Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2011

• "Artists and repertoire" should have lower case 'a'
• "It peaked at number twenty-four on the Hot 100, Moore's only top forty song in the US and her highest peak to date." → ...on the Hot 100, becoming Moore's only top...
• "gold" or "Gold"? Be consistent
• The note of the bottom of the Studio albums table needs to span one more col
• The note - "—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart - always annoys me, but I'm not sure is anything can be done widely. Anyway, I prefer '"—" denotes items which failed to chart', as there can be non-released items that do chart - where do they fit in?
• Was "Cry" really released as the single from both MM and AWTR? Eg Check on It was released as a single from #1's, but was also included on B'Day.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reviewing. Fixed capitalization, note and other issues. As for "Cry", I checked the source and it states "Moore's third single 'Cry' is included on the soundtrack to AWTR". So, I removed A Walk to Remember. Novice7 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link discography.
• No mention of video albums in the lead but mentioned in the infobox. Seems a little odd.
• No need to abbreviate A&R because you never use it again.
• " It has sold 464,000 copies in the US" as of when?
• In fact, all the "has sold"s should be put into context... they could still be selling...
• "—" denotes items which failed to chart. ->+ or released in that territory.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done. Added "sales, as of" to a few. I haven't added it to a few others as I thought it might become redundant. Should I add it? Also, I changed the note to "—" denotes items which failed to chart, because a reviewer asked to. I can change back if you'd like me to. Thanks for reviewing TRM. Novice7 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I want is for "—" to mean didn't chart or wasn't released. When I reviewed, the second element was missing altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* It seems my request was against consensus. Change it back, Novice. Sorry Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it Rambling Man. And, it's okay Adabow :) Novice7 (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are complimented by 124 Japanese and Chinese books National Treasures of the List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: books)." The "books National Treasures" part is throwing me off grammar-wise. Would making "books" singular be better?
  • Done, changed to "book". bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• For the first use of footnote 2, it should be outside the parenthesis, not inside.
  • Done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In each of the table headings, decapitalize Location in Present Location.
  • Done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Treatises, Sanjo Wasan: "Three collection of hymns...". Should the second word be "collections"?
  • Yes, done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Zen monk writings, Teaching on Enlighenment (second one): Minor, but commas before and after Teki Zosu would be helpful. That's the style used in several similar situations elsewhere in the list, and I prefer it myself.
  • Done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Albums, Moshiogusa Album: What is the purpose of the ellipsis? It almost looks like a placeholder.
  • Basically replaced the ellipsis with "down to" to read: "from emperors and crown princes down to poets". bamse (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Other, Letter to Kong: "inquires after the well-being of a friend." Is this a typical usage outside the U.S.? Here it would typically be "inquires about".
  • Don't know since I am not a native English speaker. However, "inquire after" seems to exist (see [3], [4] for example). bamse (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2: Feels like the order of "blank two" should be reversed.
  • Indeed, done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 14: Space needed in "characterswritten".
  • Done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the list. I addressed all of your comments (see above). bamse (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What parameters? Source 11 is a progression table from $2.5 million to ARod. Could start w/ Nolan Ryan at $1 million/year, but I don't have any source for the 1-2.5 million folks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If we did highest paid per year since 1990, we'd be able to pull it off with just this source at least. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add that if you think it fits, it just seems arbitrary to me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a good point to aim for would be the abolition of the reserve clause (1975). Not sure if that will be possible, but if it is, you could argue that it's an objective cutoff, given that the opening paragraph of the lead highlights that as a turning point in salary progression. —WFC— 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree that cutoff makes sense, but I have the same issue. I have Nolan Ryan at a million and spotty facts on notable deals prior to that, so I'm not sure how to best fill it in. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be worth trying to track down whoever originally created this table, assuming it wasn't you. We don't have the sources to do what I've suggested yet, but that person might. —WFC— 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I didn't. Although given the closeness in both value and date between Catfish' pre-reserve clause deal and Nolan's deal maybe his was the first post-reserve clause record breaker. Then the only question is those 1-2.5 deals (and if that table is accurate it's not many). I'll do some LexisNews searching for newspaper articles, see if they refer to those deals as annual value records. Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume Doug Pappas can be considered a reliable source, so his website could be of some use for 1985–89. While this doesn't look reliable, it does provide links to reliable sources, providing a platform to work from. —WFC— 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There we go, all ref'd up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bah, good call, totally forgot about adding a key. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Career earnings section, the "salary" column should be renamed "earnings". —WFC— 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll reserve judgement on the lead for now, as its makeup would very much depend on the above discussion.—WFC— 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple of financial footnotes are needed. One in the highest earners of 2010 section, as a disclaimer that we go by annual average salary, and outlining what is and isn't included (along the lines of the one at the top of the table in ref 11). Another in the career earnings section, clarifying that career earnings refer to salary earnings only (unless they don't, but I believe that they do). —WFC— 22:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add that 2nd footnote right now, but what do you mean by the first? That table doesn't refer to average salary, it refers to salary. By "Average" ARod would have made $27.5, but that's not how the deal was structured. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite right. I didn't realise that the stats tables had detailed season-by-season breakdowns of players' salaries. —WFC— 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Catfish Hunter. Now that's a belter, even compared to the likes of Bert Badger and Jock Strain. —WFC— 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno what that's in response to (he'd obviously be on a deeper salary history list). Also he's probably the worst BBWAA Hall of Fame inductee (the old Vet's Committee inductees don't even count they're so bad) of all time. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as the 2011 season is going to begin shortly, what is the plan for when this list needs updating? We're dealing mainly with a bunch a numbers that are soon to be outdated.

• Not really, the third table will be entirely unchanged (unless maybe Pujols' strikes a really excellent deal mid season) and only a couple fully new people will enter the 2nd table (at most) while the others can be easily updated. As for the first table, when the data is available I'll update it, not too difficult. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I, for one, find the use of Alex Rodriguez's nickname to be unencyclopedic here. I use it often myself when talking, and it appears all the time in newspaper and magazine articles, but this is an encylopedia. What's wrong with just using his last name. I see no other players of that name in the list, so there's no need to differentiate.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "First, he signed a $252 million/10 year contract with the Texas Rangers in December 2000." I wish we could do without the slash. How about a regular comma instead?

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Spell out the abbreviation NBA.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The comma after "First base is the highest paid position" would be better served as a semi-colon.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Salary progession table, de-capitalize the last two words in Annual Average Salary.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 13 is missing a date, and ref 14 is missing a date and author. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: please check that your printed reference publishers are in italics. The first general reference, and some specific cites, have this problem. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Still see a bunch of Sports Illustrated and New York Times cites that need work on the italics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article refers to him as CC, not C.C., which is correct?

• Generally without the periods, fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• " a luxury tax which taxes" a tax which taxes.. reads rather repetitively to my sensitive ears...

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "record-breaking" should be hyphenated...

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "10 year contract" -> I would think 10-year be hyphenated..

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image caption, replace second Rodriguez with He as there's no uncertainty as to who you're talking about.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent with diacritics, Aramis Ramirez doesn't have one but his article does, Manny Ramirez has one but his article doesn't...

• Whoops, that was me putting it on the wrong Ramirez. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 dabs in the progression table, Mark Davis, Dave Stewart and Kevin Brown.

• Fixing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What does # of years mean in that table? Is it the Contract duration? We avoid # to represent number ordinarily as well...

• Yes, that's a better name, added. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro-rata is overlinked in the notes.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "a 10 year deal" vs " the 10-year contract" be consistent with hyphenation. Check the lead for this as well.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "$2-$2.5 million " en-dash needed here.
• "2 months" -> "two months"

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note d, a lot of numbers you can replace with words.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contract duration" need a unit in the progression table

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For context, how many HR's does A-Rod have at the end of 2010?

• 613 and he's had 4 so far this year. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Evil Empire spends a lot of money. I'd actually find something on the largest contract by team interesting to include.

• I would strongly hesitate to add that. First off it's beyond the scope of the article, it has nothing to do with the highest paid MLB player by any measure, that's on the subject of team spending habits. I made the brief Yankees' mention as obviously it needs to be noted, but you're proposing a table I think more appropriate for a page relating to MLB business practices in general. Additionally multiple teams often end up footing the bill for a deal. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Career earnings"- this is nominal dollars, right? If so, make that explicit.

• Added in the Earnings footnote. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 10:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• "is New York Yankees' third baseman Alex Rodriguez" - should either be is New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez or is the New York Yankees' third baseman Alex Rodriguez. In the first, NYY is an adjective, and in the second, it's possessive. Just one or the other.
• "American professional sports leagues" - comma after (and maybe that could use a link?)
• What is "hard" quoted from? Anything?

• No removed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "resulting in significantly lower salaries in that period" - "in... in" construction, would be better if second "in" was during
• "For example" can be removed without losing encyclopedic value
• Comma after "Herbert Hoover"
• "two separate record-breaking contracts" - separate can be removed without losing meaning
• "$252 million" - {{inflation}}?

• I can add this if you want, but I tend to hold off adding inflation to relatively recent numbers (else basically every figure in every article would need it). Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't think they all need it, but I thought it might be useful for that value since it was a record-breaker.

• Added. My worry is just that technically as soon as one year passes a figure isn't precisely accurate and therefore there's an argument for inflation. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood; I think as long as you have a defendable argument for those which are shown and those which are not (which you do), you are good to go. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "'stupefying'" - comma after
• "Despite this" - comma after
• "Under this deal" - comma after

• Really? Doesn't feel like that's right. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read over a couple things and I'm not sure myself now. After work, I'll break out a reference book and hopefully I can get a final word. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bedford Handbook, 6th edition, says that commas should be used "after an introductory clause or phrase" (§32j, p.399). This is an introductory prepositional phrase. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean... It's not though, it's not a clause of any kind. It's just part of the sentence. Why would you put a break there? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Because it's an introductory phrase, like I just said. — KV5 • Talk • 10:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Still doesn't make sense to me tho, could just as easily be worded "Rodriguez also receives $6 million under this deal..." with no comma, don't see why it's different at the start. There is no break, it's not a separate clause or phrase. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it could, and that would be just fine, but it's the sentence order in this case that determines that a comma is needed. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "$252 million, 10-year contract" vs. "$4.5 million/4 year contract" - one format or the other (former preferred)
  • "4 year" still needs a hyphen on this one. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would use "plainrowheaders" in the key table because none of the currently bolded entries are bold in the table
• "second highest" - should be hyphenated (Wells' caption)
• "4th highest" - fourth-highest
• Note a: "Clemens salary data" - Clemens'
• Note a: "2007 contracts" - comma after
• Note b: "However" - comma after
• Note c: "$7.9/3 year contract" - 3-year should be hyphenated, and I'm assuming Viola didn't sign for $7.90.

• Yes. On this topic, should I add in a similar note that Rickey Henderson also signed a $3 million AAV contract 6 days after Puckett (with one more year)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this would be a good idea. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note d: "$10.3 million annually, three year deal" - three-year
• Note d: "new, one year contract" - one-year

Yup, that should be all. — KV5 • Talk • 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, save those with responses. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies above. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• SMS Furst Bismarck: Prose says it was scrapped in 1920, but the table gives the date as 1919–20. Which is it?
• Prinz Adalbert class: "caused a catastrophic explosion in the ship's ammunition magazines that destroyed the ship." The repeated use of "ship" is a redundancy.
• Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "672 men were killed...".
• Roon class: The sink date of the SMS Yorck varies in the prose and table. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for catching all of these - they've all been fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop.
  • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider converting knots in the lead for the benefit of non-experts.
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Who is John Campbell?
  • He's a pretty prominent naval historian. For instance, he wrote Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, which is a pretty highly regarded work. I've added "naval historian" to the line. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You have "The two Prinz Adalbert class vessels" unhyphenated but "the two Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers" hyphenated. Is there a reason?
  • Wrong parameter in the template, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is written in USEng (which it appears to me to be), shouldn't "centimetre" be "centimeter" and wouldn't Imperial units be used before decimal ones?
  • Germans used the metric system, so that's what I use. I was advised this was the appropriate choice a couple years and about a score of FACs ago. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You use cm before you use centimetre.
  • The centimetre/cm thing was a typo in the template - "abb=on" instead of "abbr=on". Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a query really, is there any way we can work out the "inflated" cost of these ships so we can put it into modern context?
  • No, this has been thoroughly discussed and the consensus of those who know these things (I certainly do not count myself as one of them) is that these types of inflation calculations are highly problematic. See here for the last discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to relink WWI in the Prince Heinrick section (you don't relink the armament type for instance, so being consistent you wouldn't relink other text from section to section...)
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk)
• You repeat a redlink to 21 cm SK L/40 gun in the Roon class section (you linked it in the previous section).
  • Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "9,719 LT; 10,885 ST" LT and ST aren't explained anywhere, and should they be capitalised? You have "long tons" in the table...
  • That's how the convert template spits them out. Everything should be standardized now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Corbett and Payne books have a spare period (Co..) probably down to the template...

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure many Europeans (certainly not I) know what a "recognition program" is. Is there a decent link? It's not essential given what you say in the second sentence....
  • "Recognition program" was intended to be a generic term covering efforts made by organizations to honor high-achieving individuals. I didn't want to say "Huskies of Honor" is a hall of fame since there is no physical hall, just banners displayed at Gampel Pavilion. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...an additional two women's basketball players..." looks like three to me.
  • Good catch, fixed. Since the time the article was originally written, one women's basketball player, Maya Moore, was inducted; that's the reason for the discrepancy.
• No need to abbreviate NIT as it's not used subsequently.
  • Removed. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• " to 12 Yankee Conference championships, seven NCAA Tournament berths, " mix and match words and numbers here vs "UConn has won two national championships (1999 and 2004), seven Big East Tournaments, and ten Big East regular season titles, while placing twenty-three former" is all words, despite one being more than 10... I don't really mind either way but I'd prefer stylistic consistency.
  • Changed so that numbers greater than 10 are consistently in numerals instead of text. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "while placing twenty-three former players into " odd phrasing, perhaps USEng, but I'm not sure the college "placed" the players "into" the NBA, more that the players were drafted into the NBA by NBA teams?
  • The source says the players "...have gone on to play in the NBA," which could mean they were drafted or they went undrafted and signed with an NBA team as a free agent. I used "placed" as a more-generic term rather than repeat the source. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Under his hand," another odd saying for me. Perhaps "Guided by him" or "Under his coaching" or something less allegorical.
  • Changed to "Under his guidance". –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Explain WNBA before using the abbreviation.
  • Added. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "basketball superpower" is that your opinion or quote? If the former, it should be toned down, if the later, I'd like to see it directly quoted.
  • I downgraded to "power", but if you review Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball you'll see "superpower" is really not exaggeration at all. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Link position each time as the tables are sortable.
  • Done. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "was drafted 2nd overall " would prefer to stick to prose and say "second".
  • Done. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not keen on the use of the hash for squad number, even if it is linked (see MOS:HASH).
  • Changed to "No." per MOS. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review and comments; I believe I have addressed them all. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NCAA needs spelling out.
  • Done. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 5, used for the Calhoun sentence, is now slightly outdated since the Huskies have won a Big East Tournament since it came out. I'd suggest another cite for the most recent title, with perhaps another one in the future depending on current events.
  • Added reference as requested. Hopefully I'll need to add another reference in a couple of days. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove space after parenthetical WNBA, before a comma.
  • Fixed. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a comma after "Tina Charles in 2010"?
  • Fixed. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In the tables, can Coach, Team, Director, and second positions be decapitalized? They aren't proper nouns, after all.
  • Fixed. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• States should be spelled out, especially if Russia and Italy are. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Thanks for the comments, Giants; all of your concerns should be addressed now. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"included 13 men's basketball players, ten women's basketball players, and four head coaches, two of whom are also" Comparable quantities should be in the same format. Lede has more MOS:NUM issues, review all.

• These should all be fixed now. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formally connect the Connecticut Huskies with UConn.

• I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You state "Huskies of Honor is a recognition program sponsored by the University of Connecticut (UConn)." and "Similar to a hall of fame, it honors the most significant figures in the history of the Connecticut Huskies,", but the reader is forced to connect the dots that the Connecticut Huskies represent the University. Non-Americans may not do this, especially where there is not a tradition of student sports. Courcelles 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "Similar to a hall of fame, it honors the most significant figures in the history of the Connecticut Huskies—the university's athletic teams—especially the men's and women's basketball teams."? –Grondemar 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"including four at the end of undefeated seasons." source?

• Added a citation to the UConn 2010–11 media guide. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Twenty-two former UConn women's basketball players have graduated to" The source makes no claim that all 22 graduated, just that they played at UConn and the WNBA...

• Changed to "have gone on to"; however, it is worth noting that the media guide claims that Geno Auriemma has a "flawless" graduation rate. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date after yesterday's 2011 WNBA Draft.

• Updated with source. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Kemba declares and signs an agent this afternoon, don't forget to change his "present" tag to 2011.

• Updated. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uconnwomenslogo.png needs to be removed from the navbox; a basketball is too complex for a PD-ineligible license.

• I hope you don't mind, but I asked User:J Milburn for a second opinion on this. If he concurs with your judgement I will happily remove the image. My thought was that the basketball is really only a circle with a few lines on it, and so simple in this illustration that it fell under the "simple geometric shape" portion of PD-ineligible. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• After discussion with User:J Milburn, I have removed both UConn logos from the Huskies of Honor navbox pending verification of copyright status. –Grondemar 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Image:uconnmenslogo.png is not a problem, and could be restored, as it is just a U and a C interposed on each other, clearly within the bounds of pd-text. Courcelles 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree on the licensing, but I don't want to include the men's logo and not the women's logo, for fairness reasons. I'd rather have no logos rather than just one of them. –Grondemar 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for not responding sooner; I have been very busy with RL projects and haven't had a chance to address your comments yet. I should get to them by the weekend. –Grondemar 04:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have (finally) responded to your concerns, please see above. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Brabourne has witnessed 35 Test centuries over more than half a century." I'd prefer it to say "... centuries since it hosted its first Test in ... xxxx ". With a citation.
  • done Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Add (T20) after the first time you say Twenty20 so when you use the abbreviation, our non-experts will understand.
  • done Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The ground has held eighteen ..." maybe "hosted" instead of "held".
  • changed Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• " first being in 1948 when India took on the West Indies," -> "the first in 1948 when India played the West Indies".
  • Chaged Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "on the West Indies, it has also hosted eight One Day" -> "... West Indies. It has also stage eight One Day...".
  • Changed Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "matches, first being in 1989 when Australia took on Pakistan and one T20 International in 2007 when India took on Australia" -> "the first in..." and instead of "took on" all the time, perhaps add the result for variety, e.g. "when Australia beat Pakistan by x runs" etc.
  • Per suggestion Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The stadium hosted 5 matches " -> five.
  • done Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't overlink teams, e.g. West Indies, in the lead. It's linked three times, once is fine.
  • Removed excess Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "in the first innings of the first Test match played here" avoid saying "here".
  • Changed to "in the first innings of the first Test match played at Brabourne Stadium" Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "score a century here was Rusi Modi " -> "... century at Brabourne Stadium was..."
  • Changed to "at the Brabourne" Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• India national cricket team is also overlinked in the lead.
  • I found 2 - removed the second. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते}
• Three links to disambiguation pages, Allan Rae (twice) and Jim Burke.
  • Iv changed it in the lede - seeking help for the table (dont want to disturb the template syntax) Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed this on behalf of Around The Globe. (Will have another look over the article myself and comment later.) Harrias ^talk 08:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Would state "Australian Adam Gilchrist", and similar for other overseas players you note, but don't overlink the teams.
  • Done Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accessdates, not sure why you need a leading zero on things like March 06, 2011.
  • Just to keep in line with 2 digit dates (else some will be 1 digit upto the 9th of the month and then two - for uniform dates) Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand that for ISO-formatted dates, but not for these human-readable ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its not that big a thing - if its going to affect this flc Il rm the "0"'s - though I dont see it making a big diff. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, already looked it over at the PR, but a couple of minor points:

• "The Brabourne has witnessed 35 Test centuries since it hosted its first Test match in 1948." – "The Brabourne" isn't human or animal, and thus can't really "witness" something.
  • Is it ok now? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You use numerals for 17 in the second sentence, but letters for eighteen in the fourth: I'm not too fussed which is used (neither is the MOS) but consistency would be nice.
  • Changed to words. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "It has also staged eight One Day International matches, of which the first was in 1989 when Australia lost to Pakistan by 66 runs and one T20 International in 2007 when India took on Australia." – This sentence could either do with some more commas, or (more ideally) splitting into two sentences.
  • Broken into 2. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "No centuries have been scored in the eight One Day International matches and only T20 International played here." – I don't think that "here" is appropriate language; really "here" would refer to the article, not the ground: I'd suggest changing it to either "at Brabourne Stadium" or "at the ground". Harrias^talk 16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is a century? I may be overlooking it, but this article never defines the term.

• Reaching 100 runs - a feat by a single player in the team. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I know this. I've reviewed several of the list of centuries by batsman that have come through in recent months. Your list, on the other hand, assumes people already know this. Many do not. Courcelles 10:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added an explanation with link. Thanks for pointing it out, sometimes you overcome the biggest of things whiles forgetting a nano most important item! I daresay "century" is nano to this article though :) Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the centuries that no ball total was recorded, there is a total number of overs for the innings. Could be worth providing that is some form.

• The total number of overs is that were faced by the whole team (keeping in mind Cricket is a team game with 11 players in each team), I doubt that could be tied to the number of runs by a single player. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 09:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • What about alt text is it not required? Just curious.
    • It isn't currently a requirement, though I do generally prefer to include it, I find it quite difficult sometimes: I'll see what I can do. Harrias ^talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • You might want to give a friendly alert to User:Moondyne about the nomination, since they have the most edits here.
    • Yeah, poked them for the PR, will draw their attention to this in due course too. Harrias ^talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion
  • First sentence last paragraph. Ex. The Australian's have won 123 of the Ashes Tests compared with England's 100, which 87 of the 310 Tests was played to a drawn result.
    • I don't really know what you mean here. If you are suggesting that as an alternative to what I've got: I prefer what is already there, personally. Harrias ^talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to give you a pat on the back and congratulate you on bringing this back thru the peer review process out the the demotion catagory, good job Harrias. I hope with nomination goes well for you!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would prefer to see some alt text, albeit minimal, and more than just "The Ashes urn", maybe explain in the caption the context, i.e. that it stays at the MCC museum no matter what...

• I've expanded the first caption, and added references to all the other captions too. Also added some alt text for the urn image, haven't got to the others yet: the urn one is pretty bad! Harrias ^talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "consisting of anything between one and six " anything would seem redundant here.

• Removed.

• Maybe put Ivo Bligh into context for non-expert, non-UK readers.

• In what manner do you mean? I linked "The Honourable" to Earl of Darnley# Earls of Darnley (1725).

• A mix of single quotes (e.g. 'the Ashes') and double quotes (e.g. "the Invincibles") - what's the rationale?

• All double now.

• Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for row and col "scope" parameters for screen-readers.

• Added col scopes, but not row ones at the moment: not sure if they are appropriate, and if so presumably they should be placed on the years? This isn't a very well explained 'tutorial' and the tables within it aren't even particularly consistent in their usage. If someone can tell me where best to put it, I'll put it there.

• Not sure if the blue you chose for the table was supposed to be the same as that in the timeline? Looks quite different to me.. Same (but not as different) for the yellow...

• Not really, I chose the colour I wanted in the tables, and was going to change it in the timeline, but for the fact I always suspected it would get cut!

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "they entered the series with open hostility hitherto unseen in the game" probably worth trying to explain what you mean here.

• I removed it, as it seemed to get too wordy to explain it: feel free to add something back if you can work out a shortish way to include it! Harrias ^talk 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for your comments: I've addressed most of those from TRM, although as I'm away from home at the moment, I haven't done anything that requires too much effort. I'll have a proper look back next week. Harrias ^talk 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Ashes originated from the solitary Test which the two nations competed in 1882." Is this meant to be "completed"? If not, there needs to be a second "in" there.

• Presumably making the sentence state ".. solitary Test in which .."?

• I see how that could be troublesome. How about changing "competed" to "contested"? That seems to get the same message across in a grammatically better way. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems to work well: changed. Harrias ^talk 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very minor, but at the start of the third paragraph "only" and "lost" would be better served in the opposite order they're in now.

• Switched.

• Redundancy here: "England won the series, but the series...".

• Changed to "England won the series, but the tactic prompted changes .."

• "England have once retained the Ashes after a drawn series." Should "once" be after Ashes, or at the end of the sentence?

• Moved to end of sentence.

• In both of the main tables, the winner is denoted in color without a matching symbol. This is a violation of WP:ACCESS. Make sure that you add what the symbols and colors denote to the key when you go to fix this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I initially thought that too, but then I realised that the words "England" and "Australia" given would make any symbols redundant, and therefore already complaint with WP:ACCESS.Harrias ^talk 05:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose this may affect every list of this type, but can I just confirm that " the player's primary team" is the one he played most games for? We don't have a this phrasing in British football so I think it may be a good case for a footnote.
• Tsk, this too - the draft lists usually have the handedness of the pitcher, why not these lists?

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the player's primary team is not necessarily the team he played the most games for, but rather the team with which the Hall of Fame determined that he had the greatest impact. The Hall alone determines the primary team. As for the handedness, it's noted in the draft lists because many teams draft specifically-handed pitchers based on need, which is not necessarily the case with a full team's roster. — KV5 • Talk • 21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, well can we "note" the thing about the "primary team" because I didn't get it and therefore assume other non-experts will fail too. As for the handedness, fine, no worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see what I can find. I don't know if the Hall itself has any information on it, but some news outlets might. — KV5 • Talk • 11:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• TRM, how would this source suit you? It states that the player's baseball cap, which is how the primary team is designated, "shows the marks of the team with which he made his most indelible mark", that "[the] choice of which team logo appears on a player’s plaque is the museum’s decision, though the wishes of an inductee are always considered", and that "it is important that the logo be emblematic of the historical accomplishments of that player’s career". — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, the HoF cap system is really really weird. IIRC they used to let players pick but changed out of a fear that teams would try to "influence" (read: bribe) players into picking their team. For a recent example see Andre Dawson, even though he played almost twice as much for the Montreal Expos as opposed to the Chicago Cubs he said it was "a little gut-wrenching" when he was given an Expos cap for his plaque. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So, and I don't want this to sound patronising, but how do we explain to our readers what "primary team" is when, between us, we're finding it hard to come up with an objective definition of it? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The purely objective definition is that the Hall defines the team, in consideration of the player's wishes but not always necessarily equal to them, and marks their cap accordingly. If we want to be purely objective as an encyclopedia, that's the ticket. That doesn't mean that the Hall or the players are objective, but they don't have to be. Only we do. — KV5 • Talk • 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, sounds good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, there's now an "H" footnote discussing the cap selection process, using the ref from the Crier. — KV5 • Talk • 12:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #2, I put it right next to the word "Awards" in the table heading.--Cheetah (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You really expect folks to look through a 21 page PDF? Page numbers are essential... (Not to mention, third party sources would be nice.) Courcelles 08:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The page numbers are there... "Los Angeles Clippers Records" (PDF). NBA.com. NBA Media Ventures, LLC. p. 79 (2 of 21). http://www.nba.com/clippers/media/0910mediaguide_recordbook.pdf This isn't an opinion of the Clippers, so we can use NBA's site.--Cheetah (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Depending on resolution, you can expand that lead image a bit according to the MOS.
• "the Buffalo Braves." not keen on that odd link to Buffalo. Is there no article specifically for Buffalo Braves? In any case, it looks odd.
• No need to relink NBA.
• "The Buffalo Braves moved to San Diego".. could just say "The Braves ..."
• Some seasons in the lead are linked, some aren't, why?
• "In their first game, the Braves beat the Cleveland Cavaliers 107-92" en-dash. Where? When? Anything more to add?
• "In the 1972 NBA Draft, the Braves selected Bob McAdoo, who later won such awards as Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player. During McAdoo's years, the Braves reached for the post-season three times." references?
• "playoffs twice(1975–76..." space needed.
• "They also had seven seasons with the winning precentage of .500 or better. " -> "with a winning percentage" and what does that mean to a non-expert?
• "their 40 year history." -> "40-year history".
• "Playoff Berth " is Berth really a proper noun?
• Relink everything linkable in the table because it's sortable.
• "Lost First Round to Utah Jazz, 3-2[6]" - en-dash needed for the scoreline. There are several of these.
• Look at the capitalisation of the text in the "All-time records" section, and reference it.
• While not against the MOS, why are your refs dated in English format while your main article has dates in US format?
• Ref titles need to comply with WP:DASH as well.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all dash issues—Chris!_c/t 20:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRM for your comments. They really showed that I forgot a lot in the last 12 months of inactivity. The "cite" button in the editor gave me the English format and I thought it was a new rule, so did not bother to change it. Thanks Chris for helping out.--Cheetah (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link Western Conference in the second sentence.
• "It was one of three franchises that joined the NBA in the 1970–71 season." "It was" should be "They were" in this context.
• "During McAdoo's years". Does this mean with the team? If so, say it.
• Remove "for" from "the Braves reached for the post-season three times."
• "They also had seven seasons with the winning precentage of .500 or better." Typo with "precentage", and "the" would be better as "a".
• Why is League capitalized in the last sentence of the lead?
• I find it curious that there is a full allotment of articles on the team's individual seasons, and yet the list is linking to generic league season articles. If articles on the team are avaliable, why not use them?
• In reference 1, should the first and third words of the title be capitalized?
• Reference 11 appears to have a formatting error. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful comments. I've done most of them. Please, take a second look.--Cheetah (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The award has been presented to singers originating from Canada, Colombia, Italy, Puerto Rico, Spain, and the United States; and was first presented to the Colombian singer-songwriter Shakira in 2000 for the song "Ojos Así".[3] — it doesn't make sense to put a semicolon; instead replace it with a comma.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this suggestion. IMHO two separate sentences would work better. Edge3 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Edge3 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Latin Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Album links to 1 redirect which points back.
  • Christina Aguilera received the award for her Spanish album debut Mi Reflejo.[5] — do you mean debut album?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "From 2002 to date it has ..." not keen on this, particularly as you've already called it this in the lead opening sentence.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The award has been presented to ... and was first presented ..." repetitive.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "for her album Fijación Oral Vol. 1, " don't think you need "her album" as it's clear this list is all about the albums.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent on Aguilera's first name spelling...

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "is the most awarded singer " a slightly odd way of putting it in my opinion. Maybe, "has received the most awards"

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "American singer Christina Aguilera winner in 2001" some punctuation here would be good, maybe a comma after her surname.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for Furtado's caption.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Associated Press has no "The".

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 17, no leading 0 needed on the date.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]