Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2008

• Comments
  • I don't like this sentence. In the second tournament in 2004, the competition became more "international" with winners from Asia, Europe and North America finished in the prize winning places. "became more international?" Isn't this already a international tournament? Yes only 2 continent winners were in the early stages but it's still international, reword this in a format that says the same but in a different way. Done
  • Japanese Saeka Matsuyama won the violin part to the final and Xiaotang Tan from China came in first place in the piano category. - violin part to the final? You mean she won that part to go the final? Done - Meant to say "in the final".

--S_RX 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.hollywoodupclose.com/news/music/story/tiesto_crowned_king_of_tmf_awards/
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals in the references (current ref 16).

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reference changed since I last saw it; it was using an Elle magazine website; it now appears to redirect to another site owned by the same company. I've updated the publisher to reflect this; the information on the actual page is the same as it was before, it's just that the site has changed. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "" Subtropical Storm Andrea forms 150 nautical miles (280 km, 175 miles) east of Jacksonville, Florida[1]" - no full stop.
  • Andrea's image caption is a fragment so remove the full stop.
  • July relinks UTC and EDT, June didn't. Any reason for this?
  • And Aug 13 links UTC again... why?
  • Official start (Jun 1) sentence isn't linked.
  • Dean's image also has a fragment for a caption.
  • AST isn't linked on its first instance.
  • Depression ten image caption is also a fragment.
  • "forms well out in the open" - what is "well out"? quantify if possible to keep the encyclopedic nature.
  • Noel's image caption.. ditto per above.
  • Official end needs citation as well. (It may be that the lead cites it but for consistency's sake, add it into the timeline).
  • Not directly related but you should consider creating a Category:Meteorology timelines category.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, thanks for the comments. Done with everything, including creating that cat. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ace. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • I feel the key can be made into a table or something like that because the way it is now is sloppy in my eyes.  Done. Converted key into table. Skeet Shooter (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Alumni for astronauts, periods aren't needed in the notable events column because most of the notes aren't complete sentences and just list missions with now other words.  Done. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--S_RX 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I also agree with Matthew, because there is a great length of references, they should be in a separate column.--S_RX 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• I'd still like to see the references in their own column, rather than in the "notable events" column. Reason being is that they aren't just referencing the events, they're also referencing the person. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 113 (Everest, F. ) needs a page number

 Not done. My intent was to provide a reference to verify Everest was the subject and co-author of The Fastest Man Alive, so the citation points to the entire book (no page numbers). This approach seems consistent with WP:CITE#Including page numbers, but if there is a another method, please let me know. Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Page numbers within a book or article are not required when a citation is for a general description of a book or article"

• Same for current refs 135 & 136 (Lopez, D.) and current refs 138, 139, 140, 141 (the Marrett books).

 Not done. Same rationale as above. Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen the link checker before - a very useful tool. Thank you for the comments. Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link checker is my friend at FAC. Those rationales work for me... all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

• The First Division and Division One are both used choose one and stick with it
  •  Done Changed to First Division. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The notes should be under a separate heading as seen here
  •  Done Switched to footnotes. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The list includes clubs that are current members of the Premier League, who lost their Football League after being admitted, and those which lost their status by other means." The middle bit doesn't make sense.
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk)
• Would it be more helpful with the Soccerbase league table links, to link to each club's last Football League season table? For instance, the Thames F.C. reference links to the current Premier League table, and my instant reaction was that the link was wrong, till I looked further down the page to find the dropdown for league tables including Thames. If you add the seasonid parameter to the url, you could link to 1931/32 Div 3S, their last FL season.
  •  Done Changed links to last season in the Football League. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it be clearer if the heading to the current Prem clubs table included the season? either instead of Current or in brackets at the end of the heading.
  •  Done Added current season in parenthesis. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it be helpful to add sourced notes of why each club left the FL? presumably most were just relegated or not re-elected.
  • Where would you say these notes should be displayed? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a column of their own; two possibilities
      1. add a narrowish column that just says Relegated/Not re-elected/Resigned/Liquidated/whatever it is, then if it's worth going into more detail, do it in the footnotes section, like you've already done with Leeds City and Maidstone, or if not just add a reference. Relegated clubs would source to the existing Soccerbase ref anyway so for those you wouldn't need another ref.
      2. add a column the same width as the Current status column (make them both 25-30%) and put any detail in the column.
    • If you think either of those would work? While I think of it, you don't really need the word Currently in "Currently playing in..." column entries, the heading already says Current status. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you say this is the kind of thing you're thinking of? Also, I think I'll switch all the references to FCHD, as it covers both the reason for leaving the league as well as seasons in the league. Would be redundant to have it and Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's fine; and FCHD is certainly easier to check the relevant facts from. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Column for the reason for dropping out of the league has now been included. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The existing footnotes need sources.
  •  Done References added. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the peer review, much of this stuff could have been sorted out there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're missing New Brighton Tower F.C.
  •  Done Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't tell from reading their respective Wiki articles whether the former Football League club South Shields F.C., which relocated to Gateshead, should count as the same club as the former Football League club Gateshead A.F.C., or a different one, along the lines of Wimbledon which you count as different from MK Dons.
  •  Done Ive counted them as seperate clubs, like that of Wimbledon and MK Dons. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the Gateshead F.C. currently playing in the Conf North isn't the same club as the Football League one (see its FCHD page).
  •  Done Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If it might help, there's a complete list of clubs having played in the Football League here; I think you've got them all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Added this instead of Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Alf Common, The first..." - no capitalisation needed for "The". Done
  • Jimmy Montgomery's years are wrong in the lead. Done - Ouch, i got that one way wrong, I must have been asleep.
  • "...for the club, two, Danny Collins..." - needs rewording. Done - Reworded.
  • I'd change the "Statistics are correct as of" bit to the last game, which was on 11 May 2008. Even though it will probably need updating tomorrow... Done - Changed.
  • Not sure about the column titles "SAFC profile" and "Country profile". Maybe "Club source" and "National source", or something along those lines. Done - Changed.
  • Are the internationals players those who played for their country whilst at the club or during their whole career? Comment - Only whilst at the club.
  • You may be aware, but a few internationals, like Sandy McAllister and Charlie Thomson don't have country profiles. Done - McAllister didn't play for Scotland while at Sunderland, I mistakenly bolded the country, and have added Thomson's profile.
  • Shouldn't Bert Johnston's nationality be bolded? Done - Bolded, must have missed that one.
  • Jimmy Montgomery's link is incorrect - it links for Len Ashurst. Done - Added correct link.
  • Consecutive footnotes should be ordered numerically, so "[10][5]" needs fixing. Done

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• More comments
  • "...in the clubs 100..." - apostrophe needed in "clubs". Done
  • "...of them includes current..." - I'd change "includes" to "including". Done

Comments from Killervogel5

Big problem with the club source and national source columns. Using external links means that there is no reference list at the bottom of the page to refer to. The short "Notes" section should actually be "References", and all of these links should be converted to references using the {{cite web}} template so that they appear in this section. This is the only problem I see with the list, but it's a big one. Currently, I oppose, but will reconsider if this is corrected.

Additional comment: "club's 100 year centenary season" - redundant, just say "centenary season". Remove "100 year".

Oppose from Killervogel5

The article did have a massive reference list at the bottom, but the problem was that other references became swamped with about 250 player profile references around them, It is really just a way of keeping it organised and tidy. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is tidy-looking; unfortunately, being tidy and following MOS don't always line up perfectly. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay KV5, thanks for pointing out about the embedded links, I would never have guessed it was a MoS violation, anyways... I've added the international profiles to references. I was wondering if a general reference for stat cat, where all the club profiles come from with the usual accessdate, and then if I pointed it out again in the club profile column that all the club profiles come from stat cat, with accessdate etc. So it would keep the embedded links but as if they were references, seeing as though they would be covered by the general reference. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, that's perfectly acceptable. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, I'll begin on that shortly. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Added general ref and note. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several years which aren't linked at their first occurrence. For example, 1947 is in the lead but not linked until the "History" section. 1949 is not linked at all. Neither is 1975

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "First awarded in the 1956," - remove the.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "first awarded in the inaugural NBA Finals in 1947." - first awarded after the Finals; it's not awarded during the game.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the trophy was not named the Walter Brown trophy until 1964, then it should not be referred to as such at the beginning of the paragraph. Did it have another name before that (e.g., NBA Championship Trophy, etc.)?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The only individual award in the NBA Finals is the Finals Most Valuable Player" - follow by a comma.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Center the numbers in the "Created" column of the second table to match the first table.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Change the link on "commissioner" so that it links to the section of the article on commissioners in sports; otherwise, the link doesn't make much sense.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: References for awards should go to league-independent sources if at all possible, to pass the independent sources requirement of WP:N.

Check if the one I put on works. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly does, it was the one I was hoping for. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

• "the Most Valuable Player is presented to the most valuable player of the regular NBA season." - you use the term "MVP" (abbreviation mine) to define itself. Can you expand on what MVP means in the definition? Also, it should the Most Valuable Player award.
  • I think the readers will understand what most valuable player means so does it really need a brief definition?
    • A) I think it would be better to have a definition than a recursive definition; B) You have to remember that a list, and especially one that's going to be featured, should cover topics so that someone who knows nothing about basketball would not be confused by anything within it. For those reasons, yes, I believe that it does. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but is there any reason that it's not referred to by its official name? I just checked the ref and the award's official name is apparently the "Maurice Podoloff Trophy". That should at least be mentioned. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added —Chris! _ct 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Why is the first table sortable? there are only two(!) items.

Done —Chris! _ct 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why do we need the See also section here? All necessary links are already in the templates.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the section with this link since it is not in the template.—Chris! _ct 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that link important? If that link is really that important, why isn't it listed in the template? --Crzycheetah 20:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will remove it.—Chris! _ct 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Chris! _ct 18:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reference → References

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The following deadlinked:
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_defensiveofyear.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_finalsmvp.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_executiveofyear.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_sixthmanofyear.html

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed —Chris! _ct 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it's a little late in the day but I think I'd prefer to see the lead expanded and, possibly, subsume the History section. If this (as I suspect) is going to form the primary article in a Featured Topic then I think it ought to be downright amazing, rather than simply excellent and expanding the lead would help that enormously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to merge the history section with the lead. Is that right?—Chris! _ct 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lead is very brief indeed. I was thinking that you could merge the history section with the lead but do it well... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What do you think?—Chris! _ct 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. I just need to understand what note [A] means and I think I'm done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The note is used to explain the voting system of that particular award.—Chris! _ct 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being dense perhaps but what do you mean by the "tenth" vote? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The award is usually determined by nine vote. but in at least one final, fans votes are counted as the "tenth" vote.—Chris! _ct 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, can you reflect this in the note so I don't have to ask the question again? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. What do you think?—Chris! _ct 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top drawer. I'll sleep on it (tired) and no doubt it'll see success shortly...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. —Chris! _ct 19:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Shouldn't the list be renamed "List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners", as per the other lists?
  • "...held in 1999;[1] with"... - the semicolon could just be a comma.
  • Barcelona doesn't need to be wikilinked on its second instance.
  • The key should have some features from the UEFA Cup one, including rewording to "winners" and explaining what "Bold" represents.

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done all, thanks for the comments matty NapHit (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there - "Extra time" in the key doesn't need to be capitalised. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for spotting that matty corrected now NapHit (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Image caption - champion -> winner, and no full stop.
  • Could link seasonal to Season (sports) to avoid confusion with summer, spring etc..!
  • "a straight knock-out tournament" - is straight required here? I think I know what you mean (i.e. no round-robin beforehand?) but I'm not sure to a non-expert that this is clear.
  • "reorganisation of their cup competitions" - while I love discretionary plurals, I think here it would be appropriate to say "of its cup competitions" as UEFA is a single entity.
  • Odd placement of the winner of the first tournament (i.e. after the last winner) - reorganise that.
  • " before it was abolished." - they can't have won it after it was abolished, and you've already told us it's abolished, so this seems redundant to me.
  • I like the country sorting!
  • Note d is missing a full stop.
  • Did you borrow my references?! (Kidding, hope you did, might have saved you some work!).
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha yeh I borrowed a few of your sources glad you don't mind, I've corrected all the faults you pointed out, cheers NapHit (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Killervogel5
Just a couple of things.

• "The first competition was won by Fiorentina who beat Rangers 4–1 over two-legs to win the 1961 Final" - Two legs should not have a dash because it refers to the two legs (it's not an adjective like in two-legged final). Also, any reason why two-legged is linked on its third occurrence instead of first?
• "with Lazio triumphing over Real Mallorca." - I really don't like the use of "triumphing over" here, seems a little WP:WEASEL or WP:NPOV. I would use "defeating" instead.
• This isn't a deal breaker by any means, but could you tell me why you use footnotes for other victory notes and in the two-legged final, you don't? I might feel better if there was a footnote saying Fiorentina won 4-1 on aggregate.
• In the references section, use semicolons to make sections (;General references) rather than subheadings.

Other than that, the list itself looks good!

Review by Killervogel5

The only reason there are notes for certain matches are that these matches finished in a draw and were decided either on penalties or in a replay, so a note is required to explain this. Also in the two-legged final there is a column underneath which tells the score. Thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - your lead says the season ended Nov 30 but the list says the season ended Dec 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This tends to be a little confusing. You see, the National Hurricane Center designates the Atlantic hurricane season to officially begin on June 1 and officially end on November 30. That is the period when most tropical cyclones form in the basin. However, it is not unprecedented for storms to occur outside of those dates, similar to the way snow can fall before or after the winter months. Hope that clears it up some. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that I think but the wording in the list contradicts itself directly so it's a source of confusion. The Dec 3 entry reads "ending the season" while the lead says "season, which officially began on June 1, 2004, and lasted until November 30" - perhaps it needs a footnote or something to avoid this confusion. Also, Charley and Danielle are bold once each, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boldings removed. I must have missed them when removing the others. Also, I reworded the list to specify that November 30 was the last storm of the season, not the official end. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Super job, thanks. Final question, might have asked it already - why not use the {{convert}} template for guaranteed consistent conversion and non-breaking spaces per the MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • As wind speeds in storm reports are most often rounded to the nearest five mph, using {{convert}} would give a specific, non-rounded conversion. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Have you looked at using sigfig in the template? You could round to the nearest 10 kph for 323 kph->320kph by using sigfig=2? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm terrible with templates, so I can't seem to figure out how to work that parameter, but I'll continue to tinker with it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That template would not be precise enough. The original sources have a resolution of 5 kph/mph/kt, so using convert, even with sigfig=2, modifies the value of the conversion away from the original source. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I thought since the original sources would all be imperial (being US-sourced), then they'd all be in mph. I've checked quite a few and they're all that way. Converting to kph doesn't need to be to the nearest 5kph, what's the logic behind that? 1mph is nearly 2kph so if you were really keen to make a logical rounding, kph should be rounded to the nearest 10kph. But frankly I'm not sure why the rounding of the converted unit needs to take place at all. Right now you have arguably incorrect conversions through an arbitrary rounding. And in the list there currently exists " 45 mph (72 km/h)" which isn't resolved to 5kph either...You also have "240 miles (390 km)" where 240 miles is 386km (so rounded to the nearest 10km?). Are there cut-off points which I'm unaware of where you round to nearest 1, 5, 10 etc? Can someone advise? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yes. Maximum sustained windspeed measurements and position fixes are provided by the source material by using the original value in knots, rounding it to mph and km/h, and then rounding up all the values to the nearest 5 or 0. This is due to the resolution of the grid used by the National Hurricane Center and other Regional Specialized Meteorological Centres in tropical cyclone forecasting. There are other measurements, like recorded peak gusts at measurement stations, that can be converted to the nearest unit because these measurements have a higher resolution than the position and max winds measurements. Essentially, we follow whatever value the source uses, and we don't see a problem with rounding up or down manually. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well whoever "we" are, your rounding is not explained clearly and is inconsistent. It appears that numbers below 100 (?) are rounded to the nearest unit. Rounding to the nearest 5 or 0 seems to occur at an arbitrary point too. Your sources here appear in mph to the nearest 5mph, it doesn't mean the converted values have to follow any such rule - it just compounds the error. What's wrong with the {{convert}} template which provides consistently correct answers to a definable sig fig? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We = WP:WPTC. Again, whatever rounded value is used by sources operationally (like this source for a current storm) is what we tend to use. Note the in the link, the NHC says that 40 mi = 65 km/h, while with convert, it would be 64 km/h. {{convert}} is unnecessary, and would introduce deviation from sources; I would object to this article being promoted if the template were used for this purpose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, the penny has finally dropped! In that case, may I suggest a footnote which says all conversions are as per the source information? That way we all win - you can avoid using the template and I can shut up about the dodgy conversions! Is that a deal or is that a deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the text I just put there? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll shut up now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • I agree with Haha, this is a list of their seasons not a article about their seasons. This should probably be discussed with the Baseball project.
  • I feel the note about the "key" should be placed in the "Year by year" section.
  • May I suggest making a small table at the top of the "year by year" section that can serve as the key, and it will eliminate the long list of notes, which are mixed with the key and other notes about the information.
  • Another suggestion, placing the "general references" incorporated into the table as a extra row. Like in the table at 2008 WWE Draft.
  • Why is their an extra column in the table, yet it is not used?

--S_RX 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a table with all the abbreviations from the notes. The note about the key wasn't really needed after that, so I removed it. I also added a reference at the bottom of the table and removed the others, since they weren't needed (the ref covers all seasons). Opinions on the name are split 1-1 at WT:BASEBALL, and I'm watching that closely. My only question is where the extra column in the table is; I don't see it. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply - Great, may I also suggest placing the sentence about the Yankees' seasons incorporated into the lead or in a see also section because IMO it is interfering in the flow of the list.
  • I don't know if the table was intended to be built that way, but after the Awards column there is an extra "little" column, do you see it now?--S_RX 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't believe I missed that; thanks for fixing it. I moved the link to a new See also section. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Seems a shame there's no appropriate lead image, looks a little unappealing as it stands. I'd move the stadium image there as it looks a little odd tagged onto the end of the player images.
    • Moved the stadium image to the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eight charter franchises" not 100% clear to a non-expert what this means.
    • Changed to "eight original members". Is that better? Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminate the small text in the key.
    • Done. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your captions are complete sentences so they need full stops.
    • Added full stops to two captions. The stadium one seems borderline to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Don Larsen threw a perfect game in Game 5 of the 1956 World Series," citation required.
    • Added a note for the 1956 World Series, with citation included. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 4–0–1" unless I'm mistaken, this is the only scoreline with three parameters so it needs a footnote and reference to explain it.
    • Yes, that is the only tie mentioned. I added a note and reference to it. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Known as "Mr. October" for his clutch postseason hitting, Reggie Jackson " reference required.
    • I decided to just rephrase the caption. Calling someone a "clutch hitter" is POV by any standard. I got a little carried away there. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote may be of use to let the non-expert understand the appearance of East in 1969.
    • Done. Let me know if it needs a reference. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My ignorance, but if you can only win or lose in regular season games, how can you finish 1/2 a game behind?
    • Because games can be rained out, or stopped due to darkness in the old days before stadiums were lighted. See the aforementioned 4-0-1. Games can't really end tied anymore, except for this one. Teams always try to make up postponed or suspended games, but some still end up cancelled. One of the baseball season FLs explains how the Games Back column is calculated. Would it be a good idea to add this? Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think a small footnote explaining how halves can arise would be a very good idea indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Footnote added. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise very good.
    • Thanks! Giants2008 (17-14) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Killervogel5

• Stand-alone years in the lead and the table that are linked to "baseball years" (the {{by|YYYY}} template) should be linked to the corresponding "Major League Baseball season". You can replace the current template with {{mlby|YYYY}} to link to those seasons.
• In the key, you should put a footnote explaining what "games back" means for non-experts.
• The following terms should be linked in the table headers: division should be linked to Division (sports), league to List of organized baseball leagues, wins to Win (baseball), losses to Loss (baseball), win% to Winning percentage, and GB to games behind.
• Baltimore Orioles regular season records at the bottom should use the same date format as the rest of the table (YYYY–YYYY); don't abbreviate dates by leaving out the first two digits.
• Rather than putting the reference row at the bottom of the table and the references next to "Totals", make those references (#64-66) general references.
• The statistics for the 2008 season are incomplete. It should either be removed from the table or completed.
• To combat the whitespace issue, I would move the Murderers' Row picture up into the Table Key section. That way, the black and white picture is not right next to all the color pictures. Aesthetically, I think that would look better.
• As per WP:DASH, en-dashes should not be used "when the nearby wording demands it, e.g., he served from 1939 to 1941 and not he served from 1939–1941, in which from and to are complementary and should both be spelled out." This happens twice in the lead, "from 1974–1975" and "From 1921–1964".

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All done, with the exception of moving the reference at the bottom of the table. SRX told me to put that there earlier in the comments that are hidden. I did move the references next to Totals, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The bold for championship years should go across the column (see St. Louis Cardinals seasons and Philadelphia Phillies seasons for an example of what I mean).
  • Actually, I don't think I explained myself properly. Sorry. The colored blocks should be the ones bold-ed across the rows, not the entire row, and only the World Series bold in the playoff box. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Overall, this is a good list.
• Since "seasons" is part of the title, the lead section should use the word fairly early and provide a link to Season (sports).
  • I extended the third sentence to provide a season link. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks good. --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like the way the "Totals" section at the bottom of the table looks. I haven't compared other "seasons" lists to see how it's handled elsewhere. However, I wonder if the summary of the records should be broken off into a separate table.
  • As a note, the Totals section here is handled in the same way as the other three baseball season FLs. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer to keep a similar format to the other baseball season lists, but if necessary I could try to build a small table for the all-time records. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the fact that this was done in other FLs doesn't mean that it's the ideal way of handling the information. Even an excellent article can be improved. [wink]
        Given my WP display preferences and other display settings on the computer I'm using right now, the word "Totals" sits in the middle of a table cell with dimensions 2.9 inches high by 2.7 inches wide, and most of the table rows to the right occupy 2 lines (one of them is lines). That looks really dumb. Comparing with other MLB seasons lists, I see that the Red Sox list does not include this kind of information (that's a problem with that list, IMO); Philadelphia Phillies seasons has a less complicated history and thus a less complicated summary; and St. Louis Cardinals seasons has a complicated history, but because there are no images to the right of the table, the display is not bunched up the way it is in the Yankees article. I think the Yankees table would be more aesthetically pleasing if the summary of the statistics were in a separate table, and that some other sports seasons articles (such as Chicago Bears seasons) would also be improved by creating a separate table for summary statistics. (However, the format looks fine in articles such as Indianapolis Colts seasons.) --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've moved the all-time franchise records to a newly created table. Not sure what the reviewers will think, but it does look cleaner to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That looks good to me. Maybe this can set a new standard for other sports seasons lists (she said with a smile). --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the purpose/function of "References:[64]" at the bottom of the list table (in the "Totals" section)? (It seems out of place.)
  • I believe this is a general reference for the entire table. This has me confused, because I added it in response to another reviewer's suggestion. You are the second reviewer to tell me this should not be here. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Orlady (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Aha! One of the other sports seasons tables I looked at had a similar note in the form of "Source:[64]." Calling it "source" would make more sense to this reviewer. However, I think that it would be even better to provide a comprehensive note something like the following: "These statistics are from New York Yankees History & Encyclopedia,[64] except where noted, and are current as of August 12, 2008. Bold denotes a World Series championship." --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved the reference, while making it clear that it is from Baseball-Reference. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - great list, which I like since I am Latino, but few things.
  • There needs to be some type of image in the list or in the lead, maybe a picture of Rick Martin since he was on the chart for a long time or Sharkira, or one of the other singers who were on the chart for a long time. DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para. in the lead should be split into 2, as that is a big paragraph. DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--S_RX 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "...while still being members of ..." "while still playing for" is clearer.
    • I was attempting not to use the word to define itself, but I will change it if you think it's better.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four paras in lead for such a short list seems a little over the top, perhaps three max?
    • I was trying to separate by topic, but you are right.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think linking Washington Senators (1901-1960) is misleading as it just redirects back to Minnesota Twins.
    • OK, should I just de-link it or let it roll over to the dab page? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • I'd delink it unless there's a specific section you could link to? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Section linked  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its life in Washington, D. C. as the Senators, where they played f" - "its life as the Washington Senators in Washington D.C., where they played..."
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a suitable link for expansion team?
    • Apparently so, I didn't even think to check!  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You get to 1960 before mentioning a manager - this is a manager list, perhaps some work on, say, including info on the first ever manager etc could improve the lead and make it more relevant than franchise movements.
    • I wanted to mention the franchise movements because they aren't shown in the table (it explains why all the pictures of managers have "W" on their uniform too). I will try to do a little expansion. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • There really isn't much to say about the first manager - his article is just a stub that I created the other day to remove a redlink in the table. Does it need a large amount of information, or could I talk about the Hall of Famers, since they are all Senators-era managers, and since I proposed a DYK related to that anyway? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
        • I'm not really insistent on the first manager thing, it was just clear on my second or third reading of the lead that half of it seemed to focus more on the franchise than the managers - I think if it a list of the seasons then the franchise info is more relevant, but for a list of managers, I think the franchise stuff is interesting, worth a couple of sentences and not much more. Hall of Famers is a reasonable idea too because at least that relates to the individuals in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most in franchise history" their franchise or all franchise?
  • "longest-tenured manager in franchise history" ditto.
    • (to the above two questions) Their franchise; this is usually understood as clear and adding the "their" strikes me as redundant. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think perhaps you're right for people who are fully at ease with the franchise system but to me (a good old-fashioned Brit) I think the clarification would not be redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done and  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not surprisingly" -just your opinion I'm afraid.
    • Haha, I didn't think that would make it past FLC, I just spiced up the language a little bit.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " number of wins divided by number of games in the season" the table is about careers, not seasons.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Order refs numerically if possible, unless there's a good reason not to, for example, you have [9][6][21]
    • These refs are used in the lead, which is why they happen to be out of order. The numerical order in the cell is because each manager's first ref is his managerial record, followed by each playoff reference in chronological order. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • I know that, but you can reorder the ref names and the new refs such that the refs are in numerical order. If you're stuck, give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I'm stuck... KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
          • I'll be honest, there's no MOS guidance on this and you seem to have a pretty answer for their current ordering. I'm not going to get worked up about it, I'd rather see [6][9][21] but what the heck! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorting on WS (up) has odd effect, 5 0's, then a bunch of &em-dash, then 1 and 2... surely the 0's should be followed by the 1 & 2?
    • They should, especially because the em-dashes are sorted as -01, but the column won't even sort for me anymore. I think this is a bug with the sorting rather than the code. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nicknamed "The Big Train" and ranked ninth on the all-time strikeout list," is this cited anywhere?
    • It is now.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullet point that external link.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • All but two links are from one source; very disturbing
    • It was either that or use official team sources, which is not recommended. I could have gone with a mix of web sources, but Baseball Reference has the best reputation and is the most reputable. Using that USA Today source will help. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Minnesota franchise began its life as the Washington Senators in Washington, D. C. - Any sources?
    • The USA Today source you gave me will reference that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The playoff records are not easy to verify. I am assuming you use those "season statistics" pages as a reference, but they're very hard to use. I suggest you to use this link from a very respectable publisher instead of those multiple pages with a lot of meaningless stats.
    • I added the ref, but I kept the individual season refs as well. I don't consider those statistics to be meaningless; they show all of the playoff records, as well as managerial data and player statistics for the entire season. As long as the information is sourced, there's no reason to be critical of the source itself unless there's a reason to consider it unreputable. Thanks for the USA Today source! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right now, whenever there are more than 2 sources for one manager, it becomes very confusing as to whaich one to use to verify certain information.--Crzycheetah 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll go on the record and say I don't like removing those references, but I'll do it to get this list to pass FLC. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bill Rigney's WPct is incorrect
    • Y Fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "totals" row, why don't you use ! instead of

• Comments
  • I'm not blown away by the opening sentence "This list of tallest buildings in Shanghai ranks skyscrapers in Shanghai, China by height." - "This is {name of the list} which ranks {name of the list the other way round}" - It may have been the case that this was okay, but I'd just like to see something more imaginative like "There are over x skyscrapers in Shanghai, China, which..." or similar. Just my opinion but there you have it!
  • "...become the tallest building in Shanghai when completed" well presumably the tallest in China?  Done (changed) --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that stand at least 170 m (560 ft) tall," - is this an arbitrary choice? Not a big deal for me but I've seen all sorts of different criteria applied here.
  • Notes are, generally speaking, sentence fragments so they shouldn't have full stops.  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If lists contain two or more tables in a row with exactly the same columns I'd prefer to see them with the same widths.
  • I'd prefer not to see blank cells (e.g. the rank for the Oriental Pearl Tower - an em-dash or something would be better so people understand that you didn't just forget to put something in there...)  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years as tallest col should use en-dash, not hyphen to separate years, per WP:DASH.  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2 looks a little unreferenced! "The Burj Dubai, although not listed, is taller than the Taipei 101." should be cited to be honest.  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general reference, what's the point of it since you use Emporis for all your specific refs?  Done (removed) --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of Category:Shanghai, why not Category:Buildings and structures in Shanghai or even Category:Skyscrapers in Shanghai?  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]