Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2010

• Hopefully you'll make sure that Georgia Bird is added as a co-nom since he's made such a contribution to the list?
• Did you link T.I. at any point in the opening sentence or two?
• Caption in the infobox needs no period.
• I'd link Grammy Award.
• " He was discovered and signed when he was a teenager by record executive..." nope. He wasn't "discovered ... when he was a teenager", at least not in a encyclopedia.
• Please check the manual of style for use of apostrophes etc for 'songs' etc.
• "In 2003, he won his first award for 'Best Collaboration' for "Never Scared" at the Source Awards, in 2004, he has received 2 wins out of a total of 6 nominations, including 'Best Street Anthem' for "Rubberband Man" at the Vibe Awards, and in 2005, he received a total of 1 win of 13 nominations, including 'Best Street Anthem' for "U Don't Know Me" for the second year in a row at the Vibe awards." is one sentence and is grammatically out of sorts. It also needs to consider the MOS with "2 wins .."->"two wins ..."
• Make sure you follow WP:MOSNUM so that most of your instances of numbers below 10 should be written in text.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the input. I tried to follow your guidelines to fix some of the problems with the lead section, although I personally think it might run a little long myself. Hope this works better. WikiGuy86 (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge that opening one-liner into the main lead.
• Surely he won a collaboration award "with" not "for"?
• "..T.I.'s first award." perhaps start the sentence with "He won his first award..."
• "two wins out of six nominations" two wins from six noms
• "one win out of 13 total nominations" -> one award from 13 nominations.
• Don't like the repetition of the opening sentence for each para "In 200x, T.I. won..."
• No need for phrases like "a total of"
• "T.I. has won 2 awards" -> two awards.
• Check other numbers below 10.
• Say what BET is before just using the abbreviation.
• Tables should be in chronological order.

That's enough to be going on with. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed all noted problems. Hopefully lead section is less repetitive and more fluid now. WikiGuy86 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Go back and check "2 awards->two awards" throughout. Check WP:MOSNUM for further details.
• And check "wins out of x noms" vs "wins from x noms" throughout.

The Rambling Man (talk)

• Done. WikiGuy86 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KV5

• "The club has played in the Primera División of Spanish league since its start in 1928, winning La Liga on eight occasions"

• Why is "Primera Division" italicized?
• La Liga does not need to be linked twice that close together (I would remove the first link per WP:EGG).
• There's also a wording problem here, as something is missing in "the Primera División of Spanish league". Perhaps "the Spanish league" or "the Spanish football league"?

Adressed above

• "In the history of La Liga," - extraneous, remove
  • Rmved
• "one of only three clubs"
  • stricken
• "The club is known for its youth policy of only bringing players of Basque origin through the academy, as well as only recruiting Basque players from other clubs." - the reference doesn't say that they are "known" for this policy, just that said policy exists.
  • added ref
• "somewhat relaxed" - WP:AWW, unless this is a direct quote from somewhere
  • more flexible
• "and players... have played" - surely this could be worded better?
  • men have ... played
• "San Mamés stadium" - no link?
  • wl
• "August 21 1913" - comma after "21
  • all dates in dd mm yyyy
• "Since 1958" - comma after
  • Done
• La Liga linked again? Remove
  • Done
• "On September 29 1940" - comma after "29" and "1940"
• You've mixed US and UK date format along with British spelling here (particularly "honour"). Should be consistent one or the other.
• "During his stay at Athletic" - comma after
  • Done
• Copa Del Rey linked again, remove
  • Done
• I think Copa del Rey is singular; is there a plural form, since this mentions that he won five?
• "Etxeberria agreed a deal" - agreed to
  • Done
• You don't use the term "cap" in this article (at all) until it suddenly appears in a caption, so it definitely has to be linked, and should probably be explained somewhere.
  • cap -> app
• All year ranges in the table (complete and incomplete) need en-dashes, not hyphens.
  • theres a script somewhere
• Using bold as the sole indicator of a record is a violation of MOS:BOLD.
  • it's not. Playername is marked.
• Footnote: "most appearances in la liga" - capitalize La Liga
  • Done
• Footnote: "most goals in La Liga (256) of all La Liga players" - this redundancy is redundant.
• "Also has the record for most goals scored in all competitions (333) for Athletic" - is not a complete sentence. Reword.
  • Reweord

• "Iribar is the Athletic player with most appearances." - clarify, should be with the most career appearances".

• • Done

• "Joseba Etxeberria is the current Athletic player with most caps and goals." - suggest Joseba Etxeberria has the most career appearances and goals among active Athletic players".

• • Used

• "Francisco Yeste playing for Athletic." - is not a complete sentence, remove period/full stop.

• • Dobne
• This list relies heavily on official team sources, where a secondary source would be preferred. Is no other source available for the information in this list?
  • No. This was also the case of the newly kept FL List of Manchester United players
• What makes "200 appearances" a non-arbitrary criterion for inclusion in this list? Just the fact that 200 is a round number is likely not enough.
  • What makes any arbitrary number non-arbitrary? Some use 50 or 100. This uses 200.
    • OK, then what makes 200 apppearances notable? My point is that, since the list is entitled "List of Athletic Bilbao players", then it should include them. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I may interject. Our own criteria ask for "an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." So as long as the lead incorporates the inclusion criteria then I guess our criteria are met. Otherwise, we're back to the drawing board where Europeans say "our teams have thousands of players" and Americans say "tough, it says 'list of players' so it should be complete". We had a minor ding-dong about this a while ago... and I guess that's where the "inclusion criteria" came from. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But still, what makes the criterion itself appropriate? Why not 100 appearances, why not those players who have scored a goal, why not 600 appearances? An argument could be made for any of those (though the last would be admittedly pointless). Our players lists have thousands of players too, so that's why I'm asking. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess (and this is no doubt a cop-out) that consensus determines whether the criterion is appropriate. Typically for football (soccer) teams, 100 appearances, club record holders, internationals (who played for their country while at the club), a combination of these (as long as clearly stated) has generally had sufficient consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What I'm primarily considering here is WP:LSC, which states, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources." I don't know if 200 appearances is considered objective or subjective in this case; it's a bright-line rule, but it's also arbitrary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair enough. What I can say is that the BBC this season seemed pretty obsessed with 100, but that's just one source. Would you be looking for some independent sources which also use 100/200/whatever, as their cut-off point? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Captions:
  • • • • • • • • That would be a great thing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've dug around a bit, it seems like there's little or no consensus across the clubs I've looked at online. Many will just list the top ten appearance makers, many club official websites don't list them at all, I have a couple of books which list every single player... as such I'm not sure we'll get far with this. I'll keep looking though... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (Outdented) Here's a long discussion which ended in some sort of consensus that arbitrary cut-offs are okay; Sandman888 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) **http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_Arsenal_F.C._players/archive1[reply]

That list was closed as "no consensus", which means that's not true. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed your comment on http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football (bottom), since it affects all football FL. I suggest we move the arbitrary discussion there. Sandman888 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the discussion; there have been few comments, and WP:LENGTH is not a reason to create an arbitrary cutoff for this list. However, as a WP:SPLIT, it does support renaming this article, and then creating a second list for players with less than 200 appearances. As for this FLC, if that discussion is going to continue, then this nomination should be placed on hold pending its outcome. If not, then this list should be renamed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I renamed to List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 caps that would be okay with you? Also, should all the other "List of X players" be taken to FLRC to comply with this? Sandman888 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer "appearances" to caps, but yes, that would satisfy me. I wouldn't make the change to any other lists yet or go to FLRC. The best course of action is to make the move here, see if this FLC passes, and then start a separate discussion at WT:FOOTY saying that consensus has determined that the inclusion criteria should be clear in the title. Then the project can go about moving the lists on its own timetable instead of flooding FLRC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. I feel the FLC process would then hijack a discussion which essentially belongs in the wp:footy project. I've c&p comments from here to there, and I suggest we continue over there. Sandman888 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can strongly disagree if you like, but the fact remains that if the discussion is going to continue, this nomination can't pass until it's complete one way or the other. So it would go on hold. If it's not going to continue, then the list needs to be renamed and it's business as usual. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The current modus operandi is to allow for lists to be called "List of X players" with an arbitrary cap. I would thereby take it that any deviation from business-as-usual should be bear the burden of consensus, not the other way around. Meaning the nomination continues until consensus has settled on something that undermines the current precedent.Sandman888 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Iribar is the Athletic player with most appearances." - clarify, should be with the most career appearances".

• • Done
    • Still not corrected. Needs to be the most career appearances. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.

Normally I would just leave comments here, but due to the arbitrary nature of the cutoff of inclusion and the heavy reliance on primary sources, I am opposing this list for now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Does your concern still stand? Sandman888 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have capped resolved comments, with the unresolved others still outlined above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment: "Also has the record for most goals scored in all competitions (333) for Athletic" in the footnotes is not a complete sentence. Add He to the beginning and remove "also" as it's unnecessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

• Bad grammar in the lead.
• POV writing, e.g. "The highlight of Athletic..." and "The star of that team was Pichichi..."
  • Rmved
• References, some are dated in the 70s etc, why? There's no evidence that the info published on the official website was published then. I think you're mixing up dates of birth of players with publication dates.
  • Rmved.
• Why would "Currently playing for Athletic" link to Athletic Bilbao?
  • Place of current player rooster.
• En-dashes, not hyphens for year ranges.
  • There's a script somewhere.
• "playing for a third division club is not considered against the one-man club" nope. Poor and arbitrary and personal decision on the definition.
  • and clarified.
• Notes should be consistently formatted.
• Is ref 87 Spanish? If so, say so.
  • Said
• Ref 93 needs an en-dash.
  • dashed
• "All playerdata " not English, please rewrite.
  • Re-written.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " and has currently (as of 2010)" don't have both.
  • Done
• the team.[3][2] - correct order please.
  • Done
• "and men with direct Basque ancestry or with no Basque ancestry but formed in Basque clubs" you've already said main with direct basque ancestry could play for the team.
  • There's a difference between being born there and having Basque ancestry.
• " prolific goalscorer, Pichichi, who scored the first goal in the San Mamés Stadium on 21 August 1913, and a hat-trick in the 1915 final." sounds weak to me. He's introduced as a prolific goalscorer but yet you only tell me that he scored four goals in 3 years.
  • added goalscoring stats.
• "During his stay at Athletic" - perhaps "time at Athletic"?
  • time it is
• " matches played " maybe just "appearances for the club"?
  • done
• "Table is initially sorted after appearances and include all Athletic players who have made 200 appearances or more." -> "Table is initially sorted in descending order of appearances and includes all Athletic players who have made 200 appearances or more."
  • done
• "complete and up-to-date " what's the difference?
  • template. Complete - exhaustive. Up-to-date - when it was last updated.
• The upright images should be the same width.
  • done
• En-dashes for the career ranges.
  • I ran the script. For your benefit, check out User:GregU/dashes.js. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • thank you. Script noted.Sandman888 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 6 appears to have an auto-generated title.
  • Done
• Ref 7 has a publication date so should be included here. And an author...
  • Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "club from Bilbao" perhaps "based in Bilbao" would be more appropriate.
  • Done
• "Primera División" is this an official league title? If not, why not just "top tier" or "highest division"?
  • it's Spanish for first division, but commonly used in English press, e.g. by the beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/1873340.stm
• "and has as of 2010 played for 82 years" "and, as of 2010, has played..."
  • Thanks!
• Why link Spanish top-tier and not Primera Division?
  • KV5 suggested it would be less surprising.
• Biscay is overlinked.
  • Rmved link
• I think perhaps you should use Pichichi's name that we use here on Wikipedia before you use his nickname.
  • - Rafael "Pichichi" Moreno it is
• Stats could use an update since they're now six weeks out of date, assuming there are current players whose stats are on this page. E.g. Yeste seems to be on 352 games now.
  • will update on May 16 (end of season)
• Do you mean Europa League as opposed to Europe League?
  • Europa it is
• Why aren't the players without articles red-linked? Surely they meet WP:ATHLETE?
  • red-link it is.
• What does "currently playing for Athletic" really mean? You have Iraola, Orbaiz, Ripodas showing no end date to their career at the club but yet they're not in italics.
  • Mistake. But Ripodas' career ended in 2008
• Notes should be individually indicated, i.e. don't have three N.B.'s
  • NB1 , etc ok?
• "in La Liga (256) of all La Liga players" no need to repeat La Liga.
  • I want to make sure the reader understand that it's not just among Athletic players.
• Why not add the {{Athletic Bilbao}} template here?
  • Added

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One club man means just that, one man club. Playing in the second or third division for other clubs means these players are not one club men. List of one-club men says "a football player who has played his entire professional career with only one club" - can you show me that all of the players you've said are one-club-men did not play, at any point, for another cub in their professional career? e.g. Orbaiz, were CA Osasuna really non-professional in the 1999-2000 season?
  • Not sure. Per the footy project, it was an amateur league, but it's a bit vague definition they are using. I'm not very keen on keeping the indication, was just to point out the long service / loyalty of Athletic players.
    • Can you show me where WP:FOOTBALL said that Osasuna were non-professional in the 99/00 season?
      • it says that the league was not professional. Which included Osasuna. I can remove players who played in 2nd division clubs, from set of one club men, if its a problem. Sandman888 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry but the "league" could be not professional, but clubs within it could be. Please prove that Osasuna (and really, that's just one example) was an unprofessional club. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Removed.Sandman888 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Iribar image has incorrect information on it regarding sourcing. You removed a deletion template twice. I suggest you fix this.
  • Done.
• " Statistics for current players are updated continuously throughout the year" this isn't true, you said you'd be updating the stats at the end of the season. And it conflicts with "This list is complete and up-to-date as of 15 March 2010."
  • Sent. removed.
    • updated. Sandman888 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Players are listed according to the date of their first-team debut for the club" not true. I'd say they're initially listed in descending appearance order.
• When sorting by goals, those on equal goals should have the player that played in fewer games sort higher - it's more significant if a player scores 21 goals in 217 games than if they score 21 in 356 games. Some cricket featured lists may help you with this.
  • I don't agree. That wd imply he is somehow better, but a list shouldn't make such subjective judgments.
    • Not at all subjective. When goals are equal, goals per game is important. It really isn't that difficult to fix this using the {{SortKey}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about those with 0 goals? It seems odd that a goalkeeper shd rank higher than another because he has played fewer games. Sandman888 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer though, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Using {{SortKey}}, you can sort them any way you like if you particularly dislike my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • All sorted that way except those with 0 goals, as they have the same goals per game ratio. Sandman888 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sandman888 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just passing...

• • Embarrassing. Uriarte included, and Lezama now spelt with an a.Sandman888 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the lead, I'm not sure where in the sources it says specifically they can sign players of Basque ancestry, as opposed to birth or formation.
  • I've rewritten that part.
• Are Zarra's 6 Pichichi trophies a club record, in which case perhaps word it as "club record six" for clarity, or the overall La Liga record, in which case it needs a source?
  • would it be clearer if it read "most in La Liga, of all La Liga players" ? Source added.
    • tweaked wording myself, hope it's OK Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If I click on note NB2, it takes me to note NB3 in the Notes section
  • sorry, NB2 shd have been deleted. solved.
• In lead and key, the as-of date is 15 March, but the table says 17 May.
  • removed as of in key, and updated the stats in lead.
• The current players have been updated to 17 May, but they haven't been moved to their proper places in the table. For instance, Francisco Yeste now has 353 apps but is still between Urquiaga with 345 and Luis Etxeberria with 341
  • Missed him, moved now.
    • Not just Yeste Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • oops. all names in italics cleared.
• Sorry, I can't work out what note NB2 means
  • clarified.
• Again, I may be being stupid, but I can't see where on the Marca Pichichi y Zamora page it gives any history, all I can see is this year's winners
  • sorry, changed with RSSSF ref.
• Need to sort out the backlinks for the Pichichi/Zamora notes
  • what do you mean?
    • If I click on the Zamora note at Raimundo Lezama's row, I get to Note Zamora. If I click on the little up-arrow to get back, it takes me to Iribar's row. Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how to solve such things. Can't you use multiple references to the same note?
        • fixed Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref currently #93, which you've titled "Official Site: Zarra" actually goes to a club history page
  • changed the title.
• Ref #96 titled "Official Site: Blasco" likewise goes to the first page of the club section on the club site. As far as I can tell, neither ref for Note Zamora verifies Blasco conceding 20 goals from 15 games
  • I can't remember where I got that from, so removed goals conceded. Ref titles changed.

All comments resolved. Will cap once nominator has had a chance to see replies. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks. cap away at will. Sandman888 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Philadelphia 76ers were awarded an extra first-round draft pick as a compensation when the Seattle SuperSonics signed John Brisker." I think "a" should be removed from here.
• Tense conflict here: "A player who had played college basketball for four years were eligible for selection."
• "which earned them the rights to start earning their living by starting their professional career earlier." Should "rights" be singular instead? And should "career" be plural?
  • Took a second look at this and it still bothers me. I think that's because it has repetition of "earned" and "earning". Try changing one of them and the whole sentence will look better. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the first "earned" into "granted". — Martin tamb (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "22nd pick George McGinnis...".
• "Brewer, Washington and E. C. Coleman are also the only players who have been selected to the All-Defensive Team." Remove "also"; it's usually an unneeded word, and in Coleman's case it has no relevance at all.

More later. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed by User:Martin tamb—Chris!_c/t 02:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at the rest and found some serious prose issues in the one paragraph that was left. I'm concerned, to say the least.

• "McGinnis have already played in the American Basketball Association prior to the draft." "have" → "has".
• "He had one ABA Most Valuable Players Award". "Players" should be singular.
• "He spent three seasons in the NBA before finally joined the NBA...". "joined" → "joining".
• "He have been selected...".
• Another sentence starting with a numeral: "76th pick M. L. Carr...".
• "before he became the Celtics' head coach for two seasons in the 1990s. and Carr who coached the Celtics for two seasons." Serious copy-editing needed here.
• Commas needed after the three coaches in the last sentence. In addition, the "coached X teams, most recently with Y" structures could use some work.

I eliminated the problem by simplifying.—Chris!_c/t 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also from that sentence: "Four other players drafted also went on to have a coaching career". So why are only three listed?

• Emergence: Part Two - worth putting this in quotes I think because the sentence reads a bit strangely.
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "then–champion" hyphen, not en-dash.
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Again Fifth Year Festival: Liverpool could use quotes.
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "It has changed hands..." reiterate "The title has..." because you've talked about something different in the meantime.
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "in the finals of a two-night tournament on September 25, 2004 " two nights but one date?
  • Fixed--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "has the least amount of total days" - "fewest total days"
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• " Masaaki Mochizuki's only reign, Moxley's only reign, and Richards's second reign are tied for the least successful defenses, with zero." not good either.
  • Re-worded slightly.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Mochizuki and Moxley have the least combined defenses of all reigns, with zero." ditto. Perhaps "Neither Mochizuki nor Moxley have successfully defended their titles" or similar.
  • Re-worded slightly.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "He defeated Roderick Strong .." why suddenly start repeating his first name?
  • To idenify this as the same Strong as eariler.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Wrestlers" col heading should be just "Wrestler"
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would expect the vacated row to sort by # in chronological order i.e. between 11 and 12.
• Ref col should be Ref(s).
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "With 26 successful defenses, Strong's first reign had the most during a single reign" not good at all. repeat of reign, and "had the most" what?
  • I'm blank on what to change it too. Reads fine to me as is. Any ideas?--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "Strong made 26 successful defences during his first reign, the most in a single reign"? Still repetitive but clears up my issue with the ambiguity of what "the most" means. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done--WillC 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes solie.org a WP:RS?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Gets its information from wrestling corporations and books. Been regraded as reliable in other FLs plus GAs and FAs.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show me where it says this? I'm sure it is used in other FAs, GAs etc, but I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult but I can't easily see how it meets WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Their main page explains people and promotions that it gets its information from plus talks about the wrestling titles book that it also gets its information from.--WillC 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Episode lists generally have Production and Reception sections. Check out this list for FL episode/season lists for which to use as templates. I usually find that helpful.
• Use {{infobox television season}}.
• There should be a bold phrase somewhere in the lead that reiterates the main point of the list.
  • This isn't a requirement for FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure? WP:FL?'s #2 links to WP:LEAD, and that guideline has the bold policy. --haha169 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm quite sure; check recent FLs. When the the title is descriptive a verbatim, bolded repetition of the title is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay then. This seems to be a relatively recent development then. Sorry for the confusion. --haha169 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is something that I tend to have problems with, although it hasn't caused some lists to fail the FL process. But I think that some of the episode descriptions may be too descriptive and on the wordy side of things.--haha169 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sites seem sort of unreliable. The one linking to avatarthelastairbender.org seems quite suspicious to me.

Done I have removed that ref. There was another supporting ref for that setence. By the way, I went through the rest of the links and didn't find anything that seemed suspicious to me.--haha169 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the refs might benefit from episode link, such as adding |episodelink=Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)#ep1 to the cite episode template.

I was not aware that you could link directly to an object in a list. I thought it was only possible to go to subsections. Could you possible provide an example? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Case_Closed_episodes_(season_14)#ep425, this links to season 14 episode 425. I set up a link to the first episode of Avatar in my example. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --haha169 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference dates of retrieval should be in month, day, year.

I will do that so each reference will be uniform. But I was not aware that it had to be m,d,y. Some FAs definitely use y,m,d. --haha169 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --haha169 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, characters mentioned in a characters section should be interlinked.

Interlinked? How so? --haha169 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean section linked like in the Aang section, you can link to Katare by going [[#Katara|Katara]].DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean. You want me to link the characters. However, I thought it was common practice to not re-link things that have already appeared previously in the article? Also, each character has its own article so section linking isn't necessary. --haha169 (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I have for now. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor things. In the conception section, 85 would look better as eighty-five.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be nice if you can find a more reiable site than Internet Movie Database (reference 20).
  • IMDB is one of the most reliable sites that we use on Wikipedia. --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed Sorry; I got this confused with something else. --haha169 (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there's too many un-needed quotation marks such as in Katara's section; "Water Whip" and "Blood bend" It would reduce in-universe if the abilities were explained instead of having names attached to them.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Earthbending links back to the Avatar series but that doesn't help.
  • Done; linked all other similar bending terms to Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Elements. --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• For Zuko, "anti-hero and tragic hero and", too many ands, replace the midddle one with a comma.
  • Done--haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Azula does not need quotations on friends.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The recurring character sections may have un-needed characters and should be organized by appearance/impact on the plot instead of alphabetized.
  • I personally feel that since most of hte recurring characters have similar impacts on the series, alphabetical order is the best organizational form. I do agree that two of the characters seems unneeded, and have removed them. --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Casting controversy should begin by explaining its the cast for the live action film.
  • Cast listed. There really isn't much to "explain" at the moment. --haha169 (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel that overall it needs a copy-edit to be more stoic, just me though. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a major copyedit to the recurring character section, where I thought it was most needed. --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. :) --haha169 (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't start lists with "This is a list..." any more. Check out some of the recently promoted lists for examples of what we do do...
  • Done, I checked out the recently promoted Olympics medals list. Am I right to assume that it is similar to how articles begin, a brief summary of the topic?--haha169 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The series deals with a war that was started by the Fire Nation as an attempt to conquer the world, due to the absence of the Avatar, who alone holds the power to counter Fire Nation aggression and balance it with the other three countries, the Air Nomads, Earth Kingdom, and the Water Tribes, to create peace." this is a single sentence, and whoa, it needs some work. I'd suggest splitting it up a bit.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If you wish to link antagonist, do it on the first instance.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "included a flying bison. His partner, Michael Dante DiMartino" whose partner? The flying bison?
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "bending" just links to the main Avatar article.
  • Done - the article seems to have been deleted. --haha169 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's worth a brief note to actually say what "bending" is in this context.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it "Jing" or "jing"?
  • By itself, it is Jing but if it is mentioned following an adjective (ie. neutral) then it is lower-case. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "portrayed by Noah Ringer in" ref? All the live action portrayals need refs...
  • Done Refs added. --haha169 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "group;[32] " comma, not semi-colon.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "15 year old" hyphenate.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we really need to link warrior or leader?
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also think linking blind is over the top.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "short power " what is this?
  • Done, added a definition in parenthesis. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "direct, brutally frank" aren't these synonymous?
  • Done. Yes, I removed the latter. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "firebenders.. [27] " one too many periods, and there should be no space before the ref.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "is voiced by Mako for two seasons until his death" whose death? it reads unclearly.
  • Done Until Mako's, but I've just removed "until his death" for simplicity's sake. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The recurring characters have the actors named. Are these the actors in the original series or the live action film or both or what?
  • Done, I made it more clear as to who played in which version of the franchise. --haha169 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "of Ba Sing Se - eventually" should be a comma. or a spaced en-dash. Certainly not a spaced hyphen.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "voices against the casting. When asked about casting a white cast to portray" cast x3 reads repetitively.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "and Shyamalan go out of their way to " suddenly Shyamalan is introduced. What does he have to do with anything?
  • Done His name was added to the lead. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 71 needs en-dashes not spaced hyphens. Check others (e.g. 68)
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 33 has pp. despite only referring to a single page.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Los Angeles Times has no "The".
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You have a completely empty "External links" section.
  • Removed --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]