Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2014

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 not promoted by Hahc21 01:14, 19 March 2014 [1].

:Nominator: Rcsprinter123 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because there are none for all the highways of a whole state and I think that I have managed to achieve a list to meet the criteria. I have taken the old list, added a sortable table and references, images, and expanded the lead. I request that the shields are left on for the termini of the Interstate and U.S. route lists, but I have taken them out of the state highway list because they were using too much expensive parser function calls. I think that the list as it stands now is suitable for FL consideration. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (constabulary) @ 20:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Almost entirely sourced to self-published sources. No legend for the colors. Why the differences in precision for the lengths? Table should also be using {{routelist row}}. --Rschen7754 21:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the other road featured lists use {{routelist row}}. What colours are you talking about? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 21:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, those featured lists passed several years ago, so we shouldn't be using those as an example for anything. As far as the colors, we have no legend to indicate what the shading in the tables means. Finally, you have not addressed the SPS issues, or the precision issues. I'm sorry, but these issues should have been resolved before FLC, not during the nomination. --Rschen7754 21:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does say "Any rows shaded gray have been decommissioned." I will look for better sources and more precise lengths. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as Rschen7754 articulated. Sorry, but much work needs to be done, and ideally, we should be using the first such nomination of this type of list in several years to test WP:USRD/STDS/L with which this does not comply. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Once I got the page to load, I did not see something that I can say is the very best Wikipedia has to offer. Here are a few things that troubled me:
  • Extremely short lead (fails criterion 2)
  • Inconsistent use of {{Jct}}. Why do the top two tables use it in the middle columns but the bottom table does not?
  • Random references above the tables, to SPSs no less!
  • Little to no explanation of abbreviations
  • Date formats are a jumbled mess

  With all this and what was said above, I cannot support. –Fredddie™ 22:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, I withdraw. Seems the standard is higher than I thought. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 23:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 06:08, 17 March 2014 [2].

Nominator(s): United States Man (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list is the confirmed tornadoes from the first two days of the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak, the largest in history. This outbreak was in fact so large that it started breaking templates on the original "list" page, so the list had to be split in two (the first time that has happened with a tornado outbreak). Anyway, I feel that this is up to standards with the only other FL tornado list (List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak), and I think this should be able to reach FL as well. Thanks to everyone in advance for any comments you may have. United States Man (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment without even looking at the list, the title needs work. (Part 1) is meaningless to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions? I really don't like it either, but User:TropicalAnalystwx13 and myself could never come up with anything. We even held an RfC, but that also got nowhere. United States Man (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - as the two parts each refer to specific dates, couldn't you just have the dates in the titles......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean like List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak (April 25–26)? United States Man (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. How about something like List of tornadoes in the USA on 25 and 26 April 2011? I do not see why you need to have the longer dates in the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Standard WikiProject proceedure. Plus, British date styles should not be used for U.S.-only events. United States Man (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). What about renaming it to simply List of tornadoes in the first two days of the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak ? — Cirt (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that seems more awkward that the current title. I think it is a good idea to keep it as short as possible. United States Man (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about List of tornadoes (outbreak of April 25-26, 2011)?-Godot13 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that April 25-26 is not the complete outbreak, so it is kind of misleading. I don't think there are many good alternatives to the current name that User:ChrisTheDude suggested above. United States Man (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Comments
• Leads seems a bit short
• In the table Confirmed tornadoes –
  • Perhaps add “(April 25-26, 2011)” to the table title
  • the total at the end of the line might be better visually if it were on par with the EF numbers (underneath the heading Tornadoes confirmed by rating). Right now it looks as if it should be the total for the entire line, not just the second half.
  • The grey N/A cells in the damage column. Is this not applicable or not available (unknown)?
  • Is it necessary to sort the coordinates column?

Finally, if you have a chance, I have a FLC too... - Godot13 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011, tornado outbreak (April 25–26), I should think, as the year requires a comma in the MM-DD-YY construction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has been discussed heavily here, here, here, here, and here. I think that after a consensus could not be reached, people sort of just dropped it. If one page in the Project is changed, then all the other 75+ would need to be changed; and there was never consensus to do that. United States Man (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Somehow this list has drawn almost no attention, aside from the question of the title. I am archiving it now. Feel free to renominate after two weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 05:56, 17 March 2014 [3].

Nominator(s): BineMai 22:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this is a very complete and competent article regarding football statistics from the Romanian football league. Ideas and suggestions are highly appreciated thank you. BineMai 22:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). I see this follows on from the nominator's prior high quality efforts at List of tallest buildings in Bucharest. A few minor suggestions: (1) Perhaps you could add sisterlinks in the External links sect. (2) Sects Early championships and Divizia A - might be best to break up some of those big paragraphs in those sects. (3) History - just a comment that I love that even though this is technically a list page, there is a healthy amount of sourced material in paragraph format, great job with the research! (4) Notes - suggest renaming this sect to "Footnotes". (5) See also - might be nice to have three to four more entries added here. Excellent efforts overall by Bine Mai, — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Cirt for your support and for the kind words, nice to know that someone appreciates my work. Regarding your suggestions: 1 - willing to add sisterlinks section but what links should i populate it with, 2 - already breaked these sections to prior name and period of existance. Perhaps the Divizia A section is a bit long but I can't break it further without having several one-two sentence paragraphs that would not look nice, 3 - thanks for this comment, 4 - done, 5 - added three more entries that might help the article. Overall i thank you for your competent suggestions and remarks. Cheers! BineMai 11:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're most welcome! Sisterlinks I dunno if there's any type of category on Wikimedia Commons that could be relevant, or you could add photos there and create a related category. Or if not, no worries, either way, just a friendly suggestion. :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The list looks good but I am not quite 100% happy with it:

• • Since when has the supercup been contested?
    • Is this necessary? BineMai 23:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the champions play for the supercup, same way they qualify for CL. Nergaal (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention the notable performances in the Europa League from the champions?
  • It might be worth considering putting everything on the continental performances as a separate section.
  • perhaps mention the longest winning streaks?
  • Some clubs are never wikilinked, such as UCAS Petroşani
    • Yes there are clubs without wikilink because they don't have a wiki page. BineMai 01:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but some of those might have been renamed and now exit under different names. Nergaal (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - How reliable are "kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl", ziare and romaniansoccer.ro? I also am having trouble accessing fotbalromania.com. Aureez (Talk) 11:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, while it seems to be a private site [5], I know this site to have lots of statistics on soccer games and I never had any reason to doubt the numbers the guy provides. Ziare.com seems to review the submissions of new editors (at least) before publishing, so it is not a blog-like site. romaniansoccer.ro is the website linked by the Romanian Football Federation on its own site under the statistics tab, which likely implies that the federation itself seems the statistics published on that website reliable enough to suggest them. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does Ziare and kassiesa verify the data they have? it's not enough to be a convenient source of data. Aureez (Talk) 18:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know. When I google "UEFA rankings" I get this link to the guy's website. Unless that is tailored for my MAC address, it would suggest that google ranks his site high. Another non-answere: for the Ziare link, the author is trying to reference a relatively well known/accepted statement within people that follow Romanian football. Nergaal (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Kassiesa is reliable he appears to just collect the info from other websites, the UEFA website does list the same statistics though, also WP:GOOGLE#Verifiability states it doesn't determine how reliable the source is. Also the statement which ziare is a reference to I don't think would likely be challenged considering the 24 wins Steaua București has in Liga I. Aureez (Talk) 21:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This list has been up for well over two months, and no consensus has formed. As such, I am archiving this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [6].

Nominator(s): Well-rested^Talk 12:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is one of the most important evaluations a school could go through with regards to accounting education, and because it is informative for future generations of accounting students. Well-rested^Talk 12:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment on the title of the list: as stated in the body of the article, there are currently two types of AACSB accreditation, business and accounting. This list focuses on the accounting accreditation only, since it would not have been possible to combine both business- and accounting-accredited schools into a single list (it would definitely have been over 60kb). At some point I might create "List of AACSB-accredited schools (business)" to focus on schools with only the business accreditation, so the two lists will have nicely consistent titles. -Well-rested^Talk 13:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why is there a column that lists the state in some cases, the city in others, and then none at all in others? I would think it would be best to not mix levels of government in a single column. I suggest choosing one and applying it consistently to all colleges. Or if you want to maintain the "state", make it a second column. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. That column actually lists only states, with the exception of the universities from China. The closest equivalent to "states" in China are provinces, which include Beijing (a Municipality) and Hong Kong (a Special Administrative Region). I've therefore edited the header to reflect that the column includes either states or provinces. -Well-rested^Talk 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure it wouldn't be better to just list the city instead of the state/province? At the very least you need to fill in those blanks for all but Singapore. Also, it's more common here to call it Taiwan rather than Chinese Taipei. And I believe that you should link at least the first incidence of the country in the table to the corresponding wiki page. Mattximus (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Mattximus. I think you're right regarding Taiwan vs. Chinese Taipei. I used the latter simply because the AACSB uses that in its list of accounting-accredited schools, but yeah I should probably use the common name. (I'm not too familiar with country naming conventions!) Suggestions implemented. :)
• Regarding the state/province/city, I think you're right that city might be better since it's a little more specific. What do you think of having both city and state as columns? Would that be overkill? Just checking before I make the change.

--Well-rested^Talk 19:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Changes being made. Just adding a note that I'll be making some changes to the list based on Mattximus' suggestions, in particular adding city information (either as a separate column or in place of the state column). I'm also considering adding some other information available on the AACSB's website, namely enrollment and possibly number of faculty. I'll add an update here when the changes are completed. -Well-rested^Talk 19:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Looks pretty good but I see from the above comment by Well-rested that some changes are in progress. Please update when that's done and I'll revisit with additional comments. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive by Comment - It seems that the school and university columns are not separated properly (there are schools in the university column and vice versa). Will return if there is movement on the list.-Godot13 (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - looks like Well-rested never managed to come back to this, there's been no activity for a month. It's laid out the way the header says for about half the list, then the city column turns into a state, then the college and university columns swap places and the US stops being linked. Also: Ref 1 needs more detail, Wall Street Journal at minimum should be linked in ref 3, and "and almost the top business programs in the United States" needs an "all". --PresN 19:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [7].

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit out of my normal area of editing, this one. Was a tidy little list to start with, but I updated it for 2014, made the tables accessible and fixed the sorting. I removed a list of criteria and wrote it into the prose for the lead, although I'm still a little concerned about the flow of that bit. As always, let me know your thoughts and suggestions. Harrias ^talk 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Beirut Marathon is listed as a 20 km race. This is either a typo, or unusual enough to need a separate source. Courcelles 18:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right it shouldn't have been 20 km, not sure why that was like that. Harrias ^talk 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks like there's some double rounding in the list of distances: in metric a marathon is a fraction under 42,195m. Since a marathon is defined as 26 miles 385 yards, it may be better to state this directly instead of using a decimalised figure.
  • Is data available giving the year in which each event first attained label status? Are there any former label events? Is the performance of athletes tracked across these events, and do we know who has won the most?
  • Could do with a couple of images from races in the list to meet 5b more fully. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image caption doesn't need a full stop.
• "as being one of the" not sure about "one of" here. There are multiple races...
• "other. Within the "other" " should the first other be "other"?
• "three years in a row " three consecutive years would be a bit tighter.
• "for another three years" a "further" three years I thiknk.
• I would force sorting distance so it's in actual distance order rather than alphanumerical order, i.e. 10 miles should sort after 10 and 12 km.
• Any reason why some locations are in English (Prague) and others not (Venezia)?

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few recommendations to improve the page: (1) Redlinks are totally okay for Featured Quality content pages, however, in the Key section might be helpful for the reader for 10 miles (road running) and 12 kilometres (road running) to exist at least as Wikipedia stub articles with a couple sources each. (2) Last paragraph of the lede is a little skimpy as a two-sentence-long-paragraph, might be nice to see it either merged, or expanded. (3) I'm not seeing where the References are cited for the Races subsection. (4) Please consider using {{Portal bar}} to add some portals either to the bottom of the article, or just add a few to the See also section. (5) I made a minor formatting change to the References section, per WP:LAYOUT. That's it for now, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all those who have posted comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, I am currently tied up with life off-wiki, and won't be able to commit much time to the encyclopedia, so for the moment I will regretfully have to withdraw this nomination. Harrias ^talk 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [8].

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list contains table-sorting facilities and is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Earthh (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). This list page is near ideal. It is meticulously sourced throughout and most informative. I've only got one minor quibble: the Notes sect should be renamed to Footnotes, as Notes refers to citations and Footnotes to endnotes with comments about the article main body text. Great job overall by Earthh, — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just renamed the Notes section with "Footnotes". Thanks.--Earthh (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Earthh, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Some table of contents links (eg "X") are unnecessary
• Images are all OK
• Single and promo single releases should be sourced
• Could items which were released on exclusive editions of albums (eg "Anarchy in Tokyo" was only on the Japanese edition of 30STM) be referenced with a web source? The standard album's notes (which is the current ref) will not verify this inclusion.
• kaos2000.net is down for me (could just be temporary). What makes this a reliable source?
• The Houstonian is a university student newspaper; what makes reliable? If so, link to its Wikipedia article.
• What makes Shoutweb.com reliable?

Adabow (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [9].

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 09:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I present to your waiting eyes: a list of every head coach of the Navy Midshipmen. Under different management 39 times since beginning in 1879, Navy is my favorite college team, and this list is my first attempt at getting an important Navy football article to featured status. Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 09:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• This page has no categories, pretty sure that might be needed. --Lightlowemon (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I pretty much completely forgot about that. Added appropriate categories now. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Article needs to comply with WP:DASH e.g. year ranges need an en-dash, not a hyphen.

• Fixed.

• Per WP:YEAR you don't need to repeat the century if it's the same within a range.

• Fixed.

• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a period.

• Fixed.

• Check MOS:NUM, usually numbers below 10 are written as words.

• Fixed.

• MOS:DTT for screen readers needs col and row scopes to be implemented.

• Unfortunately, I don't understand what you mean.

• This is an example of adding the col scopes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The N/As and Int need to be forced to sort in the correct order when sorting by the hash.

• Corrected.

• Avoid hash for "number" per WP:HASH.

• This is standard for these kind of lists (ex. List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents head football coaches).

• George Welsh and Paul Johnson are dab links.

• Fixed.

• ""X" indicates an interim year without play." not seeing this anywhere.

• Removed.

• Doubt you need Category:Navy Midshipmen football as Category:Navy Midshipmen football coaches is more refined.

• Removed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all but issue #5, which I, if possible, require a better explanation for. Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is well referenced, but a few minor issues: (1) The titles of Notes and Footnotes should be swapped. Notes are for citations, and Footnotes are for general comments about things in the article. (2) I'd like to see responses by Awardgive to the recommendations by The Rambling Man, above. (3) Paragraphs two and three of the WP:LEAD sect are quite short, these should probably be merged together to just have three total paragraphs in the lede intro sect. (4) There's room in the page for a couple more free-use images. — Cirt (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have attempted to address all of your concerns (save the one complication from The Rambling Man's review). Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thanks for being so responsive to my suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I know very little about football which probably contributes to my dropping in on a list which at first glance I mistakenly thought was about naval officers who later became head coaches... Anyhow, a few observations:

• The lead is well written and gives a nice overview of the list.

• Thank you.

• Citation(s) for Congressional restoration of the term “Midshipman” can be found here and here.

• I have added the references to the lead, thanks for finding those.

• The paragraph beginning with Vauix Carter, the “perfect 1.000” could probably use a citation, or a comment that he won the only game he coached. Perhaps some of the other stats presented in the paragraph could use citations.

• Added a note explaining that he only coached one game.

• The main reference for the entire coaches table appears to be another Wikipedia list which covers only the 2013 NCAA season. Some of the coaches have a reference, but the majority don't. You may want to use this reference (which you do) to cover the entire coaches table. -- Godot13 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourced the table to the Coaching Records website. Thanks for the suggestions, I have attempted to apply all of them to the article. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I still don't understand why the general note "[A 7]" for the entire Coaches table contains "Statistics correct as of the end of the 2013–14 college football season" when only #37 on that list had a game in 2013... Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand.-Godot13 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's alright. The note is standard for lists like this (example: this). It's really just there to say that the list is up-to-date and everything is correct. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:

• "becoming one of the first Independent schools in that division" - lowercase i, the linked article doesn't capitalize it.
• "No coach" is sorting under N; better, I think, to sort before A or after Z.
• Similarly, "—" should sort before 0, not after 0, in the bowls column.
• You have two images down below the table, but the table isn't that wide, leaving a ton of whitespace on the right side on my monitor. Why not move the images up next to the table?
• Why the heck are references 3 and 9 Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia articles are not RSs.
• If no author is specified, you should leave the author fields blank, rather than putting in "staff" or "staff writer".
• Consider archiving your online references with a site like webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that if the cited sources ever change or go down, it doesn't affect your list.
• --PresN 22:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 03:08, 1 March 2014 [10].

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already a candidate running at the FLC which has two supports, so this one shouldn't have problems. This list is based upon List of South Africa women Twenty20 International cricketers and I think this meets the FL standards. Comments/suggestions are appreciated, as always! Cheers, Zia Khan 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Çomments

• "The first Twenty20 International match was held" ---> "The first women Twenty20 International match was held"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Year of latest game" ---> "Year of last game" (since you have used "present" for players which have not retired)
  • Done. —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "01" ---> "1" (50 column)
  • Done. —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a note telling that how are ties and NRs taken into consideration while calculating the win%.
  • Done. —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a wiki-break till March, so please count it as a Support if the above concerns are fixed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this list. A couple of comments, not sure if these are important:

1. "Pakistan have played 37 Twenty20 Internationals under four different captains" - should this read "Pakistan have played thirty-seven..."?
2. The pictures above the table - should they be aligned so they are down the side of the table? I seem to recall a cricket-list that did this, but I can't for the life of me remember which one it was!

Both done. Thanks for the comments. —Zia Khan 12:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Thanks again for your great work with these cricket lists. I made some minor edits in the meantime to this article, let me know if you have a question on any of those. Still recovering from England finally winning in Oz and the 3rd ODI between NZ and India! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. High quality effort. Meticulous sourcing throughout. — Cirt (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose needs updating.

• Image caption could use some work so it's written in nice prose, e.g. "The Pakistan women's team at Sydney, in the 2009 ICC Women's World Twenty20"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• " two of the top 10 " maybe "two of the top ten"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And I imagine it should be "top-ten-ranked"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would consider the use of the T20I abbreviation so you don't have to keep repeating the mouthful every time!
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe consider including the result of the first T20I the Pakistan women played in?
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Source [4] indicates that they have played 43 games, not 37 per the lead. It also means that you should update the statistics in the rest of the lead and in the table.
  • Updated. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure where the "under four different captains" is sourced. In fact, this seems to imply just three.
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "which competed in" -> "to compete in".
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it "women T20Is" or "Women T20Is"?
  • This is based upon List of South Africa women Twenty20 International cricketers. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Runs doesn't sort perfectly for me, I see 0 then two em-dashes, then another 0...
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look and do some more source checks once the article has been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments, I'll wait for you. Please also have a look at the other one. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose

• The first link of the opening sentence should be linked to Women's Twenty20 International rather than Women's Twenty20 cricket.
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to a connection issue with ref #1
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not done. It isn't working for me. —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The succeeding sentence is a bit confusing
  • fixed. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• extra the in "the The Vineyard, Dublin"
  • Removed one. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref #4 doesn't support the claim
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comma needed after "In 2009"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "She and Nain Abidi" poor grammar
  • reworded. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• most capped player -> most capped players
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 56 and 56 n.o aren't equivalent scores
  • Removed the 56 part. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• You could use batswom(a/e)n since we are discussing about women's cricket
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "to score a fifty in the format for Pakistan" which format, WC?
  • clarified. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Are you sure that Bismah Maroof's batting average is the highest?
  • Yes. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically not so. At least three have better averages than Maroof. It's better to add a note here —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs "As of ..." for most of the individual records
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Maroof also has taken 16 catches which are more than any other Pakistani as a fielder" not true
  • source provided. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link doesn't work. It's probable that you mis-typed the URL —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Figures for the following sentence need to be updated
  • Updated. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sadia Yousuf has the best return" not sure what you mean by return
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Need to mention the team Sarah Taylor is playing for
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "She also has taken eight catches as a fielder" you mean Taylor? The ref. doesn't support the claim here as well
  • removed the sentence. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Since the team was formed, 28 women have represented Pakistan in T20I cricket" a little confusing
  • What is confusing here?. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not checked the table and sources. I see the usage of "Having ..." three times in four successive sentences. The prose needs a little amount of work before it gets promoted. A spotcheck may be carried out since I came across two sentences where the source didn't really support the fact during a random check. —Vensatry _(Ping) 10:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I think, I've sufficiently addressed your concerns. Let me know if I'm missing something. Thanks for the review! Regards, —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are quite a few concerns which still remain unaddressed. Once they are done, I'll revisit this page for further comments. —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is nearing two months and has two outstanding opposes. As such, I am archiving it. I recommend continuing discussion with reviewers before nominating again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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