status in Florida. With the Paratachardina lobata lobata and Paratachardina pseudolobata, it is unclear if the species is going through a scientific recategorization or renaming. They names refer to the same species, but the sources are not clear on a transition in recategorization. The article for Paratachardina pseudolobata does not help for this. My best sources refer to Paratachardina lobata lobata, but the image refers to Paratachardina pseudolobata. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Makes a lot of sense to group them together in this case. No reason to oppose and therefore support. (You might want to unify the phrases: " Imported by/through pet trade"). bamse (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Did that, and thanks. Didn't even realize I was inconsistent. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The prose is generally good though there were some parts I stumbled over or thought might be improved. I lack the time tonight to point out specific examples but I may have a chance later, or you could ask one of our more literary editors to cast their eyes over it. Overall it seems fine. The lead sections are good and make me wonder if you had more material on the topic? Would shifting the article name to Invasive species in the Everglades give you the freedom to expand on the topic while maintaining a good size list within? I'd still be happy to regard it for a Featured List even if the prose dominated. Just a thought. I nearly opposed this on "comprehensive" when I compared its mere 28 entries to the long lists of exotic species in the external links. But this is just the Everglades, not all Florida, and this is just invasive exotics, not all exotics. I've checked some of the sources and the list does contain the priority invasive entries listed that I could find. I've made a suggestion on an alternative layout on the talk page. It can be done at the expense of sortability, which is of doubtful utility given the data and size of each list. I haven't checked the alt text. I was a bit surprised that some of the entries were redlinks, particularly Hydrilla verticilata which the description says is extremely common worldwide. Sorry this is a bit rushed. Colin°^Talk 19:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Interesting list; very well done. I could find only a few things to nitpick:

• "Old world climbing fern blanketing a tree island" I had to read this in the image caption a couple times to understand what is being said. Perhaps a hyphen or two is necessary?
• Florida should be linked on its first appearance (right now it is mentioned in the first sentence but linked only in the second).
• "exotic species get more attention" Better verb than "get" would be nice ... maybe "attract"?
• Is it worth mentioning which category the species listed belong in?
• "The infestations are recent and long term effects in protected and threatened areas are currently under study." "currently" is a dated, vague word; if you had some kind of time frame you could specify ("as of <date>"), that would be good.
• Link for "Tamiami Trail"?
• Font size in the tables is inconsistent.
• I know you use an atypical page notation style, but some page ranges in the refs are preceded by "pp.", while others are preceded by "p." I was further confused because I saw pages such as "p. 9-3." Is that a range, or is there a page numbered "9-3"? Anyway, I trust you can sort this out.
• Except for that little issue, citation formatting checks out and the sources are reliable and of high quality. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Can you rephrase this, I do not understand: Is it worth mentioning which category the species listed belong in? If this refers to the plant species being in Cateogry I or II, all in this list are in the Category I as explained in the last paragraph of prose in the Plants section, before the list.

• On rereading my comment, I don't know what I meant either. So I contented myself by fixing a typo in that section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I just checked the tables, which list font-size as 95% in all. I cannot see a size difference so I may need assistance here.

• There was only one instance where size was difference, so I fixed it myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• One of the sources is Chapter 9: The Status of Nonindigenous Species in the South Florida Environment, and all page numbers read 9-x from this source. They are not ranges. I do tend to forget to do pp for ranges sometimes though. I spot checked the ref list to make sure I got all ranges with two p's. Let me know if I missed any.

• Looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think everything else has been changed, per your suggestions.
• Thanks for your comments and for reading the list! --Moni3 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Image review by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Oppose on images. File:Lygodium microphyllum in Loxahatchee.jpg source lists it as cc-by-nc. We require commercial use on Wikipedia. File:Neyraudia reynaudiana.jpg same problem File:Metamasius callizona.jpg same problem File:Cichlasoma urophthalmus in Florida.jpg same problem File:Oreochromis aureus in Florida.jpg same problem I notice that you are the uploader of all these images. As the uploader (and having admin rights) these should be deleted along with any other non-commercial images you may have uploaded. Please be more careful in future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Not sure if Moni is following this, but all of these images have been relicensed or deleted. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, Moni deleted them and reuploaded different images under the first two file names. The first one is fine (PDreviewed) and I moved to Commons. For File:Neyraudia reynaudiana.jpg the NPS disclaimer says work "created or owned by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain". However, it says "Not all information on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS. If you wish to use any non-NPS material, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources." This image is Miami Dade County Natural Areas Management owned not NPS owned and I cannot find anything that says Miami Dade material is PD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2010 *slams head on desk* --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) That did make me chuckle but I'm not trying to be an arse. Believe you me, it is a lot easier to review images as okay than not. If there's some image guru out there that disagrees with my assessment I'll happily retract it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not got time to fully review the list at the moment (so I cannot "support"). All I will say is that it appears good and I can declare that the images are fine. Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Truco

General

• Alt text, contributors, and dab/external links check out fine.
• Fix the images noted in the review above^.

• Images seem to be resolved; two were relicensed and the rest were deleted. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• The overflow forms a very shallow river about 60 miles (97 km) wide and 100 miles (160 km) long that travels about half a mile a day. -- I think per day would fit better here.

• Fixed. At first glance nothing's wrong with the original, but upon further review I agree that the "a ... a" repetition grates. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• FL's usually have an overall count or overview of the list stats-wise, ie. the amount of species overall, the amount of animals or plants, etc.

• Not as useful as in most FLs, since this list is incomplete and there are probably many other species that have yet to be identified in reliable sources. In any case, there are some overall count sentences, such as "As of 2010 1,392 additional non-native plant species have been identified and established themselves in South Florida." Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tables

• Info like 'possibly introduced' is verified by the references correct? Because if not, it sounds WP:POV-ish.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I checked a couple of the sources, and they do indeed verify the uncertainty. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Dabomb, this appeared after I logged off last night. I'll do what I can to answer questions as they are presented, beyond what Dabomb has. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:33, 11 March 2010 [32].

---

List of Los Angeles Dodgers first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-nominating a list that had it's last FLC closed due to lack of reviewers. PLEASE pipe in to try and get this bad boy wrapped up, it's already spent an entire past nomination getting cleaned up, I feel like it's pretty close to polished! Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as I did last time round. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Support – Resolved comments from KV5

• I don't like the "selected... at outfielder" construction, but I'm not sure what to suggest as replacement prose; perhaps "in the outfield", piped to the position (example: Seven players were selected at shortstop and in the outfield).

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why didn't they get a compensation pick for Hochevar?

• Honestly don't know. I checked the 06 draft, and it's not like they got a pick but traded it. And in 2005 the Orioles got a pick for failing to sign a supplemental pick so it's not that the rule didn't exist or didn't apply to supplemental round picks like Hochevar. Sidenote, I expanded on the 05 note to explain why they only had a supp. round pick and no main 1st round pick. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nevermind, figured it out. I'd misread that Orioles signing, the original guy (Townsend) who didn't sign was a true first rounder. As this article notes, only non-supplementary first rounders got you compensation. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, looks good to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan
Why is Pennsylvania the only state wikilinked?—NMajdan•talk 14:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) No idea, removed. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) You can take out "two" in the lead caption Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "for assigning amateur players from high schools" amateur is clear from the end of the sentence Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) In the link to Free agent, perhaps specify the "Major League Baseball usage" heading in the link Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I count six players from Texas Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not crazy about linking the states in the lead. Anyway, you link California twice. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Why not "Catcher Mike Scioscia (1976) won championships with both the 1981 and 1988 Dodgers teams Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) You say Howe's first name twice in the second paragraph Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "the draft" is repeated twice in the third paragraph's first sentence Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Maybe elaborate on why they didn't receive compensation for Hochevar? I saw above, but it should be in the article I haven't found that info in a more reliable source. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Consider centering the left side of the key Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) (I said this in my Royals' review, but you didn't really react) This might seem odd, but another editor made this change to the LAA draft picks list. It makes sense, but I'll leave it up to you. I don't particularly care either way Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of that. Green for money makes sense, at least to me. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) The town for Repko's high school is Richland, not West Richland Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) St. Agnes High School is the wrong one (1969) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) In Footnotes, teams are linked repeatedly but players aren't Yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Order the refs in note "n" Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) In note "o", they were the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" in 2006. I'd use the full name, but not sure about you Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Again, the titles given for the second general reference and reference 3 and 10 don't match their actual title Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) You can add #2006 to the end of ref 13 to make it go down to the '06 summary. Also, consider adding "Draft Report: 2000s" to the end of the title Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Refs 39 and 40 (1990) are the same Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Refs 43 and 44 (1995) are the same Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) FWIW, you can remove everything after <refname="2005draft" /> in the 2005 table reference Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Again, another good list. I'm looking forward to supporting. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support – My comments were addressed at the first FLC, and a second look turned up no fresh concerns. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:33, 11 March 2010 [33].

---

Pussycat Dolls discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because the previous nom was not promoted because of a sourcing issue which has now been resolved and also due to a general lack of interest. however, hopefully will get more comments this time around! :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As I said with the first FLC I have no outstanding issues with this article. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I can't see anything wrong with it. The references are so nicely detailed and set out. Just one thing though – ref 21 is in Dutch. Nice job. Savvi72 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Content requiring verification with tools in toolbox checks out fine. Lead Phrases like "was a UK number one" should be "number-one" changed Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, that's not quite true; "number one" should be hyphenated only when it is used as an adjective (e.g., "number-one single"). I've changed it back. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Either state the singles charts that each single ranked in, or pipelink each country to that chart. added Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Studio albums What verifies the 2010 album? was added by a random editor, been removed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Singles Why not put dashes in the blank certifications cells? added Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Promo singles Why not 'released as a promotional'? other fl's have the sub-section titled as "promotional singles" Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC) --Truco 503 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note I am archiving this as unsuccessful as there is insufficient consensus to promote after a month, and the nominator has not edited in more than two weeks, so there is a low chance that the unresolved issues will be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

hey! i've been in hospital really ill for the past 2 weeks hence my absence :( Mister sparky (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry to hear that. Since the bot has not run yet, I'll reinstate this FLC. Sorry about that. Will you be able to keep up with this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

:O Thank you so much! and i'm much better now thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite

Looks as though this is nearly there, after a long haul... I made a couple of minor edits, which I hope are OK. I don't know what a good discography FL looks like, I'm afraid (not my area) but I can't see any red flags preventing promotion from a presentational (as opposed to content) point of view. Bencherlite^Talk 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - while I find the idea of a PCD DVD being an "Instructional exercise video" extraordinarily meritorious, it's beside the point when reviewing this list, and I think it's in a good state. Gets my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:34, 5 March 2010 [34].

---

Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why I've ended up writing a list of theologians when I have no interest in theology, but it seemed like a good idea at the time (turned a red link blue, or something, I forget exactly which one). It also made a change from a list of Arabic scholars, when I have no interest in Arabic, and a list of librarians, when I have no interest in libraries (err)... Anyway, you get the picture – another WP:OXFORD list of academics, with absolutely no mention of cricket or baseball or similar. One image, with alt text; no dabs; no deadlinks. Bless you for reviewing, and may all your wiki-sins be forgiven as you do so. Incidentally, I have it on the very highest authority that reviewing this list is the spiritual equivalent of a pilgrimage to Rome. Bencherlite^Talk 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Goodraise 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support – my "quick look" was followed by a more in-depth look just now, which has revealed no areas of concern. One or two questions I would have raised have been covered by your answers to TRM's comments or by the changes made in response to them. The gaps-between-tenures issue is not terribly important. All looks fine! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Quick comments from Hassocks, prior to fuller review later Looking good; I will check in more depth later, but these things occurred to me on the first run-through: Goodraise corrected one typo, but there is another lurking in E. P. Sanders's notes. A wikilink to Atticism would add value. There are some gaps between different professors' tenures (notably 1930 → 1932 and 1989 → 1991). An explanation of what happened during those periods would be beneficial (e.g. was the post vacant?). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Wikilink added, typo spotted and excommunicated. I've not found any discussion of why there were gaps between a couple of the professors, alas. BencherliteTalk 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments I made a little trip to the other place last weekend. I enjoyed it, through gritted teeth....! Oh and take a first for including one of my alumni in this list...! "during his ecclesiastical career.[1] During his lifetime" too rapid in repeating "during" (and "established" less so before and after this snippet). Done both. BencherliteTalk Uni of Ox is overlinked in the lead. Done. BencherliteTalk I'm sure we've discussed this before but can you check with MOS where you put a full stop if it's the end of a sentence and the end of a quote. E.g. you have: "a distinguished Benefactor of the University". (in the lead) he "threw himself into the office with conscientious earnestness, and discharged its duties with exemplary fidelity." (in Hawkins' description) - I have no beef either way but perhaps you'll educate me as to which is correct vis-a-vis the MOS and make the article consistent. Found it at WP:LP - it depend on whether the punctuation is part of the quotation or not. I think I've got them all correct now. BencherliteTalk " from Ireland to put on display a marble bust of Ireland by " of him, or we're getting a touch Ireland-tastic? "as he was "a distinguished Benefactor..." mind you, we've kind of lost track of who "he" is in this bit, the sculptor (doutbful) or Senor Ireland. Reworded to address both issues. ". Edward Hawkins was elected..." no need to repeat his first name here. Done. BencherliteTalk Ref 7 (for instance) appears to require a subscription? Should we be denoting these kind of sources with "subscription required" in the ref itself or should we just disappoint our reader who wanted to check if you had a reference for the "sometimes called "Tractarians"" claim... Hmm, it's indicated at Ref 1 with {{ODNBsub}}; I could mark all such sources, but haven't in the past for similar FLs. After all, if I'm only linking the publisher and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography once in the references, on first appearance, would it be inconsistent to mark "sub required" each time? No strong views, though, so see what you think. BencherliteTalk "a Fellow of " - is Fellow a proper noun in this context? reworded with lowercase "f", as I can never quite work out whether a capital "F" is justified or just tradition. BencherliteTalk "The Queen's College, Oxford" vs (simply) "Christ Church"... Oxford excised. BencherliteTalk Minor one - shouldn't the "Professor" col be called "Tenure" or similar? In Bodley's Librarian, I originally had "dates", but changed it during the FLC first to "tenure" (which I didn't like as it sounds too American!) then to "Librarian". I've used "Professor" at Laudian Professor of Arabic. Further thoughts welcome... BencherliteTalk Is Provost worth a link? OK then. BencherliteTalk You link North Carolina but not Louisiana. Any reason? Pure boredom. Linked both now.BencherliteTalk "His interests include..." lonely hearts column time... call me harsh, but I'm not sure I'm bothered by his "interests", perhaps his achievements? His works? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Reworded. Here are the changes and thanks for your careful review, as ever. BencherliteTalk 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Your MOS question is answered at WP:LP. Goodraise 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support my many, many, many utterly trivial utterances were swept away in moments. And the ones which didn't go my way are a matter of taste, and won't stop me supporting. Good work, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the only thing that I saw that needs to be corrected was "one of 12" - should be one of twelve or 1 of 12 - your pick. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, fixed. Bencherlite^Talk 15:54, 1 March 2010 (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 16:45, 5 March 2010 [35].

---

Philadelphia Athletics (1890–1891) all-time roster

Nominator(s): Neonblak ^talk - 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it merits promotion, however, if reviewers notice issues I missed, I will quickly fix 'em.Neonblak ^talk - 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Pursuant to the discussion on this list's talk page, even though I largely agree the list is fine as is, there are definitely a couple things that are perhaps too detailed to be noted here (and that belong in the main article): "Their intent was to break free from the standard business practices of the two leagues that they claimed stifled players' salaries; such as the reserve clause, and the Brush Classification System, as well as thier ability to sell players to another team without the consent of the player." I think this is too detailed for what should be a brief overview of the team's history. "The Quakers were controlled by a group of investors, which included brothers G. W. and J. E. Wagner." Also irrelevant here, and also seems to be out of place in the paragraph. "able to sign solid veterans players that included" Typo, and can I assume that "solid" is asserted based on information from the sources? "were a short-lived Major League Baseball franchise that existenced for two seasons" Grammatical error, and remove "short-lived" and let the stats do the talking. "due to great financial losses"-->because of great financial losses More later. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I'll try to come back to this soon, but for now there's a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Made the changes suggested, also, the last line of the lead doesn't sit well with me, and it was pointed out at earlier all-time roster discussion that it is not needed, being that it is apparent to the reader what the article/list is, plus the header. Let me know what you think on this as well.Neonblak talk - 07:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I like the changes to the lead. Consider making similar cuts in your previously promoted FLs. I will consider that, especially with the recently promoted Providence Grays all-time roster. It had length issues from the start.Neonblak talk - 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "Although many players departed for new teams for the 1891 season, the Athletics signed replacements, including Gus Weyhing, Elton Chamberlain, and Pop Corkhill." "Although" signals some kind of unexpected turn of events, but it's not surprising that the team signed replacements after some of their existing players left, is it? I tried to point out that these weren't just merely replacements, but good solid veterans. How about "Following the 1890 season, many players returned to their previous teams, however, they were able to sign quality veteran players, including Gus Weying, Elton Chamberlain, and Pop Corkhill."?Neonblak talk - 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Sounds pretty good, except I would reword "however, they were able to" to "however, the Athletics were still able to" for clarity (if you have a more concise suggestion please implement it). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Used your suggestions. Sentence should be fixed now.Neonblak talk - 10:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC) "the AA could no longer operate because of great financial losses, and were forced to fold" "were"-->was "Matthews' career consisted of one game, and he collected one hit in three at bats." "and"-->in which "Shindle had a batting average of .324, collected 21 doubles, 21 triples, 10 home runs, and 189 hits, while scoring 127 runs." Problems with parallel structure: "while scoring"-->and scored Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed.Neonblak talk - 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments "(the Phillies (NL) and the Athletics (AA)) " don't like those double parentheses, perhaps "(the Phillies in the National League (NL) and the Athletics in the AA)"? You haven't noted what NL is by the way... "and the others accepting buyouts.[10] The Athletics fell into the latter group" not keen on the "fell into the latter group", why not "others, including the Athletics, accepting buyouts."..? "The following list comprises players on the the Philadelphia Athletics during its two seasons of existence." one too many "the", missing "roster" and no need for "of existence". Do we normally have a space after a slash (e.g. C/ RF)? You have win-loss and win–loss - be consistent. I'd rather you didn't use abbreviations without expanding them first (e.g. RBI). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC) The parentheses and the last line were inserted by another user after my FL submission, I fixed them, the latter by eliminating the sentence entirely. I think that it wasn't needed, it's clearly a list of the franchises players. This has been discussed before at one of my previous FL noms, here. About the space between the players who played multiple positions, it was suggested during a previous nom that they should have one (just can't find it though), so I've stuck with it, and I think it looks better that way as well. I've fixed the other issue you mentioned.Neonblak talk - 11:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I think, per MOS, you should be consistent with spacing either side of the slash and should, where applicable, use non-breaking spaces. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I just looked at my first list, and noticed that there were spaces before and after the slash, I will change not only this list, but make sure that all my other lists also comply.Neonblak talk - 11:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Partial list of comments through most of the players: Charlie Buffinton: "for .530 winning percentage." Add "a" into there. Tommy Corcoran: "scored 84 runs, hit 15 triples in 511 at bats, while leading all shortstops with 300 putouts." Add "and" before "hit". Jim Fogerty: "and was the teams' initial manager." Move the apostrophe to inside the s. Pat Friel: "It was the last of his two major league seasonsms' initial manager." Charles Matthews: "Matthews' career consisted of one game, and collected one hit in three at bats." Missing "he" shortly after the comma. George Meakim: "Meakim appeared in six games, had a 1–4 win–loss record, with a 6.94 earned run average." Missing "and" after first comma. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) all fixed.Neonblak talk - 06:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Ben Sanders: Missing "and" before "had". George Wood: "and had batting averages of .289 and .309, and collected 109 runs batted in in 1890." Can we avoid having "and ..., and" as the structure for this sentence? It doesn't appear to be the best I've ever encountered. Minor point, but I think the general reference needs another quotation mark in the front (this is a published book, correct?). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC) fixed all.Neonblak talk - 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFCforLife

Comments from WFCforLife Infielder and relief pitcher can be removed from the positions table, as they're not used. In the key, "seasons played" --> "seasons" for consistency with the column. Charlie Buffinton: was 19–15 his complete playing record, or his record for the time when he was not player-manager? Also, "the first" --> "his first"; Fogarty was the first manager. As this is a list about the players, it would be worth touching on a few playing statistics in the lead section. For example the highest batting average, lowest earned run average and most appearances. Not really an FLC thing, but it would be worth linking to this from the team's main article. Overall a fascinating read, and very nicely illustrated. WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed all, if the career leader addition in the lead doesn't work, let me know.Neonblak talk - 00:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I'll be willing to support if you can cite Wood, Milligan and Weyhling's bios in the lead, to back up the newly added statistics. WFCforLife (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Reference added, I missed that step...oops.Neonblak talk - 17:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. WFCforLife (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Everything in the toolbox checks out fine with the checker tools. Lead Instead of 'switched' why not 'joined the'? (After the demise of the PL following the 1890 season, the team switched to the American Association (AA) for the 1891 season, and were managed by Bill Sharsig and George Wood) seems smoother IMO. This is a bit confusing, so the Quakers and Athletics mentioned in this sentence are different or the same? It makes it sound different with the wording especially with no dates mentioned (Despite the existence of established major league representation in Philadelphia, the Phillies of the National League (NL) and the Athletics of the AA, the Quakers were able to sign veteran players, including Buffinton, Billy Shindle, George Wood, and Ben Sanders) Semicolon before however instead of a comma (Following the 1890 season, many players returned to their previous teams, however, the Athletics were able to sign quality veteran players, including Gus Weyhing, Elton Chamberlain, and Pop Corkhill.) List I would make Ref -> Ref. References There's a heavy reliance on 'retrosheet', is there no other source that can verify the list?Truco 503 02:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Baseball-Reference, another common source for baseball lists, has the same info here. Just click on either year to get the rosters of people who played for them. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC) ^Agreed.--Truco 503 02:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Made the changes you suggested, the sentence wording may or may not clear things up. I use prefer to use Retrosheet for statistics, correct names, birth/death dates and places, and cemetery info. The website is information gathered by SABR, the foremost leader in historical baseball data. I do use baseball-reference for information not found on Retrosheet.Neonblak talk - 12:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I'll let that go since you do have a different general reference.--Truco 503 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support ---Truco ₅₀₃ 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support; I read through the article, and did not see any further issues outside of what Truco noted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:56, 3 March 2010 [36].

---

List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfils the Featured List criteria. There are currently no other featured lists for lists of domestic cricket club players to compare this against. Harrias (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

;Comments I assume the blue highlighted rows indicate that the player is still active, but this is not indicated in the key. Done – added to the key. Does the "Nationality" column represent the player's nationality or the national team they represented? If it's the former (as I think it is), I suggest not using the {{cr}} template since it links to a team they are not associated with. Done – changed to the {{flag}} template. Image doesn't have alt text Done – added, although I'm rubbish at alt text, so feel free to change or suggest changes to it! The row saying "Statistics correct as of end of 2009 season" sorts with the others. It should stay where it is, right? Done – made unsortable now. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, have addressed them all. Harrias (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Looks fine now. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Caption isn't a complete sentence, so no full stop needed. Done – removed full-stop Not sure about the title. After all, this is now about a list of SCCC players with at least 100 appearances, not "by number of appearances". I agree it isn't an ideal title, but I'm not really sure what else to call it. List of Somerset CCC players already exists and serves its own purpose. And should the title really abbreviate CCC? Maybe it should be written C.C.C. but I see no reason not to abbreviate; see most of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football's featured lists for plenty with the abbreviation F.C. (and even some that are just FC). So I don't see a problem there at all. No, fair enough other than football is a worldwide phenomenon and cricket certainly doesn't reach the parts the other sport does, I just fear for people who aren't sure what CCC means. Perhaps, as a minimum, you could abbreviated County Cricket Club in the lead (CCC) so it's crystal clear? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The other option would be calling it something like List of Somerset county cricketers but I'm worried about possibly ambiguities in a title like that. And writing it out in full would make it a very long title! I appreciate your point about coverage though. Best option, right now, is to leave it to see if anyone outside of the cricket-savvy reviewers note it. I'm happy with it but having reviewed a billion baseball lists, I know that some naturally assumed terms are way beyond the rest of the world! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, will do so for the time being then. Harrias (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Do SCCC play T20 cricket? Worth a mention even if it's just to say that no-one's made it to 100 apps yet. They do, it's probably worth adding in, I'll have a look at working it in somewhere. Done – added a sentence at the end of the first para. Harrias (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Refs don't need to be sortable. Done – good point. Why don't West Indies have flags? The flag has been removed as there isn't a free image. Individual countries (ie Barbados) do have flags that could be used, but generally cricketers nationalities are considered as the national team they do/could play for rather than their actual nationality. It's a troublesome issue! Wow, news to me, and it appears the other folks that use the flag. The number of links to File:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.svg is troubling! Oh well, nothing specifically relevant this FLC I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, we could do with a fix for it! en-dashes should sort as if they were 0, not ahead of numbers. Yes, I know.. any suggestions on getting them to do that?? It doesn't work for me at all. The only way I've worked it is to use {{SortKey}}, it's a bit of work but there you go.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Using a sortkey of 0 for the endashes, and then the relevant total for the rest? Harrias (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I think so. I did a list recently, the England T20I players, it had some way extravagant sorting, have a look, see if it helps. If not, then ping me and we'll work out the specifics together. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Done – should all sort fine now! Harrias (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your critiques, I've addressed a couple directly, and offered opinions on the others. Would appreciate further feedback. Harrias (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support although the name of the list still bothers me a little... I'd like to hear what others have to say about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support – List looks good to go as far as quality is concerned. As for the title, I'm having trouble finding a similar situation that could offer some precedent. It is unusual to have a seperate list distinct from the overall players' list. "List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more appearances" is the best alternate I can come up with off the top of my head, but I'm not sure that's an improvement. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose that would be a more descriptive title. I'm not very sure regarding the abbreviation though; CCC is probably not as well known as FC, but adding "county cricket club" to the title would make it ridiculously long, and even more so if we use "100 or more appearances". So I'm in favour of keeping it CCC, though as TRM said it would be better if we had some input from someone who is not familiar with cricketing terms. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't be a problem with the abbreviation. There are several Category:National Basketball Association lists that use the abbreviated "NBA". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was equally concerned that it was "by number of appearances" as the other list List of Somerset CCC players also notes the number of appearances by every single player... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• The only possible thought I had, and I'm not sure on opinions on it, was to make seperate lists for each format. Ie, List of Somerset County Cricket Club first-class players, another for List of Somerset County Cricket Club List A players, and another for List of Somerset County Cricket Club Twenty20 players, in a similar way we have Test, ODI and T20I lists for national teams. Obviously that would require completely reworking this article, and in terms of the players on the lists I foresee a large redundancy. However, it would mean that Twenty20 would have some stats, which did trouble me with this list, especially as there really isn't horizontal room to expand into for them! Thoughts? Harrias (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm here by invitation and not sure I have much useful to add. My problem with the title, which User:Harrias and I briefly discussed before, is that this is really "List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances in chronological order of first appearance", which is, er, unwieldy. If this did what it says in the title, it'd be ordered by the number of appearances, rather than chronologically and it'd have to specify "first-class" or "List A". Two tables within the one article ordered on this basis might be a way forward, and you could keep the present title. I have to say that I've yet to be convinced that T20 stats have any great meaning for anyone and I'd ignore them for the time being. At some stage in the future when there have been more T20 matches someone will emerge with a Duckworth-Lewis-style intervention that will allow a true measure of prowess which might be based for batsmen on a combination of runs scored/rate of scoring/context of match and, for bowlers, runs conceded/wickets taken/context of match. I'll happily wait till then. Johnlp (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with either CCC or County Cricket Club YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't mind the list, but if it's going to be named "by appearances" shouldn't the table be sorted by appearances? Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Possibly, but as is alluded to above, the name is through lack of alternatives rather than anything else. Almost all other lists of players is done by debut date, although a few do simply sort alphabetically. Given there is already a List of Somerset CCC players I couldn't use that. The only thing I did think this morning, although it would seem wrong, we could possibly move it to List of Somerset County Cricket Club players. Harrias (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• If this isn't going to be sorted by appearances why not be precise with the name and just move this to List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more appearances? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• No, your suggestion this morning would be wrong and would trespass across List of Somerset CCC players which does what it says it does and is useful in its own right. User:Staxringold's (and my) point is that the title suggests the list is in order of number of appearances: if this isn't going to be the case, then "List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances" is possible. The sortable columns mean people can order them by number of appearances in either FC or LA cricket if they then want to. I've just had an edit clash with Staxringold saying something very similar! There's a consensus building here. Johnlp (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking as a neutral party, I have to agree that "List of Somerset CCC players by number of appearances" (my emphasis) makes it sound that the the "by number of appearances" sounds as if it relates to the order in which the list is presented rather than the inclusion criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• If you don't like adding a prepositional phrase to the end of the article's name, you can use a parenthetical instead: List of Somerset CCC players (100 or more appearances). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I said, I didn't think it was a good idea for a name, but it's always worth voicing the thought just in case! And yes, I've always agreed that the name is an issue, and a better name should be found. I don't want to order the list by appearances, due to the fact it lists both first-class and list a matches, which would it sort by. Sorting by debut date seems to me by far the most logical initial listing, and one that is mirrored in almost every other list of team's players. So I would be looking for another name. I would be happy with List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances, although any other snappier titles would be appreciated! Harrias (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved: List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances. I don't know whether I need to do anything with this nomination to reflect that? Harrias (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Never doubted you'd get there in the end! ;-) Johnlp (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:06, 3 March 2010 [37].

---

List of New Jersey Devils seasons

Nominator(s): Anthony Hit me up... 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The list is fully cited, and matches the standard of List of Calgary Flames seasons, List of New York Islanders seasons, and List of New York Rangers seasons. Anthony Hit me up... 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Image needs alt text, and the highlighting for the team achievements needs symbols in addition to shading - follow the example of List of New York Rangers seasons, though I don't think the dagger that denotes SC champions needs to be used three times per row. (And yes, I'm aware that the Flames list needs to be updated in this fashion as well - standards have since changed, alas). Resolute 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I updated the page to match the Rangers standard, including the 3x dagger... easy to change if need be. Everything else is fixed accordingly. Anthony Hit me up... 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Support, my issues fixed, article looks good. Resolute 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Nomader

• The first sentence lists "Newark, New Jersey, United States"-- only one of the three example lists you used, the Calgary Flames list, uses the country (because it's outside of the US), and it seems to be a bit extraneous to list United States here.
• None of the notes work properly in the graph, probably a coding problem.
• I think the dagger's a little bit overused... I don't think the NHL season won the Stanley Cup. I think the left-most column should be clear of any coloring or symbols.

Well done, the list looks good; I only glanced over the lead so someone should probably do a more thorough run-through. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Fixed as per comments. Anthony Hit me up... 13:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: my concerns have been properly addressed and I see no glaring issues with the list. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Make the lead image bigger if the resolution supports it - you can go up to 300px I seem to recall. Fixed Use en-dash for year ranges, so not 2009-10, but 2009–10 instead. Fixed "they were known as the Colorado Rockies since 1976" perhaps "they had been known as..." Fixed "regular season" or "regular-season" -be consistent. Fixed Why are Quarterfinals, Semifinals capitalised? Because that's how they're identified during the playoffs...just doing what the league does. Doesn't make it correct necessarily. I'd be interested to see if other editors think these regular nouns should be capitalised. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Check hyphens in 90/91 and 91/92... There are plenty of others too... 2000/01 for instance. Fixed Alltime record is normally a final row in the main table rather than a slightly odd table on its own. According to the Rangers FL, it's a separate table... I think it looks odd on its own, but I'm following precedent. There are dozens of FLs which have a totals row. You're following one particular precedent, and, for what it's worth, times, they are a-changing, standards change, and previous FLs may not be an ideal guide to the future...... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC) OK, part of the table and no longer a separate table. Anthony Hit me up... 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC) 2nd gen ref needs an en-dash. Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Hope that answers the issues. Anthony Hit me up... 22:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Check hyphens in 90/91 and 91/92... There are plenty of others too... 2000/01 for instance. Fixed Not quite... check the last col. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) OK, now they're all done... I hate en-dashes. Anthony Hit me up... 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC) In the future, you may want to consider using User:GregU/dashes.js. It fixes most dash problems. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, it's not a gen ref, it's a specific ref (24) - one or the other. It's a gen ref, but those 2 specific refs are to pages where the info can be found, ergo specific refs. Okay, well at least get the titles the same! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Titles match. Anthony Hit me up... 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Why isn't the The of The New York Times part of the link? Fixed I thought it was The New York Times? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Italicized. Anthony Hit me up... 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments (from the editor who got the Rangers seasons list to FL) – "The 2009–10 season is the 27th season of play, and 28th year of play in New Jersey." Don't understand this sentence. Why would the year be different than the season? If it's based on number of years the team has played there, wouldn't it be 29 (1982–2010)? Fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC) In the last sentence of the first paragraph, why would totals from other cities be included, when they aren't in the list itself? Based on Calgary's FLC, where the lead includes totals from Atlanta. It's a one-off reference because the franchise didn't start in NJ, so we mention what happened before. We can't ignore it. Anthony Hit me up... 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC) 2008–09 row is missing playof statistics. Fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC) In the alt text, proper names (like Bush's) generally should not be used, since it's impossible to verify them by merely looking at the image in question. Done. Anthony Hit me up... 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Remove the bolding from the totals, which is one of the elements of the Rangers list that I should tweak one of these days, in addition to the triple daggers. (Incidentally, I used a seperate table because of a comment at a previous FLC, and I personally find that method more appealing than chunking stats together at the bottom of a larger table, not to mention that it would likely make the Rangers table too wide. Won't hold it against this list, though) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I'm keeping the bolding at the bottom for asthetic purposes, and it looks better at the bottom of the table instead of having to go to a separate table for the same information. Personally I disagree with the way the Rangers did it, but that's my opinion, and at least one other editor here agrees with me on that issue. Anthony Hit me up... 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Took a peek at MOS:BOLD, which says bolding for table headers is okay. I assume footers can be treated similarly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments The list looks good, but there are a few nitpicks. I think two "howevers" in a row is too many. "The following year, however..." then the next sentence "Since 1997, however...". Surely, you can tweak the wording a little. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) You have a note explaining why there were 48 games played in the 1994-95 season, yet there are no notes for the two previous seasons where 84 games were played. Also, why there were 80 games played in the first few seasons. I can guess, but I'd like to know for sure. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Why is there no note on overtime losses? The team receives a point for losing in OT, this page does not mention it. I only found it out by looking at the other FLs. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Same thing with penalty shootout Fixed. Anthony (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Comparing this list with other FLs, I notice that the "All-time regular and postseason record" statistic is missing here. Any reason why? As you'll see above with the discussion with other editors, it was decided that although the Islanders and Rangers use it, the Flames do not, and it flows better as part of the same table (which is my feeling as well). It was originally part of the table, then separated, now it's back to the same table. The Hockey WP will have to come up with a consensus as to where it belongs, but right now we'll keep it with the rest of the standings, as it flows top to bottom. Anthony (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support It's good to know that there were games played at neutral arenas. Good job!--Cheetah (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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