Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2013

• According to Billboard.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "and song plays" streaming data would sound better for this, based on their own Billboard On-Demand Songs chart: "on-demand play request and plays from unlimited listener-controlled radio channels on leading music subscription services"

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " Five of the acts" --> "Five of which"

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Awful picture, but meh.
• Both Billboard and Nielsel Business media should be wikilinked on their first appearance in the references.

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Table is missing row scopes.
• That's all. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I fail to see why the DYK reference here. The lead should meet only the FLC criteria, even if it's barely long enough to be at DYK. This list is of a very specific topic wich has not been widely discussed by the media and has no big impact on the music scene. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Social 50's official webpage states that it lists "the most active artists on the world's leading social networking sites", rather than "acts". Could the list be renamed to reflect this?

• Originally, that is what the name of the titles were under before I touched them (I merged 4 articles together to create this one). I noticed that, yes. BUT, an artist generally refers to one person, and bands have also been included in the chart. So I think that using act is a much better choice and more accurate. But if you think that it should remain how Billboard states it, I'll change it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've always heard/used the term to refer to either individuals or groups. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's inaccurate. The dictionary states that an artist is "a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer". You don't say "One Direction is a British artist", or "The Black Eyed Peas are American artists".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Billboard and Rolling Stone use "artists". Billboard's top new artist of 2012 was One Direction. The artist of the day on Rolling Stone is Yo La Tengo. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed the article to use "artist" instead of "act".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't necessarily link "Popularity chart" to Record chart, as that particular article doesn't actually discuss popularity charts at all, or even tell the reader what they are.

• Unlinked.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth linking "posthumously" to its associated Wiktionary page, i.e. [[wiktionary:posthumously|posthumously]].

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bieber, Rivera, Perry, Gomex and Swift need to sort under their surname.

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, The Black Eyes Peas needs to sort under B.

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref -> Ref.

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that, when referring to the highest position on a chart, it's "number one" rather than "number-one".

• In the lead?

• Yeah. The header of the second column too. Also might be worth moving the image of Rihanna to underneath the "Number-one artists" header, so that the Edit link isn't displaced. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done; made the images smaller (also moved down).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Having the list cited to the chart itself is fine, although I'd expect to see third party coverage in the lede at least.

• Is it fine how it is now? What I mean is, I can't exactly cite the amount of weeks, for example, someone was atop the chart.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You should have a way of indicating that certain artists topped the chart more than once (i.e. Justin Bieber is on there at least 8 times, but no indication that he is a repeat leader

• Well, it does state he appeared for 24 straight weeks, and he also had appeared for 53 weeks overall. Do you have a suggestion?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking something like this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Just as a suggestion, you could include a No. column as in, say, this list. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. I'll add that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth including an image of Rihanna. There are some pretty good ones

• Oh, that's right! I was going to add more images, but it split my mind. I'll look for a good one to add and add it to the article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Gave a copyedit, be sure to double check. Prose looks acceptable to me now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• your use of row scopes is interesting. They be formatted !scope=row| Athelney hill fort not |-!scope=row
• Not sure I see the relevance of the scheduled monuments bit in the lead, maybe I'm missing something?
• How did Alfred the Great hide a hill fort? Rather big thing to hide! A little clarification might be needed here
• ref 78 has some coding showing

NapHit (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have reworded the bit about Alfred the Great hiding and added a bit of explanation in the lead about Scheduled Monuments - almost all the sites in the list have this designation so I think it is important to say why a Scheduling number is important. Ref 78 fixed. .

I'm having real problems with your comment about the formatting of scope row. I have looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility but every time I remove the

• Could empty cells in the table e.g. in the scheduling number column, have en-dashes?
• Not sure why you have the mini-heading, nor why it's not in capitals while the first sentence of the para is?
• Is there a reason why "Site Name" isn't just "Site name"? Similar comment to "Scheduling Number".
• Bathampton Camp description is inconsistently centrally aligned.
• Scheduling number doesn't sort numerically.
• Is lake village likely to get an article?
• Site name format is different between first and second table.
• Please ensure consistent retrieval date formats are used for refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting these - it is amazing how close you get to an article & can no longer see these sorts of issues. I believe I have addressed your concerns with one exception:

• Site name format is different between first and second table.

I can't see the formatting difference you are referring to.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on my PC and my Mac, the first table has the site name in unbold, left aligned, the second table has it centrally aligned and bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. On my screen (PC) they both look centered & equally bold with the rest of the columns headings. The code for the 1st table says !scope="col" style="width:160px;"|Site name<br />Alternative name(s) and on the second !scope="col" style="width:160px;"|Site name<br />Alternative name(s) which both look the same to me.— Rod ^talk 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second wikitable class is missing plainrowheaders but it's fascinating that you see them the same on your set up but on my old XP machine and my Mac I see them differently...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added plainrowheaders to the 2nd table & they still look the same to me - does it work for you? Also spotted "suspected" was missing from the title of the 2nd table.— Rod ^talk 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the order of the code, check my last edit, and now it looks fine for me! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - looks fine to me to - however I note you changed the title of the 2nd table to lower case presumably I should do this for the 1st table as well for consistency.— Rod ^talk 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, missed that before. Stickler for resistance to becoming German Noun Wise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Your Last Comment - but I've done it anyway.— Rod ^talk 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem, I think we've finished this Debate. I'll let Others check out my Comments, but then I'll Cap them. Good Work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Moon Safari hit the top ten" hit is not exactly encyclopaedic language, perhaps reached instead?
• "spawned three singles" spawned is an odd word to use, again not really encyclopaedic would change this
• "Playground Love", the album's only single, peaked at number 25 in the UK.[1] the band's second studio album" spot the mistake here!

NapHit (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • All done. Holiday56 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Air performing in Strand, London in 2010" mostly it's referred to as "The Strand" but that's just a street in London, is this an image of Air playing in a high street?
  • Updated caption. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Suitable link in the lead for "certified" would be nice.
  • Done. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• " "All I Need".[6][2]" prefer refs in numerical order.
  • Done. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you really mean to link Le voyage dans la lune in the lead? I guess you mean Le voyage dans la lune (album)?
  • Fixed link. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't like a one-entry sub-section 1.1.1 (there's no 1.1.2), would just merge or have it in its own section.
  • Merged. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Could mention IRMA (and expand it) and its certification of Walkie Talkie as Gold?
  • Done. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ", one of the leading authors of the Golden Age of Science Fiction from 1939 to 1950." Could do with a reference if its not already by the ref at the end of the para

• It's in that reference. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• could link University of Kansas

• Already linked in the first sentence. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• so it is! Don't how I missed that! NapHit (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the 26 nomination years, 154 authors have had works nominated" would change one of the uses of nomination, reads a bit uneasily having them in close succession.

• Done. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied inline. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "his heirs, including his widow, Jayne Sturgeon, and James Gunn, Director of the Center for the Study of Science Fiction." - The way this is written it sounds like Gunn was his heir. Two strategically placed mdashes or ndashes would help here.

• Done. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In a word, who's Christopher McKitterick?

• Added- he's the current Director of the center. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas, - Do you need the second Kansas?

• Seems not. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If the list is sortable, shouldn't the author's names all be linked?

• Sortability has nothing to do with linking all authors- just that every instance of an author that is linked should be, rather than just some nebulous "first" link. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hadn't realised they don't all have articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are all the winners notable (i.e. should they be redlinked?). Authors?

• Yes, I suppose they should be. All winning works/authors linked. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Foundation is a dab link

• Whoops, fixed. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Theodore Sturgeon Award permanent trophy.jpg is a 3D non-architectural non-functional work, and thus would not fall under the freedom of panorama exception in the US. I've nominated it for deletion, but a fair-use image would be acceptable.

• Well, if it gets deleted, I'll move it to en-wiki as fair use. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've copyedited, be sure to check — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Missed one. 2008 had two winners? Any back story? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• None that I've found, they just decided to award a tie that year. --PresN 23:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:YEAR, not need to repeat the century in a year range if it's the same.

• Done. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Who was/is James Gunn? Without an article it's hard to understand why he would be on the original jury.

• He's linked in the first paragraph? Where it also mentions that he was the director of the center that gives out the award? He's also an author, editor, and sci-fi historian. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "are submitted " how? By post? Internet? Any ideas?

• The sources don't say- but given that on another page on their website they list the names of people who nominated works for the past few years and I recognize every single one of them, I suspect it's "however they want to" as they're all meeting each other at conferences and talking to each other on the phone and over email all the time anyway. The nominations might be "open" to readers, but it seems to me that it's really only open to people who are big names in the field already. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox: "The best short science fiction published in English in the prior calendar year" short what?

• Done. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Our own article on Lightspeed Magazine calls it simply Lightspeed...

• I'll be having a word with the script I wrote to build these tables about that. Done. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, excellent as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days I'll post an FLC and you won't have any problems with it at all! But that day is not today. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That day is the day I hang up my FLC boots! Your submissions are great, and I just make tinkering suggestions, nothing is ever fundamental. Well done again, and thanks for addressing my concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a complete novice in the subject and the context, but is it fair to suggest that " Japanese overlords" is somewhat more evocative than necessary? Happy to be shown wrong here by the way.

• Kinda stuck on the terminology here. I can't think of another term that evokes "military occupiers of a country or state who do not colonise said country or state; usually use force against the indigenous peoples." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keimin Bunka Sidosho" I guess you should clarify this is Indonesian?

• Japanese, actually. Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The single most-published writer in Asia Raja was Rosihan Anwar" perhaps note that he was a native?

• Can't think of a way of doing it gracefully. "a native and recent high school graduate"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the tables are arranged alphabetically by title" add "initially" here.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for the Note column to be sortable.

• Dur, dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not one single one of these literary works is notable enough to sustain its own article. Fewer than half of the authors have links or articles. I'm sorry to ask, but is there a justification to collate together a group of non-notable literary works in this way?

• Close to half, perhaps. Those I've linked are pretty much 100% certain to have enough references available to support an article. As for justification, the list is too long for the parent article to hold it (and thus passes 3b). I don't think we have anything of the exact same scope yet, but there are comparable articles: the songs in List of songs in Guitar Hero II and the like do not derive notability from their inclusion in the game (and outside a certain fan base this kind of cataloguing may be of very little interest); List of Claymore chapters and similar manga lists do not have a single blue-linked entry. Numerous lists have fewer than half blue-linked titles, including such recent promotions as Maya Angelou bibliography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would make column widths the same for each column from section to section.

• Coding is for the same width, don't know why/if it's showing up different sizes for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. Glad you like getting a "niche pieces" every once in a while. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Linked.
• "in country's history " the country's history.
  • Done.
• Is it " Pakistan Peoples Party" or " Pakistan People's Party"?
  • Changed.
• "Birth–Death" no need for capital D on Death.
  • Done.
• What does "portrait" mean when half the images are flags?
  • Flags removed.
• Why are the flags right-aligned?
  • As above.
• Check use of en-dash in the full date ranges, e.g. should "7 October 1958–7 December 1971" really be "7 October 1958 – 7 December 1971"?
  • Done.
• "from 1970 till 1972" "...to 1972".
  • Fixed.
• "the first woman elected" the "first woman" link here is a little bit WP:EASTEREGG for me.
  • Done.
• "under the article 58-2b," no need for "the" here.
  • Removed.
• Don't SHOUT in the refs, e.g. check ref 53.
  • Fixed.
• New York Times should be The New York Times.
  • Done.
• Who is the publisher of The Dawn?
  • Done. Zia Khan 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the timeline meets WP:ACCESS since you're only using colours for certain properties.
  • Still not sure about this one how to deal with this?
    • Colours should not be used alone to convey a property. You need to use symbols in addition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Zia Khan 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "during the Operation Fair Play in " -> "during Operation FairPlay"...
  • According to our article at Wikipedia
    • No, don't have "the" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed. Zia Khan 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is it possible to delink "Post Abolished" in the "Timeline" section? Or simply remove "Post Abolish" and just leave a black line (as you have the key describing what it means)
    • Done.
  • Is it possible to cut File:Mujib-Suhra.gif, to avoid the noting who is who? Also that picture could be bigger.
    • Done.
  • You could include the original title of non-English sources.
    • No, I would prefer this one, for consistency.
  • Ref 6, should be "Encyclopaedia Of India Pakistan & Bangladesh" according to Gbooks
    • Done.
  • Ref 7, should be "Pakistan: Zia and After". There may be more such mistakes.--Tomcat (7) 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done and thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy in real life, and after a quick look I still see some minor mistakes or inconsistencies in the references. For example, in reference 59, you wrote "Oct" instead of "October". And Post Abolished should not be in capitals, since both words are not proper nouns. Decapitalize both words and suggest putting them inside brackets. In the tables, "Assassinated" should be "assassinated". Colours should be checked against WP:ACCESS, though it is difficult as you did not use colour codes. The symbols must be also accessible. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the references, decapitalised the words, the colours I used are actually party colours and the symbols are now accessable. Zia Khan 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947, seventeen have elected by the National Assembly". Needs "been" after "have".
  • This should be "been", not "baen" as the article has now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the photo caption in the lead, is "flag" missing? "Standard of the Prime Minister of Pakistan" doesn't make much sense on its own.
• Prime Ministers: In the Liaquat Ali Khan entry: "presented" needs capitalization as the first word of its sentence.
• Period after the last word of that entry shouldn't have a space before it.
• Muhammad Ali Bogra: Note could use "A" at the start. Also, the "a" later in the first sentence could be removed.
  • These issues both remain. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now "Relatively" needs decapitalization. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for that, fixed now. Zia Khan 00:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nurul Amin: First comma should be a semi-colon instead.
• "leading Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971." Needs "the" after "in".
• Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: Decapitalize "Nuclear".
• Muhammad Khan Junejo: Replace "also" with "the".
• Benazir Bhutto: Decapitalize second word of "Muslim World" and add "the" before it. Three other words need decapitalization in the next sentence of this note.
• Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi: Here, "Caretaker" doesn't need the capitalization. Same for Balakh Sher Mazari, Moeenuddin Ahmad Qureshi, and Malik Meraj Khalid.
  • The capitalization is still there in Khalid's entry, although it's gone from the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Mazari's note, the last word should also be decapitalized.
• Also, "Government" shouldn't be capitalized in Khalid's note.
• Nawaz Sharif: "Sharif was re-elected as Prime Minister the exclusive mandate from all over the Pakistan...". Needs a re-write. I'd tell you how, but am not entirely sure what the meaning is. Was it that he had a mandate from Pakistanis?

• His party won 137 seats out of 207. Zia Khan 00:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Drop "the" from "from all over the Pakistan" and it should be workable now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, "Government" again needs de-capitalization in this note.
• "and the Martial law was imposed in the entire country." First "the" isn't needed and can be removed without affecting meaning or ruining the grammar. I actually think this is grammatically better without the first "the".
• Shaukat Aziz: "who left seat after completion of parliamentary term." Needs "the" before "seat".
• Yousaf Raza Gillani: "Gillani was elected after in March 2008 after the elections." There's an excess "after", but I'm curious as to how he could be elected after elections. Wouldn't he have been elected in the elections?
• In ref 30, instead of having "pp. 1657 onwards", it would be better to just give a page range, even if it's a large one. Also, there is a double period that just having a regular range would fix.
• The ISBN isn't showing up as a link in ref 40.
• A page number would be nice for ref 48, in case the book ever gets pulled from Google Books. I know the page numbers that are avaliable for previewing can change over time.
  • Still needs a page number, if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There are also inconsistencies over whether one of the websites is titled History of Pakistan or Story of Pakistan. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been resolved, thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs #4 #8, #13, #45 have no publisher information; check for others too
• Ref #20 is incomplete, there are a few more
• Formatting error not showing ISBN in ref #40; publisher=Google Books?

• Then what should be the publisher here? Zia Khan 06:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oxford University Press. Also the date is wrong. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed, this is alreardy covered with ref at the end. Zia Khan 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Dawn -> Dawn (newspaper)
• Publisher for Dawn should be "Pakistan Herald Publications"
• Does "insider.pk" qualify as WP:EL?
• For continuous page nos. i.e., pages=1657 onwards. it should be formatted as pages=1657–
• You've linked BBC News in refs #1, #9 and #21 but not in others
• I'm concerned about the reliability of "storyofpakistan.com", a majority of the article depends upon it.
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been resolved. Of course, storyof pakistan.com is a reliable cite , thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not convinced. In what do you say it's reliable? is it a govt. published source or a site run by some reputed news agencies. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a govt cite which publishes the political history of Pakistan. Zia Khan 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely not a Govt-owned website. The domain should be ".pk" if it's a site maintained by the Pak Govt. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a govt cite or mainained by the govt, I don't know, I only know that this is reliable one. Look at the lis at ru:Wikipedia and why do you think that this is unreliable? Zia Khan 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really up to the reviewer to prove a source unreliable, more it's up to you to prove it is reliable. And whatever goes on at Russian Wikipedia is really irrelevant to our own quality standards I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How can I prove that it is reliable or not? I can only say that it is Pakistani political website. Zia Khan 12:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a look at our policy on reliable sources. It gives you some ideas on what constitutes such. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Than its reliability is proved, have a look here and here. Zia Khan 12:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links I provided and this one say exactly what reliable sources (The piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work.) is! So, I don't think I should ask at WP:RSN. Zia Khan 17:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reliability of the work itself or the creators. None of them look like professional editors. Looks like a self-publishing source. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself , the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work." This is the definition of a source, and what is a self-publishing source? Zia Khan 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've replaced the "Story of Pakistan" with "Daily Times". I hope this'll be sufficient to convince you! Zia Khan 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "as a Prime Minister"
• "He, during his two terms, remained in the office for the longest period." Think this sentence could be more specific and worded better, would say how long he was in office
• "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947 ," no space between 1947 and comma
• "on Kashmir conflict" the after on
• "He made the constitution of Pakistan..." Did he make it himself? I doubt this, needs rewording for accuracy
  • Fixed all! Zia Khan 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ref 7, should be Pakistan: Zia and After
  • Ref 8 does not include the title you noted ("Muhammad Khan Junejo Becomes Prime Minister (1985–88))
  • Ref 14, title should be " Raja Pervaiz Ashraf Is Pakistan's New Prime Minister "
  • Ref 16, should be Pakistan: The Eye of the Storm
  • Ref 17, should be Pakistan in Crisis, publisher is Psychology Press
  • Ref 18, put the date (20 November 2011)
  • Ref 19, add the date (1 June 2003)
  • Ref 42, title should be Pakistan: The Struggle Within, what you indicated is a chapter (user chapter= and put it there)
  • Ref 46, ditto
  • Ref 58, nowhere do I see the date 21 October 2012, but rather "Last Updated: Friday, July 30, 2004"
  • How reliable is Story of Pakistan?--Tomcat (7) 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed all! Replaced the "Story of Pakistan" with "Daily Times". Zia Khan 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for Peter Sellers copy-and-paste errors....(!)

• Oops! Now done - SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image caption, very rare to see it centrally aligned. (But a perfect photo...)

• But not disallowed right? Not to sure about FLC, but for FA I have done it with all of my FAC's which have passed without so much as a mention. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well no, but try to adopt a common style. The Rambling Man (talk)

• No worries, done. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check WP:YEAR e.g. 1912–1983 should be 1912–83...

• I have chose to use the full date of birth as it is more precise. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How can that be more precise? He's unlikely to have lived until 2083 is he?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Precise inasmuch that the full dates are there. It was not an attempt to clarify that he was 71 and not 171 years old, obviously. Aesthetically, it is better IMO and, who knows, it may prevent someone clicking off to the main article to find an *exact* date when they could stay here to find out that information should the wish to know it. Would you prefer the year range version?

• Well, full dates weren't there, but now they are, leave them as is. Looks better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts entirely. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "He is best remembered for his role" reference or just your opinion?

• Ref now added - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Link BBC first time in the lead.

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Palladium Theatre (Edinburgh) isn't even mentioned in our dab page, perhaps that needs updating.

• Now added onto the list. - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "captain" appropriately.

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You explain what BAFTA means two paras after using it. Seems arse about face to me.

• Removed the first reference to it: it was too cumbersome to expain it fully in the opening sentance, so the full info is now the first one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of blank cells for "Role"... why?

• Because the sources don't provide details. The main source, plus Le Mez's autobiography plus an extensve media search didn't fill in the blanks at all. - SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be nice to have tables with same column widths rom section to section where same/similar headings apply.

• Done where appropriate: there is some difference between the 4 and 5 column tables, but these should now be more uniform - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure you need his own valedictory jammed in the discog section.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I did test putting under the lede image but it looked too info boxey and repetitive with the last paragraph. SchroCat is likeminded with its deletion. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well since you've mentioned it in the text anyway, I'm not sure it's required. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all keen on references being attached to the table captions, but I suppose without introductory paras for each section, you have little choice........

• Would small introductions be more preferable? -- Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As a personal preference, yes. But I'm just one reviewer. I think it's always better to introduce sections rather than just have table after table.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with this. We will draught some things up. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you also be happy if they appeared at the top of the first column title (as we did with Sellers)? - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see a problem with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Great: now changed as above. (I don't know why io varied from the Sellers format for that - seems a bit obvious in hindsight!) Cheers RM, and thanks for your always-appreciated thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that. A good thorough review as always. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You're always welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the dates be sorted chronologically?
• You could centre his name in the picture's caption

• See above for the previous reviewer's comments not to centre it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an odd error next to "Don't Bother to Knock"

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the discography section, shouldn't "Warner Bros." link to "Warner Bros. Records"?

• Done. - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dr." or "Dr"?
• Likewise "Mr." und "Mr", or was it made intentionally?--Tomcat (7) 00:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Dr & Mr are written correctly in British English in not carrying the full stop. Where the films or the roles are shown in the sources in the American form we have followed them. (Thus the film Mr. Topaze carries the full stop because that's how it was released). - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image's current FUR is inadequate. This is not "at the top of his/her biographical article". I question the need for an image at all, to be honest, if we don't have a free one (I didn't use one at Chrisye discography or List of songs recorded by Chrisye, for instance)

• Sadly removed - SchroCat (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "light entertainment" - The article light entertainment gives a very different definition. Double check which is correct.

• It's an awful and uncited article. I'll try and get a good back up for this one, or at least drop a better definition into the other article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See this academic study for a more appropriate definition of LE. (Just by way of background, the definition is vague and originally covered what came under the BBC Light Entertainment department, which seems to have covered most things! It has since broadened into general use). - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And sadly I can't view it. It appears common enough in British English, so no problems here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "including film, radio and theatre. Le Mesurier's career on stage, radio, film, television and record ..." - Repetition much?

• Certainly is: I've trimmed accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Marvellous History of St Bernard" - Marvelous... but can you tell us anything about the production? Stage drama or TV show? Who's the author?

• Further details now added. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation needed tags.

• Both now dealt with - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "... in over 100 films, all of which were in supporting roles;" - The films were in supporting roles? I've offered an alternative

• Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a lot of info about his death when it has very little to do with his career. Perhaps instead of that you could offer us some of his best-received works.

• Being a supporting player most of the time, he didn't come to the attention of the critics most of the time (not really with anything workable for the lead). I could offer some of their words that appeared in his various obituaries, around his style of acting and place in cinema. Would that suit? - SchroCat (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be much more appropriate, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-worked final para in lead to bring out Le Mez's approach to acting, and how he was viewed by critics on his death, while still covering basic details of death. Please feel free to ce if you think it's too much. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• References look fine to me (no action required) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your thoughts Crisco - it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've trimmed a bit. Wadya think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better!. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of the second paragraph mentions twice that Le Mesurier portrayed Seigneur de Miolans – I'd get rid of the second mention.
  • Quite right: now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd put colons after "saying" and "were", then move the full stops inside the quotation marks.
  • Done on one, the other is an MOS:LQ - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• An Inspector Calls needs to sort under I, and The Hanging Judge needs to sort under H.
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dad's Army Special," or "Dad's Army, Special"? The former makes more sense to me, personally.
  • I agree - now done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Got To Go" -> "Got to Go"
  • Also now done - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Much as I hope I'm wrong, I'm assuming that that's a typo next to "Series 9"?
  • Thanks for the horrible image that is now seared on my mind! ;) Thanksfully six is now in place - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it all looks good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A thousand thanks, a thousand doors. I'll pop over to HMV shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been a bit vacant on this for which I am sorry. Too many tasks, not enough time in the day. Thanks for your review Thousand Doors, your support here is much appreciated. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Might be worth wikilinking "light entertainment". It might also be worth linking "wartime service" to something, although I can't offhand think what an entirely appropriate target would be. Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II, maybe?
  • Done the first - I'll have a hunt to see if there's a better page for the second, but use your suggestion if not. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, ignore my suggestion – I don't think that link would work well at all. Perhaps just linking "wartime" to World War II would be sufficient.
      • No probs - now done. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ISBN suggests using the 13-digit ISBNs, which, for A Jobbing Actor, would be 978-0-241-11063-8.
  • Nice spot - now altered - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fifty Years Of Hancock" -> "Fifty Years of Hancock"
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Any particular reason why Quinlan's illustrated directory of film character actors uses sentence case rather than title case?
  • Only my inattention to detail! Now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Graham Alan Gooch" shouldn't be bolded since this isn't the parent article; instead link the main article.
  • Fair enough, linked him with his common name unbolded. The Rambling Man (talk)
• "one of 25 players in history to have scored over 100 first-class centuries" needs a source.
  • Sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "making a pair" refers to duck in the cricketing context. Not sure why you want to say "making a pair of ducks" even after linking both.
  • Just so non-cricketing experts don't get the impression he scored a pair of centuries.... subtle but important I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You've included "No result" in the key, but I could not find that anywhere else in the article.
  • Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason for not linking the cities in the table.
  • Avoiding linking common geographical terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true for places like London, but not sure about Nottingham, Birmingham, Port of Spain, etc., —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's horses for courses. I know Nottingham and Birmingham well, others may know Chennai and Bridgetown etc. Would you prefer I link everything every time? I'm not getting into a debate about whether London shouldn't be linked but Barbados should, for instance. What, in your mind, are the rules on this kind of linking? For me it's all or nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• His 19th century was made against Australia and the score was 120.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Pos. and Inn. entries for 13th, 14th an 18th are incorrect. I'd suggest you to thoroughly check all the entries once more.
  • Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• While sorting the table (ODI) by descending order, 115 (136) should sort before 115 (159).
  • Fixed, mind you that's something I'll need to look at in all these lists.... that strike rate is an invisible secondary sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why "Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain, Trinidad" and no country names for other entries in both tables.
  • Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can still see "Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados" and "Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica". Also "Chepauk" is a locality in Chennai. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but Kingston is a name for many places, I've taken a stance to link down to the town/city, but not the country. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• His ODI scores of 117 and 112 were unbeaten.
  
  • Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Vesantry for your quick and astute comments. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why include his post-nominal letters? Shouldn't it be enough to have them in the linked main article?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The opening paragraph should be rewritten. I'd expect to see both his name and the word centuries in the first sentence, because that's what this article is about.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid the word currently. Just state when he took the position or use an as of (or similar) construct, so the article won't be wrong the day he gets fired or quits.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Row scopes should be unique. Using century number or date would probably make more sense.
  • Well, the item of interest is the century score. I'd like to hear from screen reading users to see if changing the target makes sense. Also, I'm not sure that makes any sense. If a table had a row where every item was duplicated bar one, e.g. the date (say the score was the same, the location was the same etc), why would it make sense to suddenly make the row scope of the entire list dependent on that row? And if then you had another pair of rows where a different item was the same, what would you do then? If there was no "century number" (which sometimes I think is redundant anyway) and two centuries were scored on the same date, what then? If you insist, though, I'll change the scope. This could, however, impact on just about every featured list in Wikipedia, so I guess we should go with caution. I think this suggests that all tables on Wikipedia must have a singular unique visible identifier on every line of every table.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not my intention to set any kind of precedent. I don't understand the underlying problematic and mechanics well enough to even think about attempting to do so. I'm just trying to anticipate the needs of someone browsing this particular list with a screen reader. The way I understand it, such a user might not be interested in every piece of information in the table and request a particular column to be read. To put things in context, that user might have the rowscope cells read alongside. Assuming a user wants to know where the centuries happened, he or she might, in line twelve, hear "116 Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester". To the question "which century is this talking about?", "116" would be an ambiguous answer. Giving the date instead would be an unambiguous answer, at least until the table is changed to include duplicate dates. Using a unique identifier for row scopes, even if it's just something as arbitrary as a "century number", would—provided I'm understanding this right—allow the user to stop output once a particular century piques his or her interest, navigate to it (using the unique identifier), and have it read completely. In any case, don't just make changes because I "insist". If you find my line of reasoning unconvincing, we should maybe bring in someone with more expertise. Goodraise 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodraise 18:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I'm just not sure that we now need to introduce an arbitrary column of data (okay, so it exists in this case, but in others it may well not) which is exclusively to provide a unique entry in every row for the row scope. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't say I'm happy about the delinking of CricketArchive. Why not give our readers that little bit of help in determining the reliability of the source? (Personally, I'd like the references in general to be a little bit more inclusive, but I suppose that's just me.)
  • Well, the reason it was delinked because it was the only one linked and someone didn't like that either. Would you prefer every publisher/work to be linked? Otherwise it's a "can't please all the people all the time" situation I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I still think the opening paragraph reads too much like that of a person's main article. Suggestion: "During his international cricket career spanning nearly two decades, Graham Gooch, who captained Essex and England, scored 28 centuries, 20 in Test and 8 in One Day International (ODI) matches."
  • Well I think I'll agree to disagree. I think lists like this are improved in value if they provide a context to the subject matter and don't simply launch into discussing a some chap who scored things called centuries. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The rest of the prose could also use a few more tweaks. A few examples:

• "He was one of the most successful ... of his generation" – Do things like that ever change? Not unless you want to imply that he's dead.
  • Okay, fixed.
• "he is the full-time batting coach" – Awkward construct. It's supposed to mean that he serves as batting coach on a full-time basis, right?
  • Yep, in BritEng/AusEng/IndEng we say just that, as per the BBC, Cricinfo, Wisden, The Daily Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Gooch made his Test debut in July 1975, making a pair of ducks against Australia at Edgbaston. His first Test century came five years later, when he scored 123 against the West Indies at Lord's in June 1980." – Dreadfully unengaging. How about: "Five years after his Test debut, making a pair of ducks against Australia at Edgbaston in July 1975, he scored his first Test century with 123 runs against the West Indies at Lord's in June 1980."

• Funny, once again it's horses for courses. I had complaints of sentences that were too long and now they're too short! I've tried reorganising it along the lines you've suggested... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm partial to longer sentences with less simple structure, but I find they make all those statistics easier to swallow. Three paragraphs of tiny sentences following, with only minor variations, the pattern of "Gooch did this. Gooch did that. Gooch did this. etc." make me want to fall asleep in front of my keyboard. Otherwise the list looks fine, and since none of these concerns are strictly actionable I'll go with weak support for now. Good work! Goodraise 04:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Test should be linked at 1st instant in the lede
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (100 or more in a single innings) → (100 or more runs in a single innings)
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "run scorer" should be "run-scorer"
  • Quite possibly. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the ODI list 115 doesn't sort correctly
  • Forced sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "not out" in the lede would be batter than *.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...not out at the end of the England innings with a score of 154*.[11] → no need of * here, link runs at 1st use. Zia Khan 12:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okeydokey, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the References you have linked CricketArchive but not ESPNcricinfo and BBC Sport.
  • Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at my talk page about Cook's list, Regards, Zia Khan 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• think there should be a comma after captained Essex and England in first sentence
• "Gooch is one of a fewer than" one too many words here
• I would split the refs into columns, but that is just a personal preference and not a necessity

NapHit (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done 'em all, thanks NapHit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He was one of the most successful international batsmen of his generation..." – I'd say this needs a source.
  • I'd say that was sourced by the fact he scored the most runs in first-class cricket ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Gooch's highest Test score is 333 which he made in the first innings against India in 1990." – nonrestrictive, so needs a comma before "which".
  • If you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "also went on to score" → "scored"
  • Just removed "also" as I prefer the prose this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "also" isn't a necessary word and in the three instances used in this article, removing them would do no harm and the removal would result in better prose. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I agree, in some instances that would just turn the prose into a handful of factoids with little flow. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, the list looks top-notch, as we would expect from you! Harrias ^talk 17:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gone and done a rephrase. See how you find it, I agree the original wording was borderline ambiguous, hopefully the current is not so much. Let me know what you reckon. (Cheers for the review btw). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity is better, but the sentence reads a little weirdly now. How about: "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history to have been dismissed by handling the ball, and the only player to have been dismissed through this method on a score of 100 or greater,[12] when he flicked the ball away from the stumps against Australia in 1993.[13]" Actually, that might be even worse. I don't know! Harrias ^talk 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm going stick to my guns here. I think "through this method" is one of the most awkward constructs I've ever read, and I think my compromise is slightly less bad than that!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it didn't work, but I'm still not convinced about what is there; how about the more minor tweak: "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history, and the only player on a score of 100 or greater, to have been dismissed by handling the ball, ..." Harrias ^talk 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and the only player to have been dismissed by handling the ball while on a score of 100 or greater"? The Rambling Man (talk)

It still isn't reading right for me, but I can't really explain why. I would suggest either disregarding what I'm saying, or talking to someone who is better than me with prose like User:Sarastro1 about that specific sentence. I'm certainly not going to oppose promotion on the basis of it though. Harrias ^talk 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and the only player to have been dismissed by handling the ball during a century innings"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the construct of the sentence rather than the specific wording; the comma causes that first bit "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history" to appear like an independent, rather than dependent clause (see complex sentence). Hence the suggestion of "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history, and the only player on a score of 100 or greater, to have been dismissed by handling the ball, ..." which makes it clearer that the meaning isn't that he was one of only seven people to play Test cricket. Harrias ^talk 21:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if removed the comma....??! Okay, try it now.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He has scored centuries (100 or more runs in a single innings) in Test cricket, and One Day International (ODI)..... → No need of comma after Test cricket

removed NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• named a Wisden Cricketer of the Year → named as one the Wisden Cricketers of the Year?

adding the would make the sentence grammatically incorrect NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "named as one of Wisden Cricketers of the Year" Zia Khan 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changed it slightly, reads better than before anyway. NapHit (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ...also came against Australia in the second... → came against the same team in the second

I prefer using Australia, doesn't seem right using same team NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]