Presenting my latest effort in the list genre...we have (drumroll)...amphibians! I've been playing with this list over the last couple of weeks, and am at the point where I can't find further aspects to improve. Courcelles has been kind enough to take a quick look, and I think that (with his help) the issues of table formatting and accessibility have been addressed. There wasn't a lot out there to base this list on, so it's pretty much just off-the-cuff - please let me know if there is further information that should be included. Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Since you have "binomial name" shouldn't the other column be "common name"?
De-capitalize "Name" in "Binomial Name"
I'd like it if the subheadings under the "references" section were semicolons instead of subheaders, producing:
General references
instead of what it is now; looks cleaner
More information can be added. See for example a list I've been working on List of reptiles of Minnesota. The notes column can be expanded for all amphibians, including size and color.
One species is considered to be threatened and two species are considered endangered care to say who they are, I think that's an important detail hinted at but not elaborated upon; violates wp:LEAD.
Thanks for the comments, Albacore! I think I have addressed everything above. I had been waffling on adding a description column, so having someone ask for the inclusion of one helped me to make up my mind. On your last point, could you please elaborate on why this was a violation of WP:LEAD? I have added the information to the lead, but it was already present in the body, so I think the lead was a proper summary of the body previously - now it's just slightly more detailed. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is just the prose critic inherent in my blood at this point, but I wish there was something less redundant than "The United States state of Michigan" at the start. Is something like "Michigan, one of the fifty United States" acceptable?
The hyphen after "considered endangered" should be a dash of some kind, either a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash.
I'm not a big fan of sentences that have multiple semi-colons, like the one that is in the second paragraph. It's a strong indication that a run-on sentence is present. There is an easy fix, however; make the "however" into "but" and swap out the semi-colon right before it, and it should be all right.
"In Michigan, wetlands protection legislation is in place that protects wetlands". Not saying this is a redundancy in the writing or anything, but I'd hope that wetlands protection laws protect wetlands. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed all of your comments. I really like your solution in the first point - I didn't really like the way it was worded either, but hadn't been able to come up with anything else. Thanks for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, TRM! I think I have addressed all of the above - we actually have an article (which I just found) on Threatened species, with a section specifically on the US definition...pretty cool. I also linked "endangered" to the proper definition. On the last point, I found the spot that I think you were talking about, but if I missed something obvious, please let me know. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority of the world's over 3400 species..." this doesn't make much sense and I'm struggling to come with an alternative. The sentence would be fine were it not for the use of "over". Perhaps change to "The majority of the world's 3400 plus species..."?
Lead image could do with alt text, alt viewer has the file name of the frogs as alt text, not sure if that is intended or not, would consider adding more informative text to those images as well.
Thanks for the comments, NapHit. I've changed the first point to your suggested wording - I'm still not completely happy with it (I wasn't before either), but I like your solution better than what I had. On the second point, I added alt text to the first image. On the remainder of the images, I'm not seeing how alt text could really be very informative ("a small frog on a log", "a small frog on a human finger", "a small toad on a leaf", "a salamander in water", "a salamander on a leaf", "a salamander on a log" and various repetitions thereof), or at least any more information than the scientific name of the animal, which is what most of the image names currently are. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
would it be possible to include a short paragraph about what kinds of habitats this class of organisms is typical found in? (see below for possible resources)
I've added another paragraph to the lead, although it didn't turn out exactly short... Let me know if this is what you had in mind, or if you were looking for something else. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no federal endangered species of amphibians native to Michigan." This sounds a bit funny to me ... can we say something like "There are no amphibians native to Michigan that are included in the Federal Endangered Species Act"?
have you seen this (to check for any missing species): Muzzall, P.M., 2005. Parasites of amphibians and reptiles from Michigan: a review of the literature 1916–2003. Fisheries Research Report 2077, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
some of the following literature might have extra information that could be used to buff up the intro (this last article in particular looks like it would be useful in adding some general information about the types of amphibian habitats in Michigan):
Title: Distribution of reptiles and amphibians on the Islands of eastern Lake Michigan: summary and analysis.
I think I've addressed everything above. Please let me know if there is further work to be done. On the sources I don't have access to, if there was something specific in them that you were interested in seeing in the article, please let me know and I will try to access them elsewhere. You say that you think they would be useful to buff the lead, so if there was specific information that you were looking for answers on in the lead, please let me know and I can try to find the information someplace else. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't have any specific additions in mind for those papers I mentioned, just wondering if you had seen them. The paragraph on habitat is great addition that definitely enhances the article—thanks. I'm satisfied the article meets FL criteria, and am happy to support. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Sasata - I always appreciate your reviews, especially the lit searches that always seem to find something I missed :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find it there either. Three other websites using it ([2][3][4]) make no contradicting copyright claims. We can't expect online sources to stay alive indefinitely, so I suppose this should be fine. Just add a link to the ODNR website.
File:Hyla versicolor.jpg – Description page names an original uploader, but leaves it unclear whether that person is also the author.
This is a bit confusing. Apparently, the author (User:Dawson) uploaded the image to en.wp in May 2006 (see this, search for Hyla versicolor). It was then uploaded to zh.wp in August 2007, and that has somehow become the "original upload". So, the author is the one who originally uploaded it, and the tag is wrong. Am I allowed to just going in and change the tag to the correct "original upload"? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're allowed. It's a wiki after all. Important is not who uploaded it, but who took the picture (see commons:Template:Information/doc for what goes where).
As far as FLC is concerned, if you can't add the information necessary to comply with our image use policy and Common's own requirements, you shouldn't use the image. Beyond that, you might want to nominate the image for deletion on Commons.
Thanks for the review. I've added individual responses to the need to have section. For the nice to haves, I'm horrible with cropping and don't have good programs to do it with, so I'll probably leave that for someone else. I've added the information templates to the last three. Please let me know what you would like me to do with the need to have stuff - I'm afraid I wasn't too successful at finding sources for the three images that need them. Since I haven't been able to find these sources, should the images be removed from the list and tagged for deletion? Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another Summer Olympic medal table from me. Hopefully I haven't repeated any mistakes that I've made previously in the three other Summer Medal articles, but you never know! Certainly one of the most notorious Games out there, being "the Nazi Games". Miyagawa(talk)18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to countries is frowned upon per WP:OVERLINK, perhaps link to the 1976 article about East and West Germany at 76 olympics?
Would link Nazi regime on first mention
"Jesse Owens became one of the more successful athletes at these Games,[1] winning four gold medals for the United States, and going down in Olympic history by reportedly frustrating Nazi Germany leader Adolf Hitler after Owens won the men's 100 metres." very long sentence and not keen on a number of things here. Owens was one of the more successful athletes, more than who? was he the most successful? the way it reads now leaves too many questions. not keen on the use of winning either, would put a semi-colon, where the first comma is and change start of second conjunction to "he won..." the bit about Hitler is also ropey. "Reportedly" is nt very encyclopaedic did he or didn't he frustrate Hitler? the Daily Mail article is not exactly forthcoming about it either, and I think the but about going down in olympic history is bait POV, although I appreciate where you're coming from, perhaps change to "he won four gold medals for the United States to the ire of Nazi Germany leader Adolf Hitler."
"Sohn Kee-chung, competing as Kitei Son, did so and became the first Korean to win an Olympic medal,[5] taking gold in the marathon, also making him Japan's first gold medallist." Not keen on the use of taking, why not use won? Would also restructure the sentence so it reads: "Sohn Kee-chung, competing as Kitei Son won gold in the marathon, which made him Japan first gold medallist and the first Korean to win a medal."
Sentence after change took to won
ref 6 needs the author adding
Also would replace the daily mail ref with this one from the guardian, not a fan of the daily mail and the guardian is more reputable new outlet in my opinion. Also the bit about Hitler is less POV than the Mail article.
File:WoodRuff 1936 Olympics medal front.jpg is tagged as "own work". I'm willing to believe that the uploader took the picture himself, but I doubt that he is also the artist who designed the medal.
I may be wrong about this, but I don't believe that merely cropping an image meets the threshold of originality. Thus File:Berlin, Olympiade, Tilly Fleischer.jpg should not use {{self}}. Furthermore it cannot be licensed under the GFDL, as the image it was cropped from is not available under that license.
I've switched out the licences on commons for the Tilly Fleischer and Ibolya Csak images for the licences on the original images rather than the cropped versions. As for the medal itself, it was designed by Giuseppe Cassioli and was used from the 1928 Olympics onwards. The artist himself died in 1942. Miyagawa(talk)21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dissapointingly I didn't get a response and the query has now been archived. I've looked into it in some more detail and I would argue that the medals don't qualify as a two dimension piece of art being that they are indeed three dimensional. Therefore such copyright wouldn't apply to them. Photographs of them then fall into the general realm of copyright, which means that if the photographer themselves uploaded it on a CC free use tag, then they're ok. It's certainly not the only image of olympic medals uploaded, and there are photographs of more recent ones too (including the Games from the period after this design was no longer used). Miyagawa(talk)12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as noted. The Germany numbers were originally from the general reference, but I found a second resource which showed the tables over multiple years and added it as an inline citation. Miyagawa(talk)18:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"would stand until the 1976 Summer Olympics when East Germany won 90 medals, and West Germany an additional 39" does that really count since presumably the East German NOC was just that, for East Germany, and not for a unified Germany?
Changed it to confirm that is it a record for a United/Unified Germany, although I made mention that East Germany alone beat that record on three occasions. Miyagawa(talk)20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why some countries had threatened to boycott the games?
There should have been 129 medals of each type, but the dead heat in the weightlifting increased the number of gold medals to 130, and decreased the number of silver medals to 128 as it wasn't awarded in that event due to the two gold medals. Then the dead heat in the gymnastics increased that to 130 as well, causing the 2 medal gap between gold/bronze and silver. Thinking about it now, I'm going to explain that silver gap in the article right now. Miyagawa(talk)20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I even had to write down what I thought so I could add it all up! confusing, so any clarification you could offer would be cool. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments - overall, looking quite good. Just a couple of comments before I support:
"cancelled at the last moment after the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War after the athletes had already begun to arrive." - after...after, any way to remove repetitiveness?
"While no NOCs eventually boycotted the Games", "eventually" sounds a bit off here. Perhaps "ended up boycotting" or "In the end, no NOCs boycotted" or something similar would be better.
"to the ire of Nazi Germany leader Adolf Hitler after Owens won the men's 100 metres." Why was Hitler particularly upset about him winning this event? Also, giving a bit more explanation as to why Hitler was upset that Owens was winning medals (because of his race, yes?) might be interesting.
I am nominating this for featured list because it recently underwent a peer review and I feel it is up to FL-quality. I am a fan of the group and found the process of improving this discography enjoyable, and it would be nice to have my first FL. ToaNidhiki0514:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for the discrepancy in release dates, i.e. Billboard has Peace on Earth dated October 25, 2008 while Allmusic has it October 7, 2008?
YouTube is not generally accepted as a reliable source (since anyone can upload just about anything to it).
Yes, but the links either on the Casting Crowns VEVO account or their main account; both are reliable since they are self-published by the band. ToaNidhiki0500:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most discogs have the director(s) for each music video.
I've tried to find info on that but it just isn't out there. Christian music videos tend to get little media coverage, even in the Christian music industry; it just isn't that big of a deal. ToaNidhiki0500:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The music videos and other appearances tables do not comply with MOS:DTT. You need to add row and col scopes to these tables so they do comply. NapHit (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some unsuccessful FACs, I have decided to attempt an FLC. I am nominating this article for featured list because I firmly believe that this meets the criteria for FL; it was edited/revised in accordance to the standards used in the Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season and the Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season (two very recent FLC candidates). As always, if you disagree with my assumption that this should be an FL, please comment about what needs to be done below. Finally, I would like to note that this is a nomination for the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Prose still needs considerable work: I'm still seeing some prose errors, but as I don't have time to resume reviewing I will strike my oppose. Cheers, Auree★★18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"with 14 tropical cyclones becoming named storms" is sloppy construction. You can either remove "becoming" or rephrase to something like "during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms."
"Although Tropical Depression One formed on May 24, the season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30, dates that conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones develop in the Atlantic basin." In this sentence, grammatically, "although" contrasts both "began on June 1 and ended on November 30," while it's supposed to be in contrast with only "began on June 1."
Because reviewers learn and grow, and as such they identify new mistakes. I'm not sure what it is you're accusing me of here. Auree★★04:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink major hurricane (it redirects but it's still useful).
"formed roughly halfway between the northern coast of Honduras and Cape San Antonio, Cuba" Honduras' northern coast is pretty big. Anything more specific?
"Tropical Depression One made landfall near Guasimal, Matanzas, Cuba with winds of 30 mph (45 km/h)." Needs a comma after the country (Cuba); check for consistency throughout.
"0000 UTC (8:00 p.m. EDT May 31) - The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season officially began." Why the change in tense? It switches to present tense again at the end of the timeline. Please be consistent and per convention change everything to present tense.
I'm seeing inconsistencies in the ways numbers are rounded and estimates are given. If converted from nautical miles or knots, please round to the nearest 5 digit, and when rough estimates like 1,000 mi are given, converting to a more precise value of 1,610 km (rather than 1,600) is rather inconsequential.
No, quite the contrary. 1,000 is an estimate, so the kilometers value should be an estimate too (1,600 rather than 1,610). Auree★★05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the TCR again and it actually wasn't 1,000 miles, it was 1,000 nautical miles. So 1,000 nautical miles is approximately 1,150 statute miles. In conversion, that would be near 1,850 km. So I corrected this.--12george1 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Several of the File: pages might benefit from some clean-up though. Goodraise13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season had the most named storms at the time, during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms." -- Would prefer "featured" in place of "had"
"Although the season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season at the time, it featured only a few notable storms, since most of the tropical cyclones were either weak or remained at sea." -- Would prefer "primarily because" in place of "since" and "many" in the place of "most"
Make sure that all units are rounded and not approximated, such as "1200 UTC (8:00 a.m. EDT) – Tropical Depression One is absorbed by an approaching cold front while located about 44 miles (71 km) west of Key West,Florida"
"0800–0900 UTC (4:00–5:00 a.m. EDT) – Tropical Storm Arthur passes through the Windward Islands between Grenada and Tobago." -- I am not sure why this is needed??
"0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. EDT) – Hurricane Bertha weakens to a tropical storm while it makes landfall near Sydney, Nova Scotia, with winds of 70 mph (115 km/h). Simultaneously, Tropical Storm Bertha transitions into an extratropical storm." -- "while making" in place of "while it makes"
First sentence: "The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season featured the most named storms at the time, during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms." The part before the comma doesn't flow at all with what comes after it (most at the time, during which?), and there's a prose redundancy with "named storms". Needs a rewrite.
The "most named storms at the time" part appears later in the lead, which is a bit redundant in itself. At least vary the language a little.
I have fixed those three issues. On the first one, I decided that it would be best to split that sentence in order to prevent the redundancy and "most at the time, during which" thing.--12george1 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"16 tropical depressions, of which fourteen intensified " 16/14 or sixteen/fourteen, not a mix.
I don't follow you here; I have to say that 14 of the 16 tropical depressions intensified into a tropical storm (named storm).--12george1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. At first I thought you were wanting me to remove either just the number 16 or 14, and not both. However, I fixed it now so that it is the same, and not one in numeric form and the other spelled out.--12george1 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discrepancy between the text and the image caption on the conversion for the distance of Hurricane Klaus to Barbuda — it's either 12 mi (20 km) or 12 mi (19 km), but not both.
On TRM's comments about having a number spelled out or expressed in digits in a sentence, that particular sentence still uses a mix (16, 14, eight, one). It's one or the other (as I've been told many a time myself, as much as I dislike using digits for numbers below ten).
"In 1976, when the award's name changed to its current name..." Perhaps change one of the words for flow
Changed
"Supporting actress in two of three plays in Neil Simon's Eugene trilogy (Brighton Beach Memoirs and Broadway Bound) were nominated for the Tony..." Should that be "actresses"?
The footnote looks good, but perhaps you could add more information than merely noting a ceremony wasn't held? Why did two years not have a ceremony? Has this been difficult to find reliable sources for? Ruby2010/201322:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the same character in a play has never won the award more than once" probably my fuggy brain, but what does this mean? It's the actress that wins the award, not the character...
"Supporting actresses in two of ..." but the award is for "featured actresses" isn't it? How does that work?!
As opposed to the Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play, which honors the main actress in a play, this award honors a supporting role. It's called supporting actress in a play in sources, [9], and was named the "Tony Award for Actress, Supporting or Featured (Dramatic)" before the name was changed. Albacore (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"six parts of August Wilson's The Pittsburgh Cycle series" -> I'm not convinced "series" isn't redundant here, coming right after "cycle", which already conveys that it's a series. I also think that you could pipe link out the "The" in "The Pittsburgh Cycle", it's not necessary given the possessive—the target article already makes use of "Wilson's Pittsburgh Cycle".
"in the 2011 remake of The Normal Heart." -> Could be wrong, but wouldn't revival be the correct term, rather than remake, when it's stage plays we're talking about?
" In 1976, when the award's name changed to its current title, Shirley Knight, portraying Carla in Robert Patrick's Kennedy's Children, won the award." -> I think this one reads a bit awkwardly. Perhaps " The award was renamed in 1976, with Shirley Knight becoming the first winner under the new title for her role as Carla in Robert Patrick's Kennedy's Children" might work a little better.
Another Liverpool players list, as opposed to the last list, I've gone through every player and checked that their details are correct, I may have missed the odd one or two, but unlike the last list there are not discrepancies with the majority of the players. I look forward to your comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Alvaro Arbeloa" appears to be missing a diacritic.
Don't think you need Liverpool F.C. as a cat here since you have a more refined Liverpool F.C. players cat. ("A cat, a cat, a cat!!!")
Lead image caption needs no full stop.
"who have been awarded league winners medals." is that referenced?
couldn't really reference it, so I've mentioned two players who achieved notable records whilst playing for the club. NapHit (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Since playing their first competitive match, more than 700 players have appeared in competitive first-team matches for the club" This doesn't read brilliantly for me due to the repetition of first and competitive. Other than that it looks good. Adam4267 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should put (EP) after "extended plays" in the lead since the abbreviation is used in the infobox and the heading of the table without an explicit abbreviation appearing anywhere.
Done.
"released... release. ... released ... releasing ..." repetitive.
Reworded.
"US[15][5]" Would prefer to see the refs in numerical order.
Fixed.
"third and final album" _studio_ album.
Added, I think.
The source says Confuse the Marketplace came out on 10 December, not 11 December.
Fixed.
I don't see the release date of the A Bunch of Stuff EP anywhere in that source.
Replaced.
The source says Introns would be released on 14 March, not 13 March. And has no year.
Fixed, and I think the year is implied since that's the year the article was published.
I don't see the release date of the 45:33 Remixes in that source.
Replaced.
I haven't checked that all references to the singles which didn't chart reference the year of release, but please could you and confirm they all do?
Done.
Two blank entries for Directors, either fill them in or add note to say these are unknown.
Done.
Be consistent with author names in the refs, either First Last or Last, First.
Fixed.
Ref 29 looks like it has a spare "
That's part of the title. As in, a 7". Replaced it anyway, since it didn't have the year.
Ref 31 has a ! followed by a . which is bad, you'll need to fool the template by pipelinking Yahoo! to Yahoo (without the !).
I am nominating this for featured list because, after a lot of work, I believe this amazing trilogy deserves the FL star, particularly in preparation for the release of The Hobbit. Thanks in advance for your comments. Ruby2010/201319:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominator here: This was a list I tried to improve by adding references to back in early 2011 but eventually stopped; in November I noticed Ruby had begun working on it and asked if we could collaborate. This is my first foray into featured lists so I've kind of watched and learn; hopefully I can learn from this nomination, too! Glimmer721talk01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the plot follows the hobbitFrodo Baggins and the rest of the Fellowship of the Ring" Some how "and the rest" doesn't sound right. Perhaps something like "and his fellow members of the"? Also the link to "Fellowship of the Ring" needs to be redone so it doesn't redirect.
"many of the actors were also recognized for their individual work, including McKellen (12 nominations), Serkis, (10 nominations), Astin (9 nominations), and Mortensen (5 nominations)." No comma after Serkis.
"The film holds the record for most Oscars won, as it earned eleven Academy Awards alongside Titanic and Ben-Hur." The first part of the statement seems to contradict the second part. How about "the film won a total of eleven Academy Awards, thus tieing with Titanic and Ben-Hur for the most Oscars won."? Jimknut (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me, great work. But please check for double links to WP articles in the plain text and the awards tables. E.g. Andy Serkis has been linked several times. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ucucha/duplinks.js is useful for checking this, if you need it. To jump in on this comment, the only link I think should be repeated under each film's headings would be the link for the film in question—for instance, if The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is linked earlier in the article, it should still be linked in the heading for its awards. GRAPPLEX22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the col scopes, but are the row scopes normally done with accolades lists? I was just reviewing recent lists like this and this, and didn't notice them. My apologies if I misinterpreted something. Ruby2010/201321:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could do row scopes with the accolade names. That would make perfect sense to me, but then I'm no expert I'm afraid, that's what I'd do if it was me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have added row scopes. A couple errors results when I inputted the !scope="row" parameter in addition to an award that already had the colspan=2 parameter (see Art Directors Guild for example). I can't seem to figure out how to get rid of that centered, bolded category. Any takers? Ruby2010/2013 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I tweaked them a bit, so they should be fine now. Ruby2010/201318:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"were released serially in December 2001–2003" not keen on this construction. They were released between December 2001 and 2003... and was that a worldwide release?
Not sure why the Toronto and Austin awards are listed ahead of the the numerous Academy awards and nominations...
Those were awards specific to the trilogy as a whole; the Oscars are for each individual film and are in the article later. That's the explanation; I can change it if you would perfer. Glimmer721talk00:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"recognized" used in consecutive sentences is a little samey.
Is there a reason for the empty cell in the third column of the Art Directors Guild line? Others of this type have a colspan across those two cells. Same for the American Film Institute Awards in the second and third tables. And MTV Movie Awards and New York Film Critics in the third table... you get my drift.
When I adjusted the col and rol scopes at your behest (see above), the formatting came out wonky for some awards (view the edit history [13] to see exactly why it looks odd, especially the Art Directors Guild). The only way I could see to fix it was to add that empty cell. I've tried various formatting and none seem to work. I could use a little help with it, I think. :-/ Ruby2010/201321:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Two Towers: You really don't need another Academy Award link here, as there's a link in the previous section and in the lead. Might be worth checking the other sections to see if any other links can be pruned.
Refs 38 to 41 all appear to come from some fan site. What makes this a reliable source? And if they are Empire magazine reprints, wouldn't it be better to just cite an offline copy of the magazines, which don't have any copyright concerns?
It's a bit ironic, but there aren't any reliable sources for the 2002 Online Film Critics. I just performed another Google search (and have done several in the past). I have also used the various databases provided by my university library, to no avail. Glimmer has also searched. While I understand that this website is not strictly reliable, I see nothing that indicates the information is incorrect; everything aligns with the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure where else to proceed from here. I could cite the IMdB article, but that isn't reliable either. Ruby2010/201304:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Been keeping an eye on this one and its progress, and provided my tweaks here and there don't qualify as active involvement then I'm happy to support it for featured status. GRAPPLEX11:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added the {{information}} templates. Should I just remove the GFDL tags? Will that affect the images' licensing? (they're still covered under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license). Thanks, Ruby2010/201322:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list of Malmö FF managers is the third FLC nomination of Malmö FF related list from me in my pursuit to make Malmö FF a featured topic. This list features all of the managers in the history of the club complete with statistics and honours won by each manager. The list is also illustrated with relevant images and fully referenced with footnotes to further explain some things that might be confusing to the reader. I hope you enjoy the list! --Reckless182(talk)11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Two questions, 1. would it be possibble to combine『1973–74 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1974–75 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1977–78 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1979–80 Svenska Cupen — Winners』to like Svenska Cupen — Winners 1973-74, 1977-78... with small resolution (1280*1024) the cell becomes huge and makes the table harder to read. 2. should the super-cup runner up in 2011 really be an honour? It's a one match competition and the only match was lost. -Koppapa (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to stay consistent with the rest of the table, I'm not sure on how to solve the problem with the titles for Houghton. Some kind of roll-up menu would be perfect but I don't think that is possible inside a table. Svenska Supercupen is the same match format as the Community Shield albeit with a much shorter tradition, surely it should be included? --Reckless182(talk)11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A good way to get around this might be to put the honours in <small> text, and abbreviate "winners" and "runners-up" to "W" and "RU" respectively (with appropriate notes in the key). —Cliftonian(talk)11:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The managerial history section is quite a lot of text. Would it be possible/appropriate to add some sub-sections? Looks a useful list though. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is all of the material in the body text cited? I'm not sure whether the table really covers some of the finer details in the prose, which is lightly referenced.
Which details are you referring to? In the process of writing the managerial history section I added refs for facts that wasn't already referenced in the table below as it seemed a bit redundant to source these facts twice. I'll be happy to add any refs that might be needed. --Reckless182(talk)10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that jumped out at me was the club's relegation, since divisions aren't really covered in the table. Also, the initial entering in European competitions isn't cited. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 is a little inconsistent from the other book cites with regard to formatting. I'd suggest copying the style used in the other similar refs, without the first name of the author and with the publishing year.
No, appearances in Royal League are not notable as it wasn't recognized by UEFA and was primarily organized as a pre seasons competition. It was also short lived. --Reckless182(talk)23:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice large parts of the prose appear to be unreferenced with just one reference at the end of a paragraph, do these ref covers the whole paragraph?
Well when the sort button on the allsvenkan column, 1985 is at the top followed by 1965, 1974, 1950-51, 1943-44, 1948-49, 1949-50, 2004 and finally 2010, its not in the correct order. NapHit (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not sorted according to what year they were first won, that can be seen without sorting. The column in sorted after number of titles. Hodgson first with five titles, then comes Duran with four titles, Hougon with three, Turner with two and then the managers with only one title sorted according to who won the title first. --Reckless182(talk)16:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That needs to be made clear to the reader then, as they could interpret the table the way I did, I take it the same applies to the Other honours column as well? NapHit (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is not needed as it's stating the obvious. But I've added an explanation for both columns in the table headers section above the table. --Reckless182(talk)19:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm convinced by the wordy section headings. I know this is sometimes commonplace elsewhere but I do tend to find it a little bit tabloid, especially when a heading becomes the width of the whole page...
"The following is a list of managers of ..." would prefer to avoid this, perhaps something like "Since the club was founded, there have been X managers ...."
"and entered European competitions with limited success" vs "performed well in continental competitions" both link to the same article which is possibly confusing.
Should be OK since the wikilinks are not in the same section and not referring to the same period of time. I can remove the second link if you want but I don't see a problem. --Reckless182(talk)19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"before leaving soon after." reads a little weak, perhaps give some precise info here.
"The list is sorted by number of honours won." only if you sort it that way. You mean "The cell" or something like that. Or else just order it chronologically to be consistent.
I added the column scopes, but I'm unsure how to apply the row scopes. I could apply them to the first column, Year, but that isn't really a "primary key" for the table. Should I add another column, such as a count of the draft picks, to be that primary key? –Grondemar03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could make the player name the row scope since this is a list of the "Huskies", that column would appear to be the most appropriate/significant element of the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Criterion 3b. Sorry, but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be included as part of a combined NBA and WNBA Draft list, like Oklahoma's. I just checked how many men's draft picks Connecticut had, and the number is actually one fewer than the Sooners. We're talking about a net difference of 11 players from Oklahoma's list to what a combined Connecticut list would contain. I don't think that's enough to support two lists.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the rationale behind the two above opposes. I will provide a full response later today. I request patiences from the FLC delegates until I can post my full response. –Grondemar17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the above oppose rationale provided by Giants2008 and concurred with by Goodraise, I object on the following grounds:
It proposes merging two different subject areas into a single list: men's basketball and women's basketball. While basketball is indeed a single sport with a common set of rules, there are significant differences in both the rulesets and the style of play between men's and women's basketball at both the collegiate and professional levels. Among the differences at the collegiate level include length of the shot clock (35 seconds in men's, 30 seconds in women's), location of the three-point line, and certain violations such as ten-seconds-in-the-backcourt. Similar rule differences exist between the NBA and WNBA. The style of play between men's and women's basketball is even more of a apparent difference: men's basketball is characterized by "above-the-rim" play with slam dunks while the women's game plays more "below-the-rim" as in general women do not dunk.
It is not consistent with how reliable sources treat the subjects. Reliable sources treat men's and women's basketball as two independent sports. ESPN, as an example reliable source, has separate pages for men's and women's basketball at both the college and professional level: [18][19][20]. You will be hard-pressed to find any reliable source that simultaneously discusses both the NBA and WNBA Drafts. The two drafts occur months apart. While the WNBA is still managed by the NBA, most of the WNBA teams are now independent of NBA teams. The NBA and WNBA are separate entities drafting from different sets of players. It does not make sense to insist on the merger of men's and women's basketball content in featured lists when no reliable source organizes itself that way.
It is not consistent with how other Wikipedia articles are structured. In general, the format for university athletic department articles is to have an overview article at UNIVERSITYNAME NICKNAME such as Connecticut HuskiesorOklahoma Sooners. These articles then if needed per WP:SUMMARY have subarticles on each sport, such as Connecticut Huskies men's basketball and Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. You'll notice that Connecticut Huskies basketball is a disambiguation page, not an article about both programs. If there is any university that has a common article for both their men's and women's basketball programs I would be interested in learning about it. This draft list exists as a stand-alone list rather than an embedded list because merging it into Connecticut Huskies women's basketball would be WP:UNDUE. The standard for whether a stand-alone list should exist should be whether it would overwhelm its parent article, not whether it could be merged into another list with another defined scope.
Mine is too. I'm still a little shaky on the list based on the minimal increase in size from an already featured list, but the argument that the two teams each have subarticles is a strong one. I'll probably end up refraining from supporting after a more thorough review due to my concern, but I won't oppose over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After all of the debate on alt text over the years I notice that WP:ALT isn't labelled a policy, a guideline, or even an essay. It would be nice if there was some kind of consensus to include alt text and of what that alt text should consist. For now, I added "refer to caption" to the alt parameters of each of the images. –Grondemar23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Notes column, I don't believe the "Champion" in "WNBA Champion" warrants the capitalization.
Support - with comment.『three players—Taurasi, Charles, and Moore』- there are two Moores in the list, so you'll need her first name here. Good job on archiving all of the references- means I get to skip my spiel here, though note if you care that if you add |deadurl=no to the reference, then the current page will be listed first, not the archived version- super-optional, though. I have no problems with the WNBA list being separate from the NBA list. --PresN19:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of your comments. I did not know about the deadurl parameter and will make use of it going forward. Thanks for the review! –Grondemar00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some double full stops in the refs e.g. 37, 39, 45, 47, 49... need to be fixed, and I think since you have "Center / Forward" and "Forward / Center" (I guess meaning the first is the usual position but can play the second?) you should have a note to explain why you have this. I don't think Notes need to be sortable either. But other than that, I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the first and last points above. Regarding the ordering of positions, these were generally based on what the sources said rather than any kind of editorial judgement, so I'm not sure what I can say here. Thanks for the review. –Grondemar02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It follows the layout of the Luton Town and the recently promoted Liverpool league record by opponent FLs. Please feel free to pick holes... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Ref 4's title 'Birmingham City 1892–1893 : Results' fail WP:YEAR -- should it be corrected to 1892–93? Bit niggly yes, but I notice Statto use hyphens to separate years; this ref title uses a dash. So it is a case of mixing two rules instead of complying with one. If this has been answered before and does not apply to references, I do apologise.
Support Believe this meets requirements set by the Liverpool, Luton Town and recently passed Manchester United FLC. Nice work. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Seems like "their" or another word is missing from "Birmingham have recorded most league victories against Leicester City".
Reworded as "Birmingham have recorded more league victories against Leicester City than against any other club, having beaten them 50 times out of 120 attempts." Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just one query, ref 5 you have another link directly below it, but it's not formatted as a reference. Firstly, does the first ref not render the second one obsolete? Secondly, if it doesn't, why is it not formatted like the other refs? Other than the list is fantastic, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's two sources supporting the same fact, one source from each "side", as it were, Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association and MK Dons FC. See WP:CITEBUNDLE which explains why we might want to lump them together rather than having a string of separately cited sources. Admittedly, two refs on the end of a footnote doesn't clutter up any prose, but I've got into the habit of doing it that way when more than one source verifies the same thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I was curious as to why it was formatted that way as I've never seen it done before. MOS clarifies this, so no problem. NapHit (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list as part of a fun mission getting the Tranmere family of articles to a better standard (than the team). This list recently had a positive peer review, and seems of a comparable standard to the recent list on Watford (unlike the team). Hope you enjoy the read! U+003F?15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"It includes first-team appearances and goals in the in The Football League" - bit of a stutter there
Bold highlighting for table entries is discouraged by the Manual of Style. Italics are used frequently, and would be an appropriate substitute here if you're so inclined.
Why does the table caption read "List of players with over 100 appearances" when players with exactly 100 matches played are included? It would make more sense to have it read "List of players with 100 or more appearances".
✗Not done I agree that it should read "club" rather than "team". But use of singular or plural is discretionary. Whilst I don't think either form (singular or plural) is more correct, I tend to prefer Tranmere/the club/the team are. I don't know if this carries any weight, but this and the other Tranmere articles (such as the list of managers) consistently use the plural. U+003F?12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discretion comes in being able to use either form depending on context, rather than in choosing one form and then sticking to it. When you're talking about TRFC the team, as a collection of players – "they were relegated" or "Tranmere are winning" – the plural comes naturally (and correctly) to a BritEng speaker. But in the opening sentence, you're not just talking about the players on the pitch, you're talking about the business, rules, structure, directors, deciding what pitch the players are to play on, whatever went to make up TRFC the football club founded in 1884. That's a singular entity so takes a singular verb. Have a look at this on the BBC's Learning English subsite. Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that continual use of "appearances" gets repetitive, but I'm not sure the word "caps" is appropriate for club appearances. To me, "most-capped player" implies "player with most international caps".
Players. Don't like using the word "competitive" as a definition of what you're including. It implies the Lancashire Combination and the Central League weren't competitive. Maybe something like "players who have made 100 or more appearances in nationally organised first-team competition" would be a little more precise.
Maybe "the three games in 1939, immediately prior to the Second World War" could be clarified? something like "the three games in the 1939–40 Football League season abandoned because of the Second World War"
Position key. If the left column is for positions before the 1960s, and the right column is for positions after the 1960s, what positions apply to players in the 1960s? Perhaps it might be worth adding an explanatory note, to the effect that over time, the names of defensive and midfield positions changed to reflect changes in playing formation, and these changes were largely complete by the 1960s. Maybe link to Association football positions#Tactical evolution. And then head the columns something like "Pre-1960s" and "1960s–". Centre all the columns, so it's clearer that Goalkeeper and Forward apply to both old and new. A better wikilink for Half-back might be Formation (association football)#2–3–5 (Pyramid), which has a (very) brief description of the function of full-backs and half-backs and the dual role of the centre-half. Have a look at List of Liverpool F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)#Players: the same comment was made at that list's recent FLC.
Notes #4. Are you sure about "dual internationalists"? would have thought "dual internationals" was more common usage. Maybe add a few words of explanation, as at List of Watford F.C. players note d.
References General. Soccerbase is a work, and has a publisher, which you'll find after the copyright symbol at the bottom of all its pages. So long as you include the publisher in its description here in the general refs, you don't need to repeat it in all the specific Soccerbase refs.
The Jimmy Moreton paragraph is a bit odd to me, the first sentence doesn't really fit in, not sure we need to know he was signed from Cammell Laird. Perhaps try "Jimmy Moreton made 148 Football League and 22 FA Cup appearances, as well numerous first-team outings in the lower Lancashire Combination and Central Leagues." Should read better with this change.
Any reason why only the players that have made international appearances have their nationality made apparent? Would be useful for the reader to know what nationality players were.
I don't know what the "right" approach is here. Looking to the two recently featured lists mentioned above, Watford follow the same approach as is currently used here, namely that if a player did not compete internationally, no country is denoted; meanwhile Liverpool give a nationality for all players. Would it be more useful for the reader to know all players' nationality, or to know which players had received international recognition? U+003F?14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to MOS:ICON#Use of flags for sportspersons, "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." So to attribute a flag, and by extension a nationality, accurately to a player who hadn't been selected for international football, we'd have to know and source his representative nationality, which involves knowing the international selection criteria at the time he played, his birthplace, his legal nationality, the nationality of his parents or grandparents, whether he'd declared for any nation, maybe more... FWIW, having read that bit of the MoS and seen the Watford list, I adopted the Watford approach and converted the Birmingham player lists to have an International selection column instead of Nation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooer, that seems a strict interpretation of the MOS. You feel that this list should only have nationalities for those capped internationally, right? Which is fine, that's the way I'd edge too. But does it not also mean that (almost) all of the players in the squad list should have their nationalities removed too? U+003F?09:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do tend to exaggerate to make a point, sorry. But (genuinely) I'm not sure we're supposed to attribute representative nationality by birthplace alone, which is what tends to happen. If what's in the reliable source(s) can reasonably be assumed to be the player's representative nationality, there's no problem with using it. Which means your squad list's fine: it's sourced explicitly to the squad profiles pages at TRFC, most of them list a nationality, and it's reasonable to assume the info comes from the players themselves.
As to this list, either approach is valid. Personally I feel more comfortable with listing international selection, whether just senior as you have or including under-age as well as per Watford. But if the general view is that readers would want to know the nationality for all the players, just omit it for the ones that can't be reasonably sourced (though it's probably safe to ignore my extreme interpretation above :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, was not aware of that bit of MOS. If you can reliably source the nationalities of all the players in the list then I would include them, but if you can't then I wouldn't bother, would look a bit odd to have nationalities for some players and none for others. NapHit (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: This is only necessary because the images are hosted on Commons (as opposed to images stored locally in the database of the English Wikipedia). As far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, these images appear to be free enough and properly tagged. Goodraise20:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think. I must confess I wasn't entirely sure what was wanted here. Are those descriptions sufficient, would you say? U+003F?17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-UK-unknown}} can only be used if "the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." At this point, I'm not convinced that you have exhausted all reasonable means. Somebody may still hold the copyright for these pictures, and that's not acceptable. Then again, I'm not an expert on UK copyright law. You could ask (for example at Commons:Village Pump) for input from someone more knowledgeable. Goodraise20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, after working on it for the past several days and carefully reviewing the Featured List criteria, I believe that it meets the standards. This is my first time working at FLC but I based this article off the examples set by other "List of Olympic medalists in..." Featured Lists, with of course some necessary adaptations since this is a rather unique event in terms of modern Olympic history. CanadianPaul19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Interesting list wasn't even aware art competitions were in the olympics, so this has been an enlightening read.
Bold links are not encouraged per MOS:BOLD so I would remove the bold from the link.
You use International Olympic Committee and later use IOC, yet you have indicated that IOC is the acronym for the committee so add (IOC) after its used in the first sentence.
First sentence needs a reference as that statement could be challenged.
"They were originally planned for inclusion in the 1908 Summer Olympics but were delayed after that edition's shift in venue from Rome to London" that edition is redundant as you've already clarified what olympics is being referred to, and replace shift with change, so it reads "after a change in venue..."
"By 1924..." I take it your referring to that year's games? It's not explicit so I would link to the article so it is, thus the sentence would read "By the 1924 Summer Olympics..."
"subcategories" "subdivisions" which one is it? be consistent with which one you choose
" which was eventually rejected"
MOS:NUM recommend that numbers lower than smaller be spelled out as opposed to a digit.
Tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for more info on this.
Not sure you need the key for the medals by year table, as the first symbol is not in use and the second is self-explanatory.
In the same table, I would link the whole year e.g. 1936 instead of 36 to avoid any confusion as to what the column headers mean.
change style="background:goldto"style="background-color: gold to ensure the sort key is visible, do the same for the silver and bronze columns as well.
Also the 36 column does not sort correctly.
Refs that are PDFs need the parameter |format=PDF adding.
Hyphnens in the page ranges need to be dashes per WP:DASH.
The header of the general section needs altering so its is a subsection of the references section.
Thanks for the review! I had a few minutes to spare so I (hopefully) took care of a handful of these: the first seven (except the reference) and the last three. I will work on the rest tomorrow, when I have more time, but I have two questions: 1) The reference for the first sentence is the same for the quote in the second sentence; should I repeat it? 2) I typed in – as my preferred method of creating the en dash, since it makes it obvious what is meant to be there. I have also seen, however, people replacing – with an inserted dash. Is this preferable, or does it matter? Thanks again! CanadianPaul01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to repeat the reference it's fine where it is. Personally I use the inserted dash, as I think (not totally sure) that dash is being phased out, it's certainly quicker using the inserted dash so I would recommend using that one. NapHit (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have addressed all of these concerns. I'm not certain why the 1936 column wasn't sorting correctly, when the "totals" one was, so I cheated a bit to fix the issue. For the alternative text, I'm not sure if the "...of XXX" part was redundant or not considering that most captions directly identify the subject, so I can take it out in the unambiguous cases (to leave it with just "Photograph") if necessary. Finally, I left out the "caption" option from MOS:DTT because it doesn't seem to be used in the other "List of Olympic medalists in..." FLs, but I can certainly insert it if the standards have been updated.CanadianPaul00:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there, you need to remove the | that are before the ! when using scope=row. I've done the first table as an example anyway. Perosnally I would add the captions, as they are encouraged per MOS:DTT. You also need to change the colour coding per the instructions above for the medalist tables as they are sortable. Other than these issues the list is looking very good indeed. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I believe that I have addressed these as well. My only problem was that, for the two tables that had multiple medalists of the same colour in the same year (mixed literature and mixed sculpturing), I couldn't get rid of the pipes in the sub-rows or else the style would bleed into those cells. Is there any way around this? CanadianPaul16:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"art competitions were removed from the Olympic program. Planners of the 1952 Summer Olympics opposed its inclusion on logistical grounds". "its" → "their". The "competitions" are a plural, after all.
Which pseudonym did Coubertin win his gold with? That would be a nice piece of information to have in the lead.
Fix looks good, but the lead photo caption says "a pseudonym", which doesn't seem to be accurate (it was two according to the lead). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comma needed after Alfred Hajos in the lead.
In the tables, the names should sort by last name, not first.
In the second general reference and cites 1, 10, 16–22, and 24, the pp. in the citation should be p. since they are only for a single page, not multiple pages.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comments and believe that I have addressed them all! The only thing that I'm not certain about is what the best way to sort the "none awarded" entries would be. My guess would be that I should sort them as "zzz" or something that will put them at the bottom of the list when sorted alphabetically, but I thought I'd ask before I made the edits. CanadianPaul19:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the sorting and changed the photo caption, but it still feels a bit awkward/inaccurate to me. I'm not sure there's a good way to make it accurate and flowing while still keeping it concise, so perhaps it would be better to leave out the "under a pseudonym" part entirely and the reader can learn about the pseudonym through the article itself? Or is it too misleading to leave it as "IOC founder PdC won..." etc.?CanadianPaul16:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments - the image captions need to lose the periods if they're not complete sentences, which right now are only the lead, Alfréd Hajós, and Walter W. Winans images. You should also consider archiving the online (non-pdf) references with webcitation.org or web.archive.org and the archiveurl/archivedate= parameters - if those websites ever go down, you could lose all your references. Interesting list; I never knew about the art competitions, and given that you can easily see a bias towards to hosting country's artists I can see why it needed to be dropped. --PresN19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I've addressed some of these concerns, but I also have a few questions:
I'm not certain I know what you mean by making the columns the same width from section to section - unless I missed something, they are all 105-180-180-180 in each section. Unless you mean expanding the "Games" column to 180?
The articles I see, (most notably his own) all use "Coubertin" rather than "de Coubertin", which seems to be in line with WP:MCSTJR, which says that French names do not sort by lower case particles. Granted, that's for categories, but I think the same principle would apply for his name?
I am nominating this for featured list because... I contributed the page through whole the year, not constantly though. However, in the end I wrote the lead and I think it really can pass Wikipedia's FL criteria. I am a Rihanna fan, and she was successful on the Hot 100 this year, so for that I will be really happy If I make this a FL.— Tomica(talk)16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Published by Billboard magazine, the data are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based collectively on each single's weekly physical and digital sales, and airplay." - This needs to be re-worded; it's a bit hard to follow: Its data, published by Billboard magazine and compiled by Nielsen SoundScan, is based collectively on each single's weekly physical and digital sales, as well as airplay."
"Although 14 singles claimed the top spot in 52 issues of the magazine, singer Katy Perry' "Firework" began its peak position in late 2010, and is thus excluded.[1]" - this is probably not important enough to be in the lead. It's a very minor detail and is good enough in the Notes section.
"Adele's 'Rolling in the Deep' topped the chart for seven consecutive weeks and is the best-performing single of the calendar year, topped Billboard's year-end Hot 100 chart." - (1) this is ungrammatical, and is a sentence fragment? (2) No one is to judge what determines a well performing single. Just state the facts and remove the personal analysis ("is the best-performing single of the year").
"In addition Adele became the first solo female to have two songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year." - additive term "In addition" should be removed due to redundancy.
"During the year, six collaboration singles topped the chart." Awkward "During the year". Actually, the whole sentence seems a bit misplaced. Move it somewhere where it fits in.
Mmm I don't know where should I place it. Advice?
"... beginning its run atop the chart for ten non-consecutive weeks..." - "beginning"? Sentence needs clarification.
"With that, the song became Rihanna's longest-running number-one single, beating her previous records held by "Umbrella and "Love the Way You Lie" in 2007 and 2010, respectively." - not relevant to the article!
A lot of the information in the third paragraph isn't really relevant to the lead, which is supposed to be a "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)". My suggestion is create a separate "Notes" column in the table, where you can list important accomplishments. That way, it's tucked away somewhere where readers can access the info only if they want to. Remember the info must be ref-ed.
How do you mean? In the main chart table? And If I create it, should there be information only for the number-one singles, or for every week? And by your opinion, what other information should be added to the lead?— Tomica(talk)00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think nothing more needs to be added to the lead. No, you don't need ot fill in every cell for the Notes, just the information you are moving from the lead. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know WP. But there has never been something like a notes section. So it's difficult to picture what you are saying. I respect your opinion but you have to understand that it is something new, it has never been done before. So what you can do is help the nominator by doing one as an example. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is something new. That does not mean it should not be done. I'll strike my oppose if all issues but this are addressed. I'll wait for more reviewers before I can get a chance to support. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said "it should not be done" because it is something new. All I am asking (also Tom), is for you to do one as an example so that he understands what you mean. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth table heading is called "Reference(s)". I don't think the "(s)" is needed as each issue only has one ref.
Done/Removed.
Links in "See also" should not be linked elsewhere in the article.
Tomica, I applaud you for your efforts on this article. Great to see you doing something different for a change! For me, the lead is not exactly "brilliant" yet, and could use some re-organizing and copy editing. The list is not ready yet, but I'll be happy to have another look once issues have been addressed. Cheers, —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments:
"Adele's "Rolling In the Deep" stayed at number one for seven consecutive weeks, while Lady Gaga's "Born This Way"—the 1,000th No. 1 single of the Hot 100—and LMFAO's "Party Rock Anthem" topped the chart for six consecutive weeks." - Unsourced.
What's a calender year? Is that any different from a typical year?
Right, is same as a year, but it also represents the dates the songs charted. It's used in all of the featured Hot 100 singles lists. — Tomica(talk)18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Barbadian singer Rihanna earned her tenth and eleventh number-one single when "S&M" and "We Found Love" both topped the chart in 2011" - is the "in 2011" necessary?
SupportComments I did some tweaks in the lead today. Hope those help. My concern (major one) is this sentence about Adele: She became the first solo female to have two songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year. Is it true? Can it be verified? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand the logic of excluding Perry's Firework, just because it made it to number one the previous year. It's still a 2011 number single... isn't it?
"She became the fourth solo female to have multiple songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year.[5] Pop singers Adele, Britney Spears, Katy Perry and Rihanna each earned two number-one songs during the year.[a]" are those two sentences related, i.e. is that the list of the four solo females? If so, this needs a little work, no need to repeat Adele in the second sentence, and consider merging or using a semi-colon to indicate some link. If completely unrelated, seems odd to introduce Adele as a "pop singer" one sentence after "solo female" (after all, the other three in that list are "solo females" too...)
Hmm, yeah you're right. I've done some sentence re-arranging instead now to clear up the confusion. The two sentences were unrelated. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]18:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"multiple songs spend at least five weeks " does this mean "having more than one song" and "between them spending a total of at least five weeks at the top"? Just needs to be clarified for me...Donfff
"having topped the chart for ten non-consecutive weeks, " well, if two weren't in 2011, they shouldn't be included in this list. Maybe a footnote to say eight weeks, but ten in total over the two calendar years.
Please see the way that I changed it. Its according this example: Knowles' "Irreplaceable" is the longest-running single of 2006, beginning its run atop the chart for 10 consecutive weeks in late December to late February 2007.[4][5] "Irreplaceable" became the 20th single to score at least 10 weeks at number one since the era of longer-running singles began in 1992. (List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006 (U.S.)). — Tomica(talk)20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just me but the lead is a little confusing with regard to what actually constitutes a number one in a given year, what constitutes weeks at the top in a given year, what constitutes multiple chart-topping entries/duration/non-consecutive weeks etc. I won't oppose right now but I certainly have concerns over what this all means. And there's little-to-no point in directing me to another list. I want to understand this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I directed you to other list because I wanted to tell you that I wrote the lead with accordance of the other sister articles. In what other way could I explain you? And about "Firework", the song reached number one for first time in 2010, so its featured as a chart topper in that list, here just reprised its position. — Tomica(talk)21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A rephrase of this whole "excluded" number one is in order. I would suggest something along the lines of "There were fourteen different number-one singles the charts in 2011, one of which, Katy Perry's Firework, topped the charts the previous year." or something. No need for this "and so is excluded" because it blantently isn't excluded, it's in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not super-comfortable that every single reference is to Billboard, but I guess that's the way the other Billboard FLs do it. You need a comma after "Firework" in the lead. I also strongly recomend that you archive the references via webciteorweb archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites ever go away or change to lose the information (like, say, every last link in the 2008 FL) then you end up with a completely unsourced article. Also, what's up with the merge tag at the top? It doesn't link to an active discussion, but an older section links to a months-old discussion that never went anywhere. I don't think the list can be promoted with that going on, regardless of supports here. --PresN19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks to all who supported. As a nominator I really don't like that adding the tag came right now. Its obvious that lists by year should be kept and the the 2010's one merged or deleted. The US charts have been written in separate lists since the start of Wikipedia, so I don't see the reason for creating one article for a decade. However, okay, its right to wait. — Tomica(talk)23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new seems to have appeared in the merge discussion there for the past two weeks. Could someone organise its closure so we can close this candidate? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tables need row and col scopes (if appropriate) per MOS:DTT.
"fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls at international level in their cricketing careers.[4][5]" I haven't added up the ODI and Test fifers for each cricketer, are you sure that your "fewer than 40" is accurate? Perhaps it would be better (and easier to reference) if you stuck with delineating records in Test cricket from ODI cricket.
"he took 4 wickets " -> four.
"As of December 2009" it's now February 2012, can this be updated and checked? He looks way down in Tests and top in ODIs... Again, perhaps instead of merging Tests and ODIs, treat them separately so they can be individually verified.
No reason for bold in the wickets column.
When sorting by wickets, and there's a tie on both wickets and runs conceded, sort by lowest number of overs as best result (e.g. the two 6/78 innings)...
Previously been some debate over why not use full names every time or same forename abbreviation style every time. Would suggest consistency.
"Match drawn" just "drawn" is fine, you don't have "match won" or "match lost".
References need en-dashes and not spaced hyphens in the titles.
Cricinfo needs publisher information.
External links call it ESPN Cricinfo, be consistent.
Things have changed since those FLs, row and col scopes are definitely now required. The "surname" issue wasn't to do with Younis, but the way you formatted the names of the batsmen, mostly AB Smith but a few are Andy Smith (these are made up examples) - this should be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A fast bowler who represented his country between 1989 and 2003, Younis is one of the greatest right-arm bowlers in the history of world cricket." An extraordinary claim like this needs at least one source, and probably more (especially without some attribution as to who has said this).
Add "the" to "where he took four wickets in first innings."
Capitalize "test" in the next sentence?
"He has gone on to take ten or more wickets per match on five occasions." Since he's retired, try replacing "has gone on" with "went on" to reflect past tense.
Remove period after Sharjah at the start of the third paragraph.
"he is thirteenth overall in all-time Test five-wicket haul takers". "in" → "among"?
In the ODI table, the 10th entry has a blank wickets column. What's the reason for that?
Mirroring Giants2008's first comment, I would go further: "A fast bowler who represented his country between 1989 and 2003, Younis is one of the greatest right-arm bowlers in the history of world cricket." Is such a strong claim that it think some inline attribution is required, and probably a slight weakening such as: "Younis is generally considered one of the greatest right-arm bowlers to have played cricket."
I'm curious why you've chosen to use "Younis" thoughout the article, rather than "Waqar", which is more common in journalistic pieces written about him?
"He has went on to take.." – Remove the word "has".
"Making his One Day International (ODI) debut in October 1989, against West Indies in Sharjah." – This sentence doesn't make any sense: it appears to have a dangling modifier, and is in the wrong tense entirely. I can appreciate that you are probably trying to avoid repitition from the first paragraph, but this isn't an alternative!
In the Test paragraph, all the grounds and locations are linked: in the second paragraph, the "Sharjah" isn't linked at all, let alone mention of it being in the UAE! Also, on the first usage, there is no definite article ("in Sharjah") while on the second usage there is: ("at the Sharjah"). Try to be consistent in whether you apply it or not.
"He made a hat-trick.." – possibly change to "He achieved a hat-trick.."
Per MOS:NUM, single digit numbers should be written as words when possible.
"As of February 2012, he is thirteenth overall among all-time Test five-wicket haul takers, and first in the ODI list." – perhaps change the last bit of this to ".., and top of the equivalent ODI list."
Why have you included a dagger for wicket-keepers in the Batsmen column? There is nothing to specify whether the play was a bowler or a specialist batsman, I can't see what this adds?
Also, all of the symbols you use should be Image insertion templates per WP:NOSYMBOLS. This certainly applies to the "spades" symbol, and to the dagger to if you keep it.
In your table, Headingley links to the area of Leeds, it should link to Headingley Stadium; check for any other similar occurences.
When the table sorts by wickets, I would expect it to have a secondary sort by runs conceded, so that his best performances show above his not so good ones. (eg. 6/34 would be above 6/78) List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham is an example of this in action.
Comments would he have had an opportunity to play in T20I? I doubt it but worth the question since a fifer is entirely possible in that format and we don't have it covered/mentioned at all here. "He took 3 consecutive" should be 3->three. Sorting by wickets which are the same (e.g. all five wicket matches, all six wicket matches etc) I'd expect to see in then sort by the fewest/most runs conceded. Don't think Ian Botham was Sir Ian Botham when he was part of a fifer in 1992. Finally, consistency with linking (or not) ESPNCricinfo in the refs is needed. I see it linked in 3 and 9 and 12 but not elsewhere. Also, the SHOUTING in ref 5 needs to be addressed, and the consistency of the Cricinfo publisher needs work in ref 41, along with the extra "test" in ref 23. Otherwise, I'd support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He had not played in T20I. I have already sorted according to your previous comment (When ordering by wickets, for equal wickets the best should sort with the fewest runs and the worst should sort with the most runs). Also, fixed the rest! Thanks. ZiaKhan08:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![[14]](http://ardapedia.herr-der-ringe-film.de/index.php/Bild:Peterjackson01.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://ardapedia.herr-der-ringe-film.de/index.php/Bild:Serkis.jpg){kind=link}
Done U+003F? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
