Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2018

• No need for bold link to Coahuila (if that's happened in the previous 18 FLs, they need to be fixed too!)

• Strangely enough it was the only one that had bold link... fixed  Done

• You have two different piped redirects to the same article in one sentence, which isn't brilliant for our readers.

• I can see that, however I can't think of a way around it. There is only 1 article that lists both the states by population and the states by land area...

• I would only link one. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you are saying, but I wonder about a reader who wants to see which states are the largest by area, they will not know they can click on the list of states by population to get this information unless it is linked twice. Hmmm... Is there a way to resolve this?

• You could add some information about first/latest to incorporate in the lead as well, since that information is in the table. Done
• Probably also worth discussing the population change in general since that's in the table too yet not discussed in any way in the lead.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about this, saying something like the state is growing faster than Mexico as a whole, or finding the average growth rate etc, but really the list is about individual municipalities, so generalizations for percent change are not super useful to the reader. For example, a small town with a growth rate of 50% is less significant than a large city with a growth rate of 10%, so it really depends on the row you are looking at in the list itself.

• This was about the incorporation dates, not the rate of growth. Unless you've got your "done" ticks the wrong way round? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes my mistake, I've moved it to the proper location, and switched the "done" to the correct spot. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your suggestions! I will add the date line to the other lists for consistency. I made 2/4 suggestions and commented on the other 2 for your consideration. Thanks again The Rambling Man! Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note a: Space should be removed before the cite.
  • Still see the space here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, there was another instance that I fixed thinking you meant that.  Done
• Note b: Typo in "municipalitie's". Done
• Note c could use a period at the end. Done
• Note d: First two words of "the 27 February 27, 1868" should be taken out. Done
• In ref 3, "on" should probably be removed from the access date for consistency.

• I completely agree, however I can't seem to figure out how! Does the cite act template for some reason use "on", but the cite web does not? Any idea how to correct this?

• It must, as I've never seen this template in use before and your formatting is normal-looking. I'll strike the comment to avoid punishing this article for a template's issue, but you might want to leave a note on the template's talk page about this apparent inconsistency with the rest of the templates. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made the suggestion in Template talk:Cite act, you are correct this one seems like an anomaly.  Done

• In ref 4, the publishing date could be fully spelled out, instead of the abbreviated Nov 12 form. Done Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you have an eye for detail Giants2008, all other reviewers (myself included) missed these. Thanks for taking the time to review! All changes made but one that I couldn't figure out yet... Mattximus (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Now all comments are addressed, thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would combine the first and third sentences of the first paragraph. "Coahuila is a state in northern Mexico that is divided into 38 municipalities."  Done
  • I also would remove "located" as redundant to "in"  Done
  • Should northern be capitalized? You capitalized Southern in Municipalities of Campeche. Don't know the MOS, but stay consistent. Done

• I changed the lists for all states to have the same format.

• In the first paragraph and the table, is there a need to go out to 3 decimal points on the land area? I would recommend rounding to one decimal (or even whole numbers).

• Not really, however this is exactly the accuracy published by INEGI and all these lists are populated with official government data. Some countries use only 1 decimal, most use 2, but Mexico seems to be the only one so far that uses 3. I like to just use whatever the official census bureau uses.

• Link Intercensal Survey  Done
• First sentence, third paragraph, you need a comma after "Abasolo"

• I added the comma just a bit before this, does that work?

• Second sentence, third paragraph, you need a comma after "Ocampo"  Done
• last sentence, last paragraph, you need a comma after "Madero"  Done

That's it Mattximus. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks « Gonzo fan2007! What a great review. I've addressed all comments, please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Mattximus (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Google results suggest that "Northeast Mexico" is not consistently capitalized like that and should therefore be rendered "northeast Mexico" per MOS:COMPASS.

  I'm happy to make this change, but I'm basing it on the Spanish proper name for the region, which according to MOS:COMPASS, means it should be capitalized. I really don't care either way, however here is my source: [3]

  I think you meant to link [4], but no matter. I'm persuaded. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A recurring issue is that of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. The land area is almost certainly not known to 1/1000 square kilometer precision, even if the source gives a figure with that many decimals. Even if it were, it would be very overkill to have that precision here. I suggest rounding to integer values for the area. The population is trickier, but again the figures given by the source are almost certainly overprecise. I don't quite know how to solve this in the table since the figures are used for calculations (perhaps write something in the header cell about the source being the official count?), but in the text I would simply write "The largest municipality by population is the state capital Saltillo, with over 800 thousand residents, while the smallest is Abasolo with one thousand residents."

• You brought up a very interesting problem with rounding areas! The land area *is* known to that precision according to INEGI, but the problem with rounding high precision area numbers is that you can't simply go up to 1 when it's 0.5-0.999, because areas actually *decrease* when resolution is lowered. This is counter intuitive, but consider a circle that is perfect. Ok that's 1. Now consider a circle with many little protrusions, it's now greater than 1, say 1.005. When you round you are returning it to the circle, which is 1, but actually mathematically rounding would bring it up to 1.01! Unfortunately, this would now fall under original research if we report a number different than whatever the statistics bureau reports.

• I stand by my original point. Per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. I don't see that as being the case here. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• However the act of rounding areas is actually generating *new* information, essentially made up by me, which is against WP:OR. It's not like rounding the population, which would not generate new information, just lose precision (and follows MOS:UNCERTAINTY)). For example 815 people could be rounded to 820 no problem, the 0 is your unknown. Do you want me to round area of 865 to 870? 860? The truth would probably be closer to 860, but the math brings it to 870. So I would arbitrarily have to pick one of those two numbers. Would you recommend I just always round down? Like 879 to 870? That would actually be more accurate, but again, OR. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would simply use the parameter in the conversion template which determines the number of decimals and set it to 0. I don't find the argument that conventional rounding would constitute WP:OR particularly persuasive. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is actually a wiki page describing this problem! Maybe it does a better job of explaining why this is OR than I did. It is found here Coastline paradox although it's focused just on coastline (2D) the same principal applies to area (3D).

• I am familiar with the coastline paradox, but that applies to the spatial resolution of the measurement (i.e. the method used), whereas this is a question of the precision of the final figure. An analogy using basic arithmetic would be rounding figures before adding them up (which would constitute WP:OR) vs. rounding the final sum (which would not). TompaDompa (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe just a footnote explaining what you rounded to? I had the same comment above that TompaDompa is making. I don't think rounding is considered original research. Rounding is a matter of mathematical fact. 1.55 is always 1.6 when rounded to one decimal point. I understand your concern, but in an easy land-based analogy, if I own .95 acres of land, I can say I own about 1 acre of land and still be accurate, especially if there is a footnote explaining the rounding. Just say something like "all land areas rounded to the nearest whole number." « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Guerrero was originally incorporated as Rio Grande, changing its name March 18, 1834" – missing "on" before the date. Done
• "On August 7, 1827, the name of the town was changed from San Fernando to Villa de Rosas, and then to Rosas in October 4, 1857, and finally to Zaragoza on February 27, 1868." – "in" should be "on". Done
• I'm not a big fan of the gallery. I don't suppose the images could be placed on the side as the middle one is very wide, but I would at least move the gallery to below the table rather than above it. I would then also move the last paragraph of the lead to the "Municipalities" section as sort of an intro to the table.

  As for the gallery, I agree with you that it's nicer when it's down the side (which is how I originally had them), however after many of these reviews, the gallery is placed where it is due to accessibility issues brought up involving small screens/low resolution.

  Is WP:ACCESSIBILITY affected by moving it below the table? If it is I guess the table will have to stay where it is, but I don't see why that would be the case. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is possible to place at the bottom, but I'm just following the format of all of these other pages. It would be weird if this is the only page out of 114 list of municipalities in North America to have it at the bottom. But you are right it would still follow WP:ACCESIBILITY but just be really strange compared to all the others. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very well, then. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent review TompaDompa! I've done the easy ones, but asked your opinion on the more controversial changes. The capitalization I really don't care about so if you have strong views after seeing the Spanish reasoning I'll just change it. The area though is trickier as I mention above. Mattximus (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK TompaDompa, I've went through every list and rounded all areas. That should be the last outstanding comment? Mattximus (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think two decimals is still overly precise, but it is the last objection I have, yes. TompaDompa (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Mexico has been changed, two decimals is the standard for all featured lists of cities (*List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories, List of municipalities in Nunavut, List of municipalities in Ontario, List of municipalities in Saskatchewan, List of municipalities in Yukon, List of cities and towns in Alabama, List of municipalities in New Brunswick, Cantons of Costa Rica, List of cities and towns in Montana, List of municipalities in Maryland, List of municipalities in Mississippi, List of municipalities in Louisiana, List of municipalities in Nova Scotia, List of municipalities in Rhode Island, List of cities in Nevada, Municipalities of Colima, Municipalities of Aguascalientes, List of municipalities in New Mexico, List of cities in Alaska, List of cities in Alberta, List of cities and towns in California). It would be strange if only these two were different than all the others, no? Mattximus (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should all be rounded. I won't press the issue, however. TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "women's national teams" is piped to a redirect.
• " title Sher-e-Bangla ("The Tiger of Bengal")." needs an inline ref.
• Link "Test" first time.
• "As of May 2018, the ground has played host to 16 Test matches and 98 ODI matches" the archived sources need work because they have been archived back in 2016 and don't verify the claim.
• Cricinfo currently showing 27 fifers.
• In fact, Cricinfo is showing updates to numbers of Tests and ODIs too.
• " Shakib Al Hasan is the latest Test bowler to take five wicket " beyond the grammar issue, this isn't correct, the latest was A Dananjaya in Feb 2018.
• In general I think the lead needs to be completely re-reviewed in light of the time that has clearly passed since the majority of the prose was written.
• Tables need to be fixed up too.

Let me know when that's done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm guessing "The other was Bangladesh's lost to India [...]" is supposed to read "The other was Bangladesh's loss to India [...]".
  • Fixed. Sagavaj (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "The current Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan" – whether he's the current captain seems less relevant than whether he was the captain at the time, so I'd rephrase it without "current" (which also has the added benefit of not getting dated).
  • Fixed. Sagavaj (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It would seem more natural to me to write which country won in the "Result" column (e.g. "Bangladesh won") rather than the result for the team for which the five-wicket haul was taken. I notice that the other WP:Featured lists for five-wicket hauls at specific locations do it the former way (for player-specific lists, the latter would seem more natural, however).

• Since it was already pointed out that the same format used in the previous featured lists, I didn't change anything. Sagavaj (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have made it clear in the key that the result is for the team for which the five-wicket haul was taken. Dropping the team name also makes sorting easier so that readers can see if the result was a loss or a draw. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The image quality for the photograph of Shakib Al Hasan is not great. It should be possible to find a better image.
  • Replaced with the other image from Wikimedia Commons. Sagavaj (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't judge anything that requires an understanding of cricket itself, but I will say that the linking of esoteric terms/jargon to articles that explain what it all means is exemplary. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Fixed all the issues. Sagavaj (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things I noticed:

• The last sentence of the first paragraph should mention the number of WODI matches as well (and perhaps also the number of T20I and WT20I matches).

• The above mentioned statistics were actually mentioned in the last paragraph. Sagavaj (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I know, but I feel it makes more sense to have it all in one place (perhaps not T20I and WT20I as there have been no five-wicket hauls in those formats). TompaDompa (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tests and ODIs make up the majority of the matches played in cricket. Paragraphs two and three cover the five-wicket hauls taken at the ground in these formats respectively. The final paragraph covers T20Is, WODIS and WT20Is where only a handful of matches have been played. This is how most of the lists are formatted. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to shorten the WP:LEAD by moving some of the contents to the respective sections below.

• @Ikhtiar H: and @Ianblair23: added most of the text and nominated this article for the featured list. So, I hope they will look into this comment. Sagavaj (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:LEAD states that "as a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". This article complies with that. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Date", "Inn", "Overs", and the rest should show up in the same order in the key as they do in the table headings.

• Changed as per the comment. Sagavaj (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Good pick up! I have also add Team and Opposition to the Key – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TompaDompa, thanks for the review. I have added to Sagavaj's comments above. Please let us know whether you have any further comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. “Jesus Walks” shouldn't have MOS:CURLY quotes.
2. Compilation album Cruel Summer (2012) released with label GOOD Music – I'd start the sentence with "The" and say it was released "by" GOOD Music. I also think it should be mentioned that West founded the label.

   Rewritten. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. Beazley Designs of the Year should link to Design Museum#Beazley Designs of the Year.
4. I'd use {{TOC hidden}} to make the rather lengthy table of contents be collapsed by default.

   This was at {{TOC limit|2}} but I don't mind either way so I've changed it. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   It still showed up expanded by default for some reason, so I changed it back. TompaDompa (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5. I'd alphabetize "The Record of the Year" under R, rather than T.
6. "FourFiveSeconds" (with Rihanna & Paul McCartney is missing a right parenthesis.
7. The section heading says Antville Music Video Awards, but the text says Antiville Awards. Eight or nine letters in the first word?

   Eight (fixed). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8. "Knock You Down"(with Keri Hilson & Ne-Yo) is missing a space before the left parenthesis.
9. "Knock You Down" (with Keri Hilson & Ne-Yo is missing a right parenthesis.
10. The Black Entertainment, Film, Fashion, Television and Arts Awards (BEFFTA) – the abbreviation in parentheses should be moved one word to the left.
11. luminaries.The awards is missing a space after the period.
12. The Dieline Awards recognizes the absolute best – remove "absolute".
13. The Esky Music Awards were awarded annually by Esquire magazine. – between which years?

    Well... good question. I can only find awards in 2006 and 2007 but their website doesn't make it at all easy to search for them. What would you like to be done here? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14. All Falls Down" (featuring Syleena Johnson) is missing a quotation mark, as is Slow Jamz" (with Twista & Jamie Foxx).
15. The Groovevolt Music and Fashion Awards were held annually by Groovevolt.com. – between which years?

    Perhaps 2004 to 2006, but again I'm not sure. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16. "Heard Em' Say" (featuring Adam Levine) – the apostrophe should be moved two letters to the left.
17. West received two awards from two nominations. – for consistency, the last three words should be removed.
18. West has received two nomination. – should be plural.
19. The MTV Europe Music Awards was established – singular or plural?

    Plural (changed to "were"). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20. The MTV Video Play Awards see MTV international – MTV International should be linked.
21. In the MTV Video Play Awards section, the entries should be enclosed in quotation marks.
22. to recognize best in music – missing definite article.
23. The section heading says MuchMusic Video Awards, but the text says Much Music Video Awards. Three words or four?

    I reckon both are common names, but for consistency I've changed it to three. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24. “Runaway” shouldn't have MOS:CURLY quotes.
25. FourFiveSeconds (with Rihanna & Paul McCartney) is missing quotation marks.
26. “Only One” shouldn't have MOS:CURLY quotes.
27. We Were Once A Fairytale should be in italics.
28. Love Yourself (with Mary J. Blige) is missing quotation marks.
29. The O Music Awards section should mention how many nominations West received for consistency.
30. I really think the O Music Awards section should mention that all the nominees for the "Best Tweet" award were tweets by West.

    I've added a brief mention. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31. '"All of the Lights" (featuring Rihanna) contains a stray apostrophe, as does '"Mercy" (featuring Big Sean, Pusha T & 2 Chains).
32. from 1994-2004 should use the word "to" per MOS:ENTO.
33. "B R Right (as producer) is missing a quotaion mark.
34. Record Production/Singe or Track misspells "Single".
35. "Knock Your Down" (with Keri Hilson & Ne-Yo) misspells the second word.
36. The TMF Awards was an annual Belgium television awards show broadcast live on The Music Factory. – between which years?

    1995 to 2009. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

37. The TMH Awards were presented annually – between which years?

    I'll get back to you on this one. Someone hid a {{cn}} tag inside the reference for the TMH section. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

38. The entries in the Vibe Awards section contain several stray apostrophes (or single quotation marks).
39. The Virgin Media Music Awards were an online music awards show. – between which years?
40. The XM Nation Awards section should contain a link to XM Satellite Radio somewhere.
41. 1.4 million – the word "million" should be preceded by a non-breaking space ( ).

TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most comments (including all those I didn't respond to individually) – there's just the recurring question of what to do with former awards and their dates. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not critical to provide all of them, but we should try to wherever possible. As soon as the sole "citation needed" tag is fixed, I'll be happy to support this for WP:FL status. TompaDompa (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the "citation needed" tag. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The team is currently owned by Kalanithi Maran of the Sun TV channel Network who won the bid for ₹850.5 million per year on a five-year deal in 2012" – rephrase without "currently" per MOS:CURRENTLY.
• Instead of "maiden", just say "first". This comes up a few times.
• The second paragraph of the WP:LEAD could be removed since there's an infobox containing the key information. It looks a bit weird right now since the paragraph is so short (and the information in it is not all that important to the subject matter).
  • Moved to the first paragraph. Let me know if that's fine or you want me to remove it completely. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either remove it entirely or at least fix the "currently" phrasing (to an "as of" or "since" phrasing). TompaDompa (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rephrased with "as of" Sagavaj (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Since digit separators are used in "55,000", it would look a lot better if the same were true of four-digit numbers as well.
  • The ones in the table remain. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed in the table. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• All cricket terminology in the WP:LEAD should be linked at first occurrence – assume that the reader isn't familiar with the terminology.
  • "Run" and "wicket" are still unlinked. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added links. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "has the highest strike rate at 193.33 among the players who played over five innings for the SRH" – I would move "at 193.33" to the end of the sentence.
• If "scalps" is an official cricket term, it should be linked. If not, it should be replaced.
• "has the best bowling average at 20.56 among the players who bowled more than 20 overs" – same as above. The qualifier should not come at the end.
• "the best economy rate at 6.68 among the players who bowled over 20 overs for the team" – same as above.
• Use "strike rate" or "strike-rate" consistently.
• "The first list includes all players who have played in at least one match for the SRH and is initially listed alphabetically by their last name."– Remove this from the WP:LEAD and add some text above the first table summarizing its contents instead (I'd suggest writing something about the number of players, which should make it clear that the list is exhaustive). There's no need to explain that the table is sorted alphabetically by default (and the footnote further explaining this can also be removed).
• "The second list comprises all those players who have captained the team in at least one match, arranged in the order of the first match as captain." – Remove this from the WP:LEAD. There is already text above the second table summarizing its contents.
• "Many players have also represented other teams of the IPL, but only the records of their games for the SRH are given." – this is self-explanatory and should be removed.
• "To sort these tables by any statistic, click on the  icon in the column title." – this is unnecessary and should be removed.
• "These statistics are correct as of 2018 Indian Premier League." – Rephrase as "Statistics updated as of the 2018 Indian Premier League." and place the text in italics above each of the tables instead.
• The key should not have its own section. Place the parts that apply to the first table in the same section as the first table (above the table), and the parts that apply to the second table in the same section as the second table instead. The reader shouldn't have to scroll up from the second table all the way up to right below the WP:LEAD to check something in the key.
• Much of the information in the key is unnecessary in that format. All the abbreviations in the table should be explained with the {{abbr}} template instead (while retaining the links). Only the symbols need to be explained in the key.
• I would suggest replacing the asterisks (*) with {{hash-tag}} so that WP:ALT text can be added.
  • It was pointed out to me that this notation is customary. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't get on what you are trying to say. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not a big fan of the gallery. I'd suggest moving the images to the right of the table.
  • To clarify: I meant removing the gallery markup so that each photo shows up below the previous one instead of side by side. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed it as per the request. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turns out the table is too wide to have the images beside it. I restored the gallery but moved it below the table (the point being that the table is the primary content, and the images are secondary). TompaDompa (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Try to find a better photograph of Amit Mishra as the current one does not have great image quality.
• "This doesn't includes illegal deliveries like no-balls and wides." should be "This does not include illegal deliveries like no-balls and wides."
  • It still says "includes", whereas it should be "include". TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "The BBI was not provided for players who did not take wickets for the SRH." – explain BBI and change "was not" to "is not" or "has not been".
  • It now mismatches the table (which says "BBF"). TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected in the table. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see what the flags add to the reader's understanding of the topic and suggest that they be removed. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the entire "Nationality" column (it seems beside the point of a list concerning a subnational team), but the flags should definitely be removed as they add nothing but visual clutter to the table.
• "Kumar Sangakkara and Cameron White shared the captaincy for the 2013 IPL Season, with Sangakkara the first nine matches and White the remaining eight." – This footnote is unnecessary as it's already explained in the text above the table.
• The "No." column for the captains should be removed.
• The flags for the captains should either be replaced with text (i.e. "Sri Lanka", "Australia", and so on) or even better the column removed altogether.
• Instead of having the source in the bottom row of the captains table, I'd suggest adding a table heading that says "SRH captains" and placing the source there.
  • Remove the bottom row and move the citation to the heading (i.e. directly after "SRH captains"). TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved source to the top of the table. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Either have two heading that say "Notes" and "References" without the subheading that says "Footnotes" or use both "Footnotes" and "References" as subheadings under the heading "Notes".

TompaDompa (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "More than 2,500" instead of "Over 2,500".

fixed

• " over 1,200 footballers have " same again.

fixed

• "only 97 of which scored at least five goals" -> "of which just 97 have scored at least five."

fixed

• Is the article title correct? This is about goals scored in the World Cup finals right, not about goals scored in World Cup qualifiers?

Why wouldn't it be? WC finals/tournament is almost always shortened to WC, while for qualifications you always spell out the qualifications part. Nergaal (talk)

• "in 1954", "in 1970" etc, should be linked to the tournaments, and rephrased thus: "in the 1954 tournament" and/or "in the 1970 finals" or similar.

fixed

• "at the 1974 final" there's an article for this.

fixed

• " single World Cup game" is piped to a redirect.

fixed

• "The top 90 goalscorers" why top 90?

That was the number before 2018. Updated it. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of unnecessary repetition, e.g. "goalscorers .. scoring", "goals scored ... with 13 goals".

I tried to trim a bit of those usages. I hope the remaining sentences still make sense. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold shouldn't be used as a distinguishing feature as some screen readers don't acknowledge it. Use symbols etc.

fixed

• "Players with at least 5 goals at the FIFA World Cup tournaments[6] [7]" no space between refs.

fixed

• "Number of goalscorers[4][5][3]" refs in numerical order.

fixed

• You link some "international goals" articles or sections of bios, but not all (e.g. Rudi Voller), why?

Added for those that have an actual table of WC goals. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "goals per game" recognised in reliable sources to be significant in World Cup finals goalscorers?

FIFA has "PLAYERS WITH THE BEST AVERAGE OF GOALS PER MATCH" Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Leônidas is piped to a redirect back to itself.

fixed

• "1974 – Second round" is piped to a redirect.

I don't understand this. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Australia play "soccer" not "football" in their pipe.

fixed

• Tables need row and col scopes for ACCESS.

fixed

• "Players marked with ↑ are still playing for their national teams in the 2018 tournament." is this relevant?

Updated. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "(he scored one additional goal in 1934" 1934 is an easter egg link, should be "in the 1934 tournament".
  • This was fixed by Nergaal, he just didn't mention here that he did.Cheetah (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "but are now credited" but is now.

fixed

• " as 7 players scored" -> seven.

fixed

• Where does, for example this show me that Mandzukic scored five goals in eight games? It seems that FIFA haven't updated for 2018 so anyone listed in your table with a 2018 tournament appearance/goal is currently inadequately referenced.

Yes, people have updated the 2018 numbers (i.e. there are 97 players now with 5+ goals from 90 before). It is unclear to me how to reference the most recent tournament and keep things standardized before FIFA does their updates. The current numbers should be correct, and I tagged the player entries with 2018 numbers. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All 2018 players have the issue of not having "matches played" number updated in the FIFA database. I can't think of an elegant solution to deal with this other than tag along all 2018 players with ↑ and manually add some refs that will eventually become redundant once FIFA decides to update their numbers; or leave the tag and say those numbers are updated after 2018 but links might not. Any ideas? Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If ref 119 was published in 2008, it can't verify 2010, 2014 and 2018.

I think I fixed this. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 119 also seems to not reference all the alternative FIFA awards, e.g. where does it confirm that Flórián Albert was Best Young Player?

Added. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most comments. Will come back later to wrap up the last couple ones. Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I took care of all the comments. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include fixing the issue of the non-inclusion of the stats from the 2018 tournament? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: It has been fixed. Crzycheetah added references for the players who scored in 2018, and I added references for the players who played but didn't score. TompaDompa (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Both phrases are very common among football commentators/experts/players. It depends on a style of a writer/speaker, I'd guess. If you insist, I'll change.
    • I do. I'm guessing it would trip up non-native speakers of English (and native speakers not familiar with the sport's terminology) to a fairly large degree, which would probably be avoided if rephrased. TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rephrased
• "almost 1,300 footballers have scored goals at the World Cup" – the linked page says over 1,300. What is the actual figure? I also generally prefer "more than X" to "almost Y".
  • I changed it to "more than 1250". In the reference used the last number shown is 1251.
    • A thousands separator is required by MOS:DIGITS. TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A large number of citations have access dates from 2014. Seeing as many of these figures are subject to change, they should be updated (at least for all the players who played in 2018, and other figures that need to be current as of the 2018 World Cup).
• Since all the other players in the WP:LEAD have their nationality mentioned, Pelé, Jürgen Klinsmann, Oleg Salenko, Josef Hügi, and Ernst Wilimowski should as well.
  • Added
    • The "of [country]" phrasing used for Pelé and Klinsmann is a bit clunky. I'd suggest either using "[country]'s [player]" or saying that they scored goals "for [country]". TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The key for the table should not be hidden in footnotes.
  • A separate key is added
    • The key needs a copyedit. For "#", the word "have" should be removed. For "[ ]" and "( )", they need to be rewritten entirely for grammar and clarity. TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "♦" and "↑" is a pretty unorthodox combination of symbols. It's good that they cannot be confused for each other (unlike say "†" and "‡"), and "♦" is easy to spot on the list, but "↑" is easy to miss at a cursory glance. I don't have any real suggestion for some other combination of symbols, but I think there's room for improvement.
  • Changed ↑ with #. Let me know how it looks now.
    • That's a definite improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thomas Müller's goals per game do not match the number of goals divided by the number of matches. There might be other mismatches. Perhaps the averages should be calculated instead of entered?
  • I am using the Decimals template to avoid such mismatches.
    • Perfect. That's just what I was looking for. TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In the notes column, some lists of goals are hidden inside footnotes. These should be moved outside the footnotes.
  • Done
• In the timeline, Sándor Kocsis' eighth goal (i.e. his first goal against Brazil) that tied the record seems to be missing.
  • No, it's not missing. It's listed as a record.
    • You're right. See below. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In the timeline, I believe Kocsis scored four goals against West Germany, not Germany.
  • Corrected
• In the timeline, Just Fontaine's thirteenth goal (i.e. his fourth against West Germany) seems to be missing.
  • No, it's not missing. It's listed as a record.
    • You're right. Whether it is visible or not varies depending on the width of the browser window. The difference can be seen here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The link in reference 112 (as of my writing this) is dead.
  • Fixed

TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all your comments have been resolved, please take another look. Thanks! Cheetah (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This bit of grammar in the lead is awkward: "while Brazil's Jairzinho became in 1970 the only footballer to score at least seven goals without being the top goalscorer of that tournament." Perhaps this would work: "while Brazil's Jairzinho became the only footballer to score at least seven goals without being the top goalscorer of that tournament in 1970."
• Note 1 needs a reference for Wilimowski having the highest goals-to-games ratio.
• Note 2: Last word of "but in November 2006 however" could stand to be taken out.
• Note 5: "After Yugoslavia split" should probably be "After Yugoslavia's split" or "After the split of Yugoslavia" instead.
• References 20, 59, 95, and 109 have all caps in their titles that should be removed. Also, the hyphens in these titles should be converted into en dashes, and the publisher formatting seems different than the other FIFA refs. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to your phrasing.
• Added reference.
• Removed "however".
• Changed to "After the breakup of Yugoslavia".
• Those were the ones I added, and that was the automatically generated formatting. I have fixed it.

I think that should take care of everything. TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you TompaDompa for your help! Giants2008, besides your commenting (much appreciated!), will you do a source review as well?--Cheetah (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead

• The Victorian Football League was established in 1897 add ref and link 1897 VFL season
• and the competition has been known as the Australian Football League since 1990 add ref and link 1990 AFL season
• To determine the premiers each season, a Grand Final has been held every year since 1898. add ref and link 1898 VFL Grand Final
• a former six-time premiership coach for Melbourne add ref
• only four players have received the award as members of the losing teams add ref
• Link all the years in the second paragraph
• Include the Hawthorn players have won the award the most times
• Include that the grand final is played at the MCG
• Include the most recent winner, Dustin Martin

• Infobox

• Refs required first awarded and most recent winner

• Images

• All image captions require a ref

• Multiple winners table

• sorting by player needs fixing

• Table of clubs' totals

• Thoughts adding Univeristy and adding note saying they played in the VFL from 1908–1914?

• Notes

• All notes require a ref

• References

• Ref 6 – archive link missing
• Ref 7 – archive link missing
• Ref 9 – author link Emma Quayle
• Ref 11 – author link Warwick Green
• Ref 13 – author link Rohan Connolly
• Ref 30 – add agency=AAP
• Ref 34 – add agency=AAP
• Ref 37 – add agency=AAP
• Ref 42 – author link Mark Stevens (footballer)??

• Bibliography

• author link Jim Main

Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review Ianblair23, much appreciated. I have now actioned all your suggestions for the list (except adding an author link for Mark Stevens as I am not confident it is the same person). Please note there is one ref to cover both the VFL and AFL establishment dates of 1897 and 1990, and I have included extra information regarding the venue of the Grand Final as it has not quite been held at the MCG every year. Hopefully everything is now up to scratch though! – Allied45 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out it is indeed a different Mark Stevens according to his LinkedIn profile. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If possible, an additional image or two would further improve the visual appeal.
• (with the exception of 1924) – I wouldn't put this in parentheses, and I feel like a further explanation is warranted.
• Paul Chapman became the first player to win on a countback in 2009 – how many have done so since?
• Prior to the 2016 season, if the Grand Final resulted in a draw, the game would be replayed the following week. – and since then?
• Denotes player who was in losing team should be copyedited for grammar.
• The "Ref" column should be Ref, using the {{abbr}} template.
• , with players' clubs is superfluous and should be removed.
• Multiple winners should be "Players with multiple wins".
• By club should be "Club totals".
• In the club table, the wrong footnote is linked for Collingwood and St Kilda.

TompaDompa (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments TompaDompa, I have implemented your suggestions if you would like to have a quick look? – Allied45 (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  • Done.
• In the following table, the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural. – this should be rewritten as something along the lines of "UNESCO lists sites under ten criteria; each entry must meet at least one of the criteria. Criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." along with a citation (I'd suggest this link as the source).
  • Done.
• In the first table, I'd suggest splitting the "UNESCO data" column in two: one for the reference number, and one for the criteria.
  • This style is consistent with other articles, we've been playing a lot with it but this is what we got at the end. If we go for changes, it would influence many articles.
    • Okay. I would then suggest changing "UNESCO data" to "UNESCO reference number and criteria". TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possible, though this would be rather lengthy. Let's see some more opinions on this one. Open to suggestions.
        • Right now, it's not explained anywhere that the first number is the UNESCO reference number. You could also just add an WP:Explanatory footnote saying "UNESCO reference number and criteria". TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • What about using abbreviation template? I think this works nicely. --Tone 08:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that works. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The reader is almost certainly not familiar with the specific UNESCO criteria, so I'd try to put more emphasis on cultural vs. natural rather than the individual criteria met in the tables.
  • Now that we have a reference to it, does it solve the problem?
    • I was thinking maybe write "cultural: v" rather than "v (cultural)", but now I'm thinking just add <br> for a line break before "(cultural)". For the first table, I'd also add a line break after the reference number. TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
        • You didn't add <br> after the UNESCO reference numbers. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know, I don't think too many breaks are helpful. I'd leave it as it is. --Tone 08:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it would be helpful as it separates two completely different kinds of information, and conservation of vertical space is not an issue since the images require a certain cell height to make out anyway, but it's not a deal-breaker to me. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Stećci (sing. stećak) are – use {{abbr|sing.|singular}} for sing..
  • Done.
• What does (N.I.) mean?
  • No idea, actually. This is the name of the site per ref. Though the fact is that the nomination is from 1997 so it probably had some meaning then.
• "Vjetrenica" is misspelled as "Vjeternica" in the description.
• "orogenesis" should be linked.
• "Perućica" is misspelled as "Peručica" in the description.
• "ossuary" should be linked.
• The "See also" section should be above the "References" section.
  • All of the above, fixed. --Tone 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:LEAD could use more citations. Most of the second paragraph (except for the parts about being non-competitive vs. competitive) and the entirety of the fourth paragraph get a pass as they summarize the tables (i.e. it's already cited in the body per MOS:LEADCITE), but the rest should have citations to reliable sources.
• Outstanding Comic Book is one of only four categories in which GLAAD may select up to ten nominees rather than five. – I'd add an WP:Explanatory footnote listing the other three.
  • Added it.
• wasn't should be "was not" per MOS:CONTRACTION.
  • Removed it.
• The 2nd through 13th GLAAD Media Awards are WP:Redlinks. This is a problem per WP:FLCR 5(a). For now, I'd just remove the links (and add them back if/when the articles are created).
  • Removed them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Where there are several citations in a row, it looks better if they're in numerical order.
  • I think I did it correctly.
    • A couple remained; I fixed them myself. TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a mix of reference styles. I'd convert reference 3 and 10 to match the rest of the list and remove the "Bibliography" section entirely.
  • From what I've seen on other articles, that's how books are always cited. It's better, because if you want to cite the book a second time, but for a different page and in a different section of the article, you wont have to create another reference. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not always done like that, and I'm personally not a fan of the style, but it's not a big deal. TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done.
• A link to LGBT themes in comics somewhere is warranted (in a "See also" section if all else fails).
  • Added the link in the first paragraph.
• I'm unclear on how the award is given out. Is it not given out in one of the ceremonies consistently? Or do the locations rotate between NY/LA/SF each year? If it really is that the award is given out at one of the locations with no simple pattern, nothing needs to be changed, but otherwise some clarification / extra detail is necessary.
  • @Bilorv: I checked, and it appears that the way the award ceremonies are performed varies from year to year. Like, for the last 5 years. The award ceremonies were first held in Los Angeles, then New York. But before that, it was three ceremonies, and the order went: New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. And the ceremony which presented "Outstanding Comic Book" also varied from year to year. Like, in the last 4 to 5 years it was presented during the first ceremony (Los Angeles) in April. But before that, when there were three ceremonies, the one that it was announced in varied. And that was just from checking the 2010s ceremonies. I'm sure the previous decades were even more effed up. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough – no change necessary then. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we have a short description of GLAAD in the lead (e.g. "U.S. media monitoring organization founded in 1985")?
  • I expanded a little bit on the description. Hope it's ok.
• Mention in the lead that Judd Winick has the most wins (three of four nominations).
  • @Bilorv: Added him in. I also moved the section of World of Wakanda's win to be a seperate paragraph as it was getting too big. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we add a mention of World of Wakanda in the infobox (under "2018 winner(s)")?
  • Added it.

I've got no issues with the tables themselves (I think three tables works excellently). Great work on this, and great topic! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am curious as to why you talk about the county first, and then the Wildlife Trust. Essex Wildlife Trust and Suffolk Wildlife Trust both start with the trust, and then explain the county. Imho, I would stick to the way it is done in Essex and Suffolk. MOS:BOLDLEAD mentions addressing the topic of the article as soon as possible in the lead.

• Good point. Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Third sentence, first paragraph: "with twelve district councils, Ashford..." change to "with twelve district councils in Ashford..."

• I do not think that would work. I link to the councils, not to the towns. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My issue is the comma, which I don't believe is grammatically correct. It would seem a colon would be better since you are stating something and then listing out what you stated. AN example sentence would be "there are three countries in North America: Canada, America, and Mexico." Let me know if that makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Colon added. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• First sentence, second paragraph: I believe it is supposed to go (period)(quotation mark)(inline citation) i.e ."[5] not ".[5] Correct me if I am wrong.

• The rule is that the quotation mark should go after the full stop (period) if the quote is a full sentence and before if the quote is part of a sentence. The quotes are part sentences Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote in the first sentence of the second paragraph seems to no longer be true. It is found in the archived version of the source, but not in the current version. Thus, I don't think you can claim that they still describe them self as such.

• I have found part of the quote on another page and replaced the rest. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Last sentence, last paragraph: "Special Protection Areas. seven are" change to "Special Protection Areas, seven are"

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That last sentence of the lead is a doozy. Any way to split it up or shorten it? It just seems to run on for a while.

• I agree but I do not see how to split it. Do you have a suggestion?

• The only way I can think is adding a period after "KWT manages fifty-four nature reserves" and then starting the next sentence with "This includes..." I'll let you decide the best route, it won't impact my support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is better the way it is. Grammatically, it is not clear what "This" refers to.

• Why is the public access field in table in all caps? (i.e. YES / NO)

• I have done it that way in many other articles and I think it is better to be consistent. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the difference between the two Geohack links in the table for each item? i.e. there is a link to "51.160°N 0.862°E" and then a link to "TR002439" in the same cell that take you to relatively close places. Sorry if I am missing something, but I can't figure it out.

• They are both the same but the first is the international method and the second the UK one. I have been strongly advised to give both as readers may be using either. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a really nice list! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your helpful review Gonzo_fan2007. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your further comments. Gonzo_fan2007. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link Caesar's invasions of Britain in the image caption.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It describes itself as "the leading conservation charity covering the whole of Kent and Medway". It aims to "work with people to restore, save and improve our natural spaces" and to "ensure that 30% of Kent and Medway - land and sea - is managed to create a healthy place for wildlife to flourish". – Try to paraphrase this instead of quoting it outright.

• I do not see how to do this without copyvio. Do you have suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I might write something like "Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) is a conservation charity founded in 1958. Its stated aims are to cooperate in restoring and preserving natural wildlife habitats in Kent and Medway and covering 30% of the total land and sea area in doing so." TompaDompa (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have adopted your wording to replace the first quote but I do not think that it fully covers the points made in the second and third quotes. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. I would suggest "Its stated aims are [...]" followed by some paraphrasing of the main points, which seem to be (1) working with people, (2) restoring, saving, and improving natural spaces, (3) achieving the goal of 30% of the land and sea area, and (4) allowing wildlife to flourish. TompaDompa (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see anything wrong with quotes and I think they express what the Trust does more clearly. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's not a deal-breaker for me. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]