Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2011

• Infobox says 21 singles, but lead suggests 23.
• 24 Shots, an album that did not chart, is unsourced in the discography.
• External link availablility issues (7 dead, 3 timeouts) Consider replacing or fixing the links.

—WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have repaired 6 of the seven dead links. However, ref 148 still needs attention. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done I've corrected the issue with the infobox, and found a reference for 24 Shots. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: have also found a reference to replace the broken link. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Great work on the article so far. However, there are some concerns before I can support it:

• "The album charted at number five on the Billboard 200, and peaked in the top twenty of several album charts worldwide." There shouldn't be a comma here.

Done

• "The album features two singles: the international hit "Baby by Me", which peaked at number twenty-eight in the US, and the second single, "Do You Think About Me"." I would remove second single; you already mention that the album featured two singles.

Done

• There was a new discussion over at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, and the consensus was to change the certification abbreviations to the providers.

Done

Messed up a little bit here. The certifications need to be in alphabetical order. Also, sales abbreviations do not change.
—Michael Jester (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revised

• You have "—" in sales columns, but the bottom of the table says nothing about what that means. Either needs fixing or remove from sales columns.

Done

Still one left in studio albums.

Revised

Okay, the very long caption at the bottom is just weird to me. It seems way too long and sounds awkward.
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. It should be better now. :) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I fixed it.
—Michael Jester (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would abbreviate Worldwide. It may look better on smaller screens. Not a big issues, if not done I will not care.
• In the notes column for Get Rich or Die Trying: "Contains behind the scenes footage, interviews, and live performances." It uses the serial comma, but every other sentence I've seen didn't use one.

Done

• You have an "As of December 29, 2003" under the sales column for 50 Cent: The New Breed. However, you do not has an "As of" for every other sales figure. Either do an as all for every album or none. Be consistent.

I'll leave the nominator to decide on that one. I believe he placed he parenthetical info because the sales for that release have not been updated in years. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "How to Rob", "Rowdy Rowdy", "Thug Love", "I'll Whip Ya Head Boy", "React", "The Cake", "Creep", "Mujeres in the Club", "Pass the Patron", and "Haters" need references that they are singles. They didn't chart anywhere, so where did you get the information?

Have cited some. Nominator may deal with others.

Move the reference to directly have the song title. (e.g. "Song Title"^[1])

Revised the ones that have been cited so far...

• Some albums have TBA while others have TBA. Is TBA the album name, or is this just a minor error?

Done - removed italicization

• References have some problems:
  • Wikilink things on every occasion, not just on their first appearance.

Wikilinked every reference I could (although considering the large number of references, I wouldn't be surprised if I've missed one somewhere. However, I think I've got them all).

Missed a few; I got them though.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • You have multiple cases where you have a dash "-" instead of an en-dash "–" (e.g. ref 20, 21)
  • Use italics even in the title of references. For example, "Billboard chart search: 50 Cent - "What Up Gangsta"" -> "Billboard chart search: 50 Cent – 'What Up Gangsta'"
    • Also, when using quotes inside of quotes, use apostrophes. And when the apostrophe is at the end use {{'-}}
    • I noticed that the NZ refs are now redirected to another website and showing only the current week's chart. Somehow this needs to be fixed. Those also need the dash changed to en-dash (there are a few other refs that need changing; ref #122 and #123 are examples).<

      Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is "Peak chart positions for collaboration singles on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart in the United States: " really necessary if there is only one other citation? (ref #67)

    Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes Zobbel.de an RS? I've seen it used before, but I have no idea who Tobias is. (I think these are the last issues that I have.)
  • From what I can establish, Zobbel is basically a massive statistics website which collects things like election data and Palestinian stamps (?), although their collection of UK chart data is their best known collection. According to them, they collect data from two music newsletters, Music Week and UKChartsPlus. Tobias Zywietz is simply the man who started the website and runs it currently. Personally, I use it as their data agrees with that found on the official sources, such as The Official Charts Company (as is the case with this article) and for the positions below 100, I prefer to cite this over the UKChartsPlus journal as I prefer to use references that actually show the data. However, if you don't want to use Zobbel, I will cite the relevant weeks with UKChartsPlus, as is the case on Lady Gaga discography, as it is most definitely a reliable source. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not needed. That's fine.
    —Michael Jester (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the hashtag at the top really necessary? It's not as if people are going to be confused with "50 Cent" and "G-Unit". It would seem better suited to just link in a "see also" section. But that's just my personal opinion.
• Compilation and soundtrack albums are different; so they should be seperate.
• What exactly is "miscellaneous"? Maybe have a note on top of the table explaining what it contains.
• I don't see why "collaboration singles" need to be separate. Again, my personal opinion, but they should just be in the normal singles table.
• "Collaborations and soundtrack appearances" – "Guest apperances" seems like a more approiate title for this section.
• The infobox link for "DVDs" doesn't go anywhere.

— Status {^talk_contribs 03:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead mentions that his fifth album is due out in November 2011. It's near the end of November, and still no album. I checked the article on the album, and it gives the release date as December 2011.
  • Done Removed that clause, as the new date is unreferenced in 50 Cent's fifth studio album. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• See also should go before the notes.
  • Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It may just be me, but I thought the "... chart, a chart that" type of formatting in the notes was annoying. There's an obvious redundancy there. Consider changing them to "... chart, which..." to avoid this issue.
  • Done You're right, it doesn't read very well. Have corrected this. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still see the old type of format in note D. Rest have been fixed, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue has been addressed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A few of the notes end with "acts as a 25-song extension to Hot 100." Minor, but I think "the" should be placed before the chart name each time. The notes relating to the other charts don't have this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done That one's my fault - I should have been concentrating when I typed those out. Have corrected them. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead says 24 singles as featured artist, infobox differs.
• Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Three compilation albums "including" a soundtrack, but infobox says 3 compilation albums AND a soundtrack album.
• Done Changed it to two compilation albums and a soundtrack. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop.
• Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Second para "The album... The album... The album..." not brilliant prose by any means.

How about this: The album charted at number one in the US, as well as reaching the top ten of many album charts worldwide, and sold 4.83 million copies in the United States in 2005, the second highest sales count by any album that year. The Massacre includes the US top-three hits "Disco Inferno" and "Just a Lil Bit", and the US number-one hit "Candy Shop", which peaked in the top ten of many charts worldwide. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Billboard 200 or Billboard 200?
• Done Billboard 200. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "behind the scenes" should be hyphenated.
• Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you should have some referenced notes which say what the Miscellaneous albums are.
• Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Other charted songs, is it really worth including the UK for two songs that didn't make the top 100?

I personally think so - it's still the same singles chart, isn't it? If it charted at number 1 or number 200, it still appeared on that chart. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Guest appearance with TBA's, does this mean there's speculation that these will be released on an album, hence not an en-dash? Where's the evidence?
• Done Have changed these for now: of course, if there is more information regarding which album they will be released on, this will be changed back. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Cee Lo has no hyphen.
• Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First, what makes JazzStandards.com a reliable source? This is particularly important since it's very widely used in the list.

  This actually came up in an earlier FLC. Information about the writers can be found here, and at least Jeremy Wilson and Chris Tyle also have their own Wikipedia articles. AFAICT the site's writers are trustworthy sources on the topic of jazz standards and their list has been produced using objective inclusion criteria. Jafeluv (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just in the 1930 section, I see a load of repeated links from one entry to another. There's no need to have this many repeated links in prose (maybe if it was a table, but that's not what we're dealing with). It also appears that the rest of the article has many repeat wikilinks. I've lost track of how many Louis Armstrong links there are, to give one example.

  Went through the text and removed repeating links. There were indeed 11 links to Armstrong in the article! Jafeluv (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the photo caption here, the phrasing "endured lasting popularity" is confusing me. Perhaps "gained lasting populariry" would make more sense.

  Changed. Jafeluv (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1931: "by vaudeville performer Belle Baker. Baker...". Try to avoid this kind of repetition from one sentence to another (Baker and Baker). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Reworded this and a few others like it. Jafeluv (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1934: "A 1961 version sold a million copies was included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's list of 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll." Feels like "and" should be put before "was", or another change should be made to it.

  Fixed. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1936: "and recorded the song several times 1940s and 1950s." Missing "in the" toward the end?

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of the repetitions like the one above: "It is often associated with swing bands, especially Benny Goodman. Goodman...". I'd also switch the first one to "Goodman's" since it's referring to his band, not him.

  Reworded. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1937: "and the song became later readily associated with his live performances." Switch the order of "became" and "later"?

  Changed to "and later the song became readily associated". Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1939: "'Something' to Live For' is a jazz ballad written by Billy Strayhorn. Strayhorn...". More sentence-to-sentence repetition. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Reworded. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be picky, but "is a song" is really repetitive. I don't think we need it on just about every entry. It's clear each is a standard by the nature of the list so we could be more creative in writing our prose. Mix it up a little.

  Reworded most of the entries to avoid excessive repetition. Any better? Jafeluv (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for redirects which imply the title you've used isn't 100% bang on, like "How Deep Is the Ocean (How High Is the Sky) " seems, on the face of it, to be missing a ? for instance, "Sing, Sing, Sing" has "(with a Swing)" in our article for instance.

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fewer than 30..." are you sure? I looked at the Cricinfo link and saw around 35 or more...
  • Hmm, I did a WP:CWW from the McGrath list and didn't bother to count! I've changed to 40 (there's 37 currently), and I'll change it for the other lists too, this content is standard across all of them (except Warne/Murali).
• Probably worth a quick note about T20I since he played 54 over them...
  • He hasn't played T20Is, those are plain T20s, all in the IPL
• You relink One Day International in the second lead para and don't use the abbreviation ODI... once you've abbreviated, use it.
  • Fixed.
• Why isn't the key in the same order as the column headings?
  • Fixed.
• While technically accurate, I think it's confusing to use both Calcutta and Kolkata for the same location. If you insist, perhaps a note on the Kolkata usage.
  • Added a note. For India articles the convention is to stick to the name at point in time, it's followed in FAs/GAs too e.g Sourav Ganguly (a GA) gives the birth place as Calcutta but Kolkata is mostly used elsewhere as his cricketing career was primarily after name change.
• Same for Chennai/Madras.
  • Added a note. As above; Dinesh Karthik is the Madras/Chennai cricket GA equivalent to Ganguly.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope this addresses your comments. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "and fourth highest amongst all players". "amongst" → "among".
• No need to link Test cricket twice in the lead.
• Comma would be helpful after Jim Laker.
• Kumble has also taken two five-wicket hauls in One Day Internationals. The first of which was against...". Don't think "of which" works that well in a situation where this is split into two sentences. Also, you may as well use the ODI abbreviation since it's been set up and used earlier. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to add rowscopes per WP:ACCESS, MOS:DTT provides more info on this. NapHit (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I brought this issue up in the nominating statement, we don't have a single titular column, so adding rowscopes doesn't make sense. This is also how the Shane Warne list was done (the most recent such list, after the ACCESS guidelines had been changed). —SpacemanSpiff 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case what I add would do is add scope=row but don't include the exclamation mark, that why no one column will be singled out. NapHit (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. If I've goofed up, please let me know, I'm not entirely comfortable with these access requirements. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For the 1920–21 season, the ex-Southern League clubs formed the Third Division: Division 3 South came along the following year.
  • I knew that... fixed
• There's some inconsistency between footnotes for specific matches. It's understandable to have footnotes for the 1909–10 cup wins, and I also understand the argument for a losing FA Cup final footnote. But my conflict of interest notwithstanding, I don't see why the 2008–09 Football League Trophy Southern final merits a footnote, but not the losing Southern Charity Cup finals.
  • You'd remove the FLT F(S), rather than adding the losing SPCCs?
    • I think either of those approaches would be fine, as long as the list is internally consistent. In answer to your question, my approach in the Watford list was to only add a footnote where the cell alone didn't explain the team's progress. 3rd* doesn't tell the full story if the team reaches the playoffs; SF doesn't reveal the full story if there is a third place playoff, or if you pull out of a competition to make St Albans feel better. —WFC— 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense. Can't remember reading anything unusual about the losing SPCC finals, so I'll probably remove the FLT note. Will check in the book, but it's only available in the reference section of my library, so I can't borrow it.
• Note [u] (best performance in the League Cup) seems somewhat redundant in a sortable table.
  • Removed: it's mentioned in the lead, and as you say obvious from the table if one sorts that column. Not wanting to start this again (honest) but I wish I knew whether the general reader ever does sort columns in a table like this.
• Probably worth clarifying that Leon Knight's 25 Division Two goals in 2003–04 doesn't include the play-off goal.
  • Done. Even added a ref for Sky Sports Yearbook doing it that way.

Other than those relatively trivial things, the referencing, footnoting and sort function appear to be very good. I'll go through the prose at another time. —WFC— 14:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review so far, for not finding all the mistakes in the table, probably, and for fixing the key. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not keen on "for cinema showing".
  • It's not that unusual a phrase (see e.g. [5], [6], [7]) and I'm not sure I could think of anything better. "for showing in cinemas" or "to be shown in cinemas" is a bit simple English, "for cinema audiences" is the phrase used in the source. Could you suggest an improvement, or a paraphrase?
    • For cinematic release? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, thank you
• "before losing to West Ham United " which round did they actually get to before being beaten by West Ham?
  • added (last 16)
• "first time. Against Manchester United, the scores" I would move that full stop, the "Against Manchester United.." reads oddly to me. "first time, against Manchester United. The scores..."
  • It read oddly to me as well, but again, I couldn't think of anything better... How about "In 1983, for the first time, they reached the FA Cup Final, in which they played Manchester United. The scores..."?
• Perhaps I missed it in the prose but I'm a shade confused over the logistics of playing in two divisions simultaneously as happened in the early days. Worth an explanation?
  • Something to the effect of: clubs used to arrange friendlies on days when they didn't have a main league/cup game, to keep the players fit, try out new ones, and make sure the paying public keep turning up. Having a second league to play in was an easier (as there was a captive market for opponents) and hopefully less financially risky (no need to pay opponents a guarantee to get them to come) alternative to arranging friendlies. The secondary leagues tended to play midweek: the Southern Football Alliance was explicitly a midweek league. I'll add a sentence when I've got access to the book again for references (tomorrow, weather permitting)
    • added
• Is there a reason you link the finishing position to the division's season article, and not the division name itself?
  • Because I did on List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons and nobody suggested that then? or, I never considered doing it differently. Of the English seasons lists promoted since that one, Hull City links the finishing position, and the promoted versions of Plymouth Argyle and Watford didn't have links to division/season articles at all. Do you think it should be changed?
• Seasons template need en-dashes for year ranges.
  • done

Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• History: What is "the rivalry between the teams has been as keen as ever" referring to? We haven't heard of a rivalry yet in the article, and now we find out about it without knowing the other club.
  • It doesn't refer to rivalry with another club. It means that the general competitive standard of individual matches in the league didn't decline, that other teams didn't stop trying just because there was little chance of their catching runaway winners BHAFC.
• Could move the Football League link up a paragraph in this section, to its first appearance.
  • done
• When sorting for position in the table, did you intentionally leave the 1939–40 season out because it wasn't complete? That would explain why it isn't sorting in the right order.
  • No... Like all the sorting markup, I copied it from List of Watford F.C. seasons, without really thinking about why it was different :-( Having now thought, I don't see much point in sorting that particular column of an incomplete season differently from the others, so it's changed back to normal formatting. Thank you for pointing it out.
• Note 25: Remove hyphen from "newly-formed"?
  • Hmmm. One of these days I'll stop doing that...

Giants2008 (Talk) 03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "As a Football League team, the team have won..." not keen on team being used twice in close proximity would simply change the second use of team to Brighton
  • changed to Albion
• "and seven years later the team made a brief return to Division Two." probably needs a reference
  • added
• ref 19 needs the author included
  • It was there, but there was a typo in the cite template parameters that stopped it being displayed: thanks for noticing
• Why isn't the Sky Sports Yearbook included in the bibliography?
  • The two Carden & Harris books and Camillin & Weir are major general references, so I put them in a bibliography (which might just as easily have been a general references sub-section) to avoid having to repeat the full details of each book every time they were referenced. Admittedly Camillin & Weir is down to only two inline refs now, I think, but in an older version of the list, there were several others. The Sky Sports Yearbook and Soccer at War in ref#27 are used only once each.

NapHit (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is mere personal preference: I would pipe the link on the opening wikilink, expanding it to read "Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club". Like I say, however, ths is just my own preference.
  • I was going to say not done, because it made the opening line overly repetitive, except that here and here the repetition clearly didn't bother me... So done
• I would rework this part: "The scores were level at 2–2 until the last moments of extra time, when Albion's Gordon Smith – to the accompaniment of the radio commentator's "And Smith must score..." – failed to beat the goalkeeper. Albion lost the replay 4–0,[18] and were relegated that same season.[4]" Try: "The scores were level at 2–2 until the last moments of extra time, when Albion's Gordon Smith had a clear chance to score a winning goal. Peter Jones's radio commentary of the moment become famous: "and Smith must score..." he cried, just before Smith's shot was blocked by the goalkeeper's legs. Albion lost the replay 4–0,[18] and were relegated that same season.[4]"
  • You're right this bit needed more detail. I've added your wording, but I'm not keen on the "he cried": sounds a touch cheap-novel. Can't think of anything better, though. And added another source for the enduring fame of Peter Jones's soundbite: Clive Tyldesley calling it "The most memorable bit of FA Cup commentary".
• I would also combine this whole paragraph with the previous one – you have two very short paragraphs in between two longer ones and it looks and reads a bit strangely in my opinion.
  • Done

Otherwise, this is excellent work which I am sure I will be more than happy to support following the resolution of these minor concerns. Well done! —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "annual award given out" we already know that it s an award so there is no need to repeat it, I' mnot keen on given out, sounds like anyone could get when that obviously is not the case. I would rephrase it as "annual honor awarded to..."
• "Johnson and Johan Santana both won the Cy Young Award every year they won the Warren Spahn Award." not happy with this sentence, I would change to "In the years they won the Warren Spahn Award, Johnson ad Santana also won the Cy Young Award."
• "The New York Yankees' CC Sabathia edged the Houston Astros'" not sure edged is the best word here, perhaps beat?
• I'm not sure what the guideline is on bold links, as I can't find it in the MOS, but as far as i was aware they were frowned upon, so I would add the parameter plainrowheaders to the table to stop the bold links.
• ref 1 needs format=PDF added to it

NapHit (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"annual award given out" --> "presented annually". Babe Ruth Award, which passed FLC, uses "given annually", and so I think this wording is an improvement from that.

I chose to use "defeated" over "beat". The above changes are all made. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't need two 1999 in baseball links in the lead.
• Same goes for wins.
• It's now seven pitchers in 13 years, not six in 12. That needs updating.
• Are any details avaliable on the tie-break system that was used in 2009? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes made. The tie-break was chosen on the basis of winning percentage. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• Remove all "year in baseball" links in prose. Their use is deprecated everywhere except in tables; see template doc for {{by}}.
• Switch out templates from {{by}} to {{mlby}} in table as they provide the proper context ("Baseball years" are world-wide articles, while "Major League Baseball seasons" are the league-specific articles) and because this is where the key says that they go.
• Add some discussion on the other multiple winners to the lead.
• Award table needs caption.
• The lead should be a summary of the table. You do not note the Cy Young Award double-winners in the table, so this should be removed from the lead or, alternatively, the Cy Youngs should be noted in the table.
• "The winner is chosen based on rankings, which are based on wins, strikeouts and earned run average." - some sort of footnote explaining how these rankings work would be helpful.
• "Cleveland Indians / Milwaukee Brewers" - needs a non-breaking space before the slash
• On my resolution, the images run into the reference section, crushing them. Consider removing an image or re-vamping the format.
• Might be better to use an actual image of Spahn instead of a statue that may or may not be PD and doesn't really show the pitcher at all, just his stance.
• "The Warren Spahn Award is presented annually... for that current season" - awkward wording. Consider re-word: "The Warren Spahn Award is presented each season..."
• I don't think the "See also" link to list of MLB awards is appropriate, as this award isn't MLB-sanctioned. All of those awards are linked from Baseball awards anyway.

Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 12:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Mostly done The only thing I haven't done is the explanation on how the rankings work. I've been unable to find any specific information on how the rankings are formed, only what they are comprised of. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand you're busy in the real world, but could you please help me finish this one off? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a short article, so just two lead paras would suffice.
• "The Bricktown Rotary Club became a sponsor of the award in 2009.[2] Since 2009, the award is presented at the annual Warren Spahn Award Gala, hosted by the Bricktown Rotary Club of Oklahoma City at the Jim Thorpe Museum every January" nasty prose. Repetitive (year and Rotary Club repeated) and in need of an elegant merge.
• awardee yuck. Recipient?
• Forgive me, but as a non-baseball fan, what's the prominence of this award? In other words, why should care who was awarded it? Could be a tinpot organisation making these decisions which has no real notability outside itself... The fact that the presenting body (the Oklahoma Sports Museum) doesn't have its own article is concerning me... I see it has notable third-party coverage, so that's a good start, but is there any source that says winning this is considered a great achievement?
• Santana's caption claims a Triple Crown award, where is that referenced?

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Changes made. I redlinked the Oklahoma Sports Museum as it probably should have its own article, and I may create it when I have more time. As for the level of achievement of this award, it is definitely not as prestigious as other baseball awards. I remember seeing a source that said that Johnson went out of his way to attend the award ceremony because of his respect for Spahn. I'll try to dig that out later today and put it in prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added to the article about how Johnson personally attended the awards ceremonies because Spahn called him and asked him to. I hope that helps to talk about its prominence a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The capitalization of the title looks odd to my eye (I expected "five" to be capitalized), but AFAIK there's no mention of that in WP:CAPS so either version is probably acceptable. The references used in the article seem to use either "Twenty Five", "Twenty-Five" or "Twenty-five".

• Noted. I believe that i had the title capitalized differently before, but then someone suggested this way. I could be wrong though.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 3 (American Institute of Architects) is a dead link.

• Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "25 to 35 years" is written in numbers in the lead, but later "between twenty-five and thirty-five" are spelled out. Since the first one is a quote, maybe it would be better to use numbers in the latter instance as well.

• Done--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why some cities include the state and some not? Surely if Barcelona is "Barcelona, Spain", Boston should at least be "Boston, Massachusetts" (if not "Boston, Massachusetts, United States").

• The concept behind this is that places such as "New York City," "Los Angeles," "Boston," etc are known well enough that the subsequent state and country would be redundant. Much like how the titles of those cities articles are named. Any city outsideof the United States, where the award is handed out, I placed the name of the country as well.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess that makes sense, since the article is clearly in a US context. Thanks for clarifying. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Titles with the definite article should be sorted without it. Eg. "The Atheneum" should be sorted at A, not at T. Similarly, people's names are usually sorted by last name, not first name. Might want to consider using {{sort}} here.

• I will work on the sorting issues tonight.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done--Found5dollar (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jafeluv (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The table currently does not meet WP:ACCESS standards see MOS:DTT for more details. Basically you need row and col scopes for the table.

• I am not familiar with those parameters but i added "scope=col" to the column headers. As the rows don't really have a header (A.K.A. one of the columns darker and what the entire row is about), I didn't add scopes there. If I should please let me know.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that the building is the header, but if you're not happy with having one column darker I would add scope=row without using the exclamation mark, because you do need the scope=row. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of having the dagger and then a note at the bottom which is quite hard to read why not put it before the table in a key?

• I originally didn't have that note at all, but during the last review i was told to add it in that style.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it makes more sense for it to be before the table so the reader can identify what it means, especially as its right at the top of the table saves them scrolling all the way down.

• Note has been moved to before the list.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those two comments I can't see any other problems. NapHit (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps introduce "Eero Saarinen" as "Finnish architect" or similar because I'm pretty sure most will not have heard of him, certainly not compared with the likes of Skidemore et al and Lloyd Wright.

• Done--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• May also be worth stating in the lead where the majority/minority of these buildings are seeing as only two are outside the US despite it being a world award.

• Done--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nominees are judged by today's architectural standards in their function, execution, and creativity" is that a quote? It reads like one. If so it should be in quotes, if not, we need to define what we mean by "today's architectural standards in their function, execution, and creativity".

• The quote the information in this sentence comes from is in Ref2 and reads "The project must have excellence in function—in the distinguished execution of its original program and in the creative aspects of its statement by today's standards." I believe they leave what "today's standards" is purposefully vague so that as standards in aesthetics and functionality change they do not have to rewrite the rules.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we really need post-nomials like FAIA here?

• That is how they are listed on the official list of winners on the AIA website [10]. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but do we need them here? Do we normally list things like OBEs etc after someone's name or not? I think not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed all the "FAIA's". --Found5dollar (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the two See also's of particular relevance here or are they "just another two" architecture prizes? E.g. what specifically links that Skyscraper prize to this "longevity-based" prize? More of a query than an accusation by the way...!

• They are both other prizes that are given to a building (or architect of a specific building) like this one is, instead of an architect in general like most architectural awards.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 2 & 5 could use a page number.

• Done.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a general question, the AIA themselves (on the general reference you provide) don't hyphenate the Twenty-five as you do here. Which is correct?

• there has been tons of questions regardign the hyphanation and capitalization of the title in this and the last FLC. Basically for the hyphenation I was going off what the MOS says at WP:ORDINAL and figured that that overruled how the AIA spells it.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I really dislike the first, single-sentence para of the lead. At the least it should be merged with the following para, and preferably the numeric values replaced with words, permissible by WP:MOS I believe.

reworded

• Do you have to repeat they were formed/from Abingdon in the second para?

removed

• Consider adding a link for platinum certification.

not done. Platinum certification links to Music recording sales certification. That would be overlinking.

• "most successful single—charting in the" why em-dash? a comma would be fine.

replaced

• " certifications by both the " received from not by.

replaced

• "receiving triple platinum from the BPI and the CRIA." perhaps "being awarded triple-platinum status by the BPI and the CRIA."

reworded

• No need to relink EMI in the lead.

delinked

• See WT:DISCOGSTYLE for my issues with reusing linked country abbreviations to different things within the same article.

replaced

• "Did not chart" were they released in those territories where they didn't chart? Can you cite that? If not, best to change the note to "... not chart or were not released in that territory"

added

• Where's the evidence that Drill or Itch or No Surprises/Running from Demons ever existed? They didn't chart so they have no direct citation.

added refs

• Same for Stop Whispering and These Are My Twisted Words.

added refs

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice, but there are some problems in the references.

• Allmusic shouldnt be in italics in ref #2, #25, #26, #28

done

• A lot of the chart websites (dutchcharts.nl, australiancharts.com, etc.) have incorrect titles. For example, the title of ref #6 isn't "Australian chart positions", it is "Australian-charts.com – Discography Radiohead". Or you can just use "Discography Radiohead". Also, some of these should use the language parameter.

done

• For the Canadian album peaks, ref #9 is hard to navigate. If you click on the RPM link, there are eighty-something more links I have keep clicking on to verify. Is there anyway you can link the specific chart?

no, that would take me too much time.

Fair enough. Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse my ignorance, but what makes MusicBrainz a rs?

it is just there too proof that this ep exists.

Fair enough. Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For red #28, the work is not billboard magazine, it's just Billboard

done

The article looks great, and once these are addressed I'd be happy to support!
Michael Jester (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

addressed.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables fail WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this
• I would also like to see the tables reconfigured as outlined here, apart from these issues the list looks fine. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the design :/--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an adequate argument, the design is more user friendly, complies with WP:ACCESS measures (which have not been implemented), if these aren't implemented then I'm afraid I can't support the nomination and will have to oppose on failure to comply with WP:ACCESS. Just a note that 50 Cent discography which is currently at FLC, utilises the same table that I'm advocating so I think it should be included. NapHit (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which does not affect FLCs♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLs should comply with WP:MOS. WP:ACCESS is part of WP:MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe, but IDONLIKEIT not. What I find unfair is no one have told such format is against ACCESS. Why so suddenly? That's no walk in the park. Somebody should have said it before.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most reviews here look for compliance with MOS and have done for quite a while. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's annoying to have to redo the tables, especially since the nomination has been up for a long time. In fairness someone should have pointed it out earlier. But that does not hide the fact that the list fails certain criteria and this needs rectifying. NapHit (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we reviewers are far from perfect, but all reviews are given with good intent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly, the extended plays, needs the name of the song first, for consistentcy with the other tables, and you need to implement the new tables in the videos section. NapHit (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ditto♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't like starting a sentence with numbers, as is seen at the start of the last two paragraphs of the lead.
• Not convinced that the symbol key for the individual lists are relevant to this page. It has no relation to the table here, and it includes links to notes that don't appear in this list.
• Regarding the second photo caption, it isn't techinically true that one player per year gets into the Walk of Fame. That isn't counting Harry Kalas and Paul Owens, who weren't players. It would be more accurate to broaden the definition.
• The 1887 Phillies caption could use a cite.
• Ref 15 doesn't verify that the Phillies made consecutive trips to the World Series, or that it was the first time they did so.
• Refs 10 and 11 are the same and can be combined. Ref 19 looks the same as well.
• Refs 9 and 20 are also duplicates. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs combined. Numbers fixed (bad MOSNUM habit). 2009 photo caption fixed through removal. Key also removed. 1887 photo caption added (Baker Bowl originally known as Huntington Grounds, the name given in source). WOF definition corrected. Should all be done. — KV5 • Talk • 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image(s) could use alt text.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not showing up for me, although it's possible that it's just my computer. Anyone else having the same problem? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the problem. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If U of M is going to be used as an abbreviation, that should be included in parenthetical form after the original use, in order to avoid any confusion for the readers.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To fill the blank spaces in the Accreditation column, consider dashes of some type.

• Done (Used —) Ruby 2010/2013 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In note 5, is Rasmussen Colleges intended to be plural? It isn't in the table.

• I corrected it (minor typo on my part). Ruby 2010/2013 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• En dashes are needed in the page ranges of refs 11, 70, and 86.
  • I still see the one in 11 (others are done). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• More en dashes would be useful in the titles of refs 2, 6, 15, 19, 23, 24, 37, 56, 65, 66, 85, and 109–114. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dashes all added. Ruby 2010/2013 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A good number of these still have faulty hyphens. It's worth rechecking. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• TheRamblingMan was nice enough to run a script through it; they all look good now Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The script missed the ones still left in 2 and 24, though it did a nice job on the rest of them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 19:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for period in infobox image caption.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Postsecondary in our own article is hyphenated.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is fall capitalised or not? Not in the lead, is in the table col heading.

• Done (not capitalized) Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are all these institutions inherently notable? If so, they should be red-linked if no article exists.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would prefer to see None under accreditation for those with no accreditation.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Defunct table could be sortable.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• PDF links should have format=pdf

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments. They have all now been addressed. Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On my viewing platform the text "There are nearly 200" are even with the three stacked photos. I'd use {{clear}} just after the photos.

• Putting the template there didn't work, so I put it before the images. How does it look now? Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Two dead links

• Fixed Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• majority of Minnesota's post-secondary institutions are accredited, 22 are accredited, Most are accredited. Dull, repetitious prose with "accredited". Possibly reword?

• I agree, but there really isn't a better synonym for accredited that doesn't change the meaning. I reworded one of the sentences to say "accreditation" (similar I know, but hopefully it switches it up a little). Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delink "higher education", common term

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No scope row or scope col tags on the "Institutions" list?

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No scope col tags on the "Defunct institutions" list.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The ISBN's should be dashed, see Wikipedia:ISBN. This tool could be of assistance. Albacore (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To a non-expert, you may need to explain that the OCC is a UK company?

• Done.

• "by post" may not be universal (e.g. think of the Americans!)

• Wikilinked to mail.

• "Released in August 1963, "She Loves You" spent four..." don't repeat "She Loves You", perhaps either just "it" or "the single"?

• Done.

• Was Bilk kept off number one by one particular song or just a bunch of songs because his song was a slow-burner?

• Added.

• Was Blackburn the first Radio 1 DJ or the first BBC DJ full stop?

• Specified that he was Radio 1's first DJ.

• Not sure where ref 13 backs up the claim of more than half being by British acts, is it somewhere in the MP3? If so, note the time. However, it's now not available....! And probably never was to international audiences...

• About a fifth of the way down the page it says: "In the era of the British invasion, it's a very British chart so multiple entries for The Beatles, The Stones, Cliff Richard, ... and Ken Dodd mean over half the records are by Brits."

• Dodd's caption needs citation.

• Added.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentences would work better with a full stop instead of a semicolon. The sentences aren't really that connected.

• Done.

• No wikilink to United Kingdom anywhere in the article?

• I'm willing to change this, but I've been reading WP:OVERLINK to mean that major geographical locations (such as countries) need not be wikilinked to.

• True, major geographical locations shouldn't normally be linked. However, links with contextual significance should certainly be included -- for example London should no doubt link to United Kingdom even if the latter is a major geographical location. If the context of the article is singles in the UK, I would (as a reader) expect a link somewhere to both single and United Kingdom. That's a very minor point, though, and I see that the 2000 list includes no such link. Jafeluv (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it be "the Official Charts Company" instead of "The Official Charts Company"?[15]

• Fixed.

• Somehow I don't feel the detailed history belongs in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should start with a summary of the list and its important points, and details about how the charts were compiled should come later (either in the lead or as a separate section).

• Not entirely sure that I agree with this. My understanding of WP:MOSBEGIN is that the opening paragraph of the article needs to establish context for the reader, which, to me, would mean explaining what singles actually are and how their sales were measured during the 1960s in the UK. That being said, if this is something that you think really needs to be altered, I'd be happy to do so.

• I agree that it's good to establish context by explaining the definition of single and describing how the numbers were produced, but I still don't think detailed explanations about which magazine had higher readership or what sample sizes they had belongs in the first paragraph. A separate paragraph later on for the detailed history would IMHO work better and lead the reader faster to the important points. Jafeluv (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've swapped around the first and third paragraphs. What do you think? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think it definitely works better that way. Is the fact that Tony Blackburn was the BBC Radio 1's first ever DJ important in the lead? To me that sentence looks kind of disconnected in there, but then again I probably don't know enough of the topic to be able to tell the important information from mere trivia. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought that it would be good to provide some context as to why Blackburn in particular was selected to present the show. I've removed the second half of that sentence. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The second-most-represented act probably belongs before the most-represented female act.

• Fixed.

• Is that really the best photo of The Rolling Stones that we have? I think this or this would work better in the article.

• Nice thought. Replaced with the first photo you suggested.

• Why is Magical Mystery Tour, an album, in the list of best-selling singles?

• As Chris has mentioned below, it was released as an EP in the UK, which, at the time, qualified it for the UK Singles Chart. Slightly odd, I know, but that was how the list was compiled.

• I don't think it's necessary to link London, BBC etc. several times in the references section.

• Removed wikilinks to London and BBC.

Jafeluv (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the UK, Magical Mystery Tour was released as an EP and charted in the singles chart..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see, thanks for the information. Maybe it would be worth making a note about that fact in the list in case someone else wonders about it as well? Jafeluv (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice idea, I've done that. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The BMRB compiled data from approximately 250 different record stores, which was hand-written and submitted by post." - Shouldn't "which" normally refer to the immediately preceding noun? What is meant here is "data, which", not "stores, which". Jafeluv (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewritten. Is this any clearer? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, looks good now. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is a part of the lead copied from List of 1960s UK Singles Chart number ones (or is it the other way around)? Either way, it should be attributed in the edit history per WP:CWW. Jafeluv (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I used the lead from the "List of 1960s UK Singles Chart number ones" articles as a starting point for writing about the same subject in this list. I tried to put it into my own words wherever possible, but, just to err on the side of caution, I've added a {{Copied}} template to the talk page and a dummy edit to the article history. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that should take care of any attribution concerns. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The table fails WP:ACCESS requirements, see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this

• Fixed (I think).

Nearly you just need to add the rowscopes, I've done an example for you so you know what to do. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks a lot for the assistance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the artist column sorting by surname, if so Cliff Richard is not sorting correctly

• I wasn't too sure about this. It seemed to me that "Cliff Richard & The Shadows" is the name of the group, and hence should be sorted under C, in the same way that Gerry & the Pacemakers is sorted under G. But if this goes against Wikipedia convention, I'll happily change it.

I see what you're saying, although the shadows were his backing group so I would be inclined to sort it under R because of this. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• seems a bit odd to have a list of best selling singles and not include the amount sold, is this info available? if it is I'd like to see it added

NapHit (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately the sales info was never revealed on the Radio 2 programme. I can find info for the top 17 best-selling songs, but nothing below that has been made public. Would it be worth including the sales info for those 17 singles anyway?

Ah ok, fair enough, I'd leave it then, no point in having 17 columns full and leave the rest empty. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• Unbold team name in lead.
• Years in baseball should not be linked in prose because they are not given sufficient context to warrant it.
• winning just 22"
• "Slidin'" Billy Hamilton - his nickname is not "Slidin'", it's "Slidin' Billy", so the more appropriate link would be as follows: "Slidin' Billy" Hamilton.
• Improve image captions alongside table; they give little context at present. I know previous FLs for all-time rosters have had captions like this, but see the above-linked Phillies "S" roster for more appropriate and explanatory captions.
• Dave Rowe needs a symbol.

Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction made, and captions for photos added.Neonblak ^talk - 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "then moved to Exposition Park for 1889 season." Feels like it's missing "the" before the year.
• Repeat word in "He was replaced with with non-playing manager Bill Watkins".
• John Bates: "He was released from the team following the conclusion of game." Would be better as "conclusion of the game" or "game's conclusion".
• Jim Donahue: Missing "with" in "then split time at the position Charlie Hoover...".
• Frank Hafter: "His career consisted of two complete games losses in May 1888." Make "games" singular.
• Charlie Hoover: "when split time as the team's starting catcher with Jim Donahue." Needs "he" before "split".
• Chippy McGarr: Typo in "Wester League".
• Bill Phillips: "In the last of his ten-season career". Feels like it needs another "season" after last.
• Henry Porter: "Porter led the franchise in many major pitching including...". Another missing word here, before "including". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All corrected.Neonblak ^talk - 14:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "after beginning the season with win–loss record of 14–36 through 50 games." Missing "a" after "with".

Fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 07:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The alt on the first picture, "A baseball player is posing for a photograph, five men standing, five men sitting on chairs, and two are sitting on the floor." should be fixed to say "Baseball players..." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed alt.Neonblak ^talk - 04:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there really a need to add (AA) in the title? There is no Kansas City Cowboys all-time roster after all...

I did that due to the two other Cowboys teams; one in the Union Association (1884) and another in the National League (1886). However, both of those two were only at the "major league" level for one season each. But since I thought they could still hypothetically have their own all-time roster, I pre-emptively disambiguated.Neonblak ^talk - 10:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "the team's player-manager for a period of 56 games " v "1888, he managed 58 games." maybe he didn't play in the last two he managed, but this is slightly confusing.
• "he led the team with 5 home runs." 5->five.
• Ref 1 needs an en-dash as the year separator.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These corrections made.Neonblak ^talk - 10:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "number-two Billboard song," Perhaps not automatically clear what this means?
  • Reworded. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Emotional (2002), was" Lose the comma?
  • Done. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Are the compilation albums worth redlinking? Don't be scared of redlinks- if a topic is worthy of an article, link whether there is an article or not. (If they aren't worth an article, a redirect here wouldn't be a bad thing.) Same's true of the singles.
  • Okay. I redlinked the compilation albums as well as the singles which I thought was worthy of an article. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Some more links in the footnotes wouldn't go amiss- Allmusic, Billboard, etc., but not the biggest deal. Also, I'd link in all footnotes or none- I note that you've linked Vevo only once. Consistency is good, and remember that each ref could well be viewed individually.
  • I tried to link things the first time only per Wikipedia:Overlink#Repeated_links
    • That MoS page seems to be contrary to common practice and common sense. It seems to be regular practice at FAC and GAC to link everything in every reference; this makes sense, as each reference could be viewed individually- someone checking the references may not have (almost certainly hasn't?) checked all the other references. In addition, the overwhelming message of our guidelines on citing sources is that consistency is a good thing- it doesn't matter too much how you do it, as long as it's consistent. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. I believe I have linked every in the references section. I understand why too. Thanks. Michael Jester (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote 17- "Retrieved September 19, 2-11."
  • Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• For refs 23 and 24, could you perhaps have an intro line, as you do with 26 and 29?
  • Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Very small point- in some places, you combine multiple refs into a single footnote, in others, you use multiple separate footnotes for the same point. I'd still be happy to support without this being fixed.
  • It would be more difficult (or at least I think it would be) to reference in the lead if I combined certain footnotes.

Again, nice work. I'm sure I'll be happy to support once these very small issues are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I have replied to all of them.
—Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's looking great. I'm gonna hold off my support for now, to see if anyone else raises any valid concerns, but I strongly suspect that I will be supporting soon. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]