Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2018

• Centered the years for you; I'll do the same for the ref col

  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "ngaging" → "engaging" (Harrison Ford notes)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "lgendary" → "legendary" (Norman Augustine notes)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalize "Former" (Robert Crandall notes)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• remove space between quote and contributed (Joe Sutter notes)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cofounder" → "Co-founder" (Olive Ann Beech notes)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is an American award, then every date in every reference needs to be American style → Month Day, Year (January 13, 2018)

  Not necessarily. As long as they're consistent, that's fine, and since when I found the list like this, there were no dates (and no references), it's first come, first served on date formats! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got at first glance. Great job to another great list! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BeatlesLedTV thanks, as always, I think I've addressed your concerns and, if not, commented above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The access date in the third source is written as 2017-12-11 when the rest are listed as 7 December 2017 e.g.
• Reference 11 is missing the newspaper field which should be The Washington Post
• I don't believe that Reference 59 should be linked to the stock market on Bloomberg's websites
• Refs 64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76 do not have the publication date of the press releases

Those were all the issues I discovered on a first glance. Nothing overly major here as usual. MWright96 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96 as ever, thanks for your review. I think I've addressed everything you've noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Table

• 1954 – link aerodynamics
• 1955 – link fluid mechanics and acoustics
• 1962 – link Supersonic speed
• 1968 – add this image United States Senator whose link United States Senate
• 1971 – add this image and mention that he was Senator
• 1973 – link United States Congress
• 2001 – link United States Naval Aviator, Gemini 8 and Apollo 11
• 2007 – Last man to walk on the Moon link List of spacewalks and moonwalks 1965–1999

• References

• Ref 25 – link Centennial of Flight Commission
• Ref 86 – link BBC News

Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23 Ian, thanks for your comments, I believe I have addressed them all. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Are you sure all incorporation dates are on page 66 of ref 8? Probably needs to be a page range. Done
• In the refs, INEGI is linked thrice out of four. Either always, or once, the first time round. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent review! I've made most changes, and a few more remain. I will also make the suggestions on my previous nomination Municipalities of Colima to ensure consistency for wikipedia pages. Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now completed all your recommendations. Thanks again The Rambling Man!

One query above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "were released." no, should be "he released ... solo" just to be sure.
• "After his death in 2001, a final studio album, two singles, two compilation albums, and four box sets have been released. " as of?
• " broaden the horizons of his bandmates and their American audiences." do you not think Harrison's impact affected English audiences too?
• "Before their break-up," reinforce who "their" is, it's got lost preceding this.
• "mainly instrumental Wonderwall Music, the soundtrack " -> "the mainly..., soundtrack..."
• "After the break-up" again, you need to reinforce this was the Beatles.
• "highly successful single" usually we discuss whether they are commercially and critically successful, which was this?
• "critical acclaim from critics." remove "critical".
• "hidden for years behind Lennon and McCartney" POV, if a quote, attribute.
• "organized" if this is BritEng (STRONGTIES), we say "organised", check throughout.
• "albeit slightly more positive than " this wording is awkward already, but at least it should be "positively".
• "the warmly received[26] " move the cite to the end of the sentence.
• "a hiatus for five years" -> "a five-year hiatus".
• "However, years of cigarette smoking caught up to Harrison..." unnecessary, just stick to the fact that he died.
• " was released in 2002" -> " was posthumously released in 2002"
• Link Harrison in every entry in the sortable table.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man All done. Thanks so much for the comments! Care to check out my new FLC? I'll check out your new FLC within a day or two. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Leicestershire is a county in the East Midlands of England. The area of the administrative county is 806 square miles (2,090 km2)[2", why not "Leicestershire is an administrative county in the East Midlands of England with an area of 806 square miles (2,090 km2)..."?

• Changed to "Leicestershire is a county in the East Midlands of England with an area of 833 square miles (2,160 km2)," I think I made a mistake giving the area of the administrative not the geographic county. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "57 of which are designated for their biology, twelve for their geology and seven" MOSNUM, 57, 12, 7, or "fifty-seven, twelve, seven".

• The way I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words, numbers below ten should be in words, numbers above can be in either. Is there guidance anywhere which forbids mixing the styles? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, same MOS page you link, Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: five cats and thirty-two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed that. Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " is rich in sulphides, some of which are unidentified.[9]" ref 9 has no publication date, so it's possibly slightly dubious to claim that the sulphides remain unknown...
• Same comment for " their genesis is little understood and they provide great potential for research"...
• There are more of these further on, perhaps a quick discussion over how to best handle them is in order?

• This is a good point which applies generally. Many citations appear to date to the 1980s, but geological ones will rarely be out of date as they have not been examined for decades. The problem is bigger with biological sites, where the vegetation can change. How about a note to the description column: "Descriptions are mainly based on the official Natural England citations. Many of these date to the 1980s, and in some cases may be out of date." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Link oak, link ash, but not pine?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "heronry" (or heron).

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "one which is nationally rare" link?

• Done for species. I found a definition and added it to Regional Red List#British reviews of conservation status ten days ago. I have not linked the nationally rare vegetation type as I do not know how it is defined. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "neutral marsh" is this as opposed to acid/alkaline marsh? Again, sorry to be repetitive, do we have a link?

• Done. According to the Wiki article marshes are normally neutral - as opposed to acid/alkaline - but I have stuck with the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "wigeon, teal, mallard and pochard" links!

• I think it is better to leave these as two of them go to disambigs, and it would look odd to have two linked and two not. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, although only pochard needs to be resolved because mallard could be linked to Anatinae. Ho hum. Just noticed the ref for this is missing an "r"! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The other one is teal, which links to the colour, and the teal disambig covers different unrelated birds. Typo fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "are relicts of " -> I've never seen this, always "relic" for me, but I Googled it, and it seems okay, but not common.

• Changed to "the surviving parts" Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "asphaltite"

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "woodland.[150][149]" order.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Red Data Book of threatened species" why pipe to a redirect when you can just say "IUCN Red List"?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "best wildlife sites in the county" yet only plants mentioned...

• Added moths. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure consistent date formats are present in the refs, currently seeing DMY and YYYY-MM-DD mixed up.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks The Rambling Man for your thorough review. Replies and queries above. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Replies above. Have I covered everything? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this seems de facto standard for this kind of intersection, but I just think it would be neater if, after the intro to the WODI format, you could then go on to say how many WODIs have been played since the first, and then how many centuries have been scored, for context of its notability.

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, somewhere would be nice to know how many games into that 73 WC we were before the two centuries in an innings were made. So maybe link this version of the WC to the 1973 version, and say something like "in the match of the 1973 WC"?

• The opening match of the 1973 Women's World Cup was due to take match on Wednesday 20 June between New Zealand and Jamaica at Kew Green however your typical London weather prevented play taking place and the match was abandoned without a ball being bowled. Thus, preventing these 22 ladies making history in playing in what would of been the first ever Women's One Day International cricket match. The next three schedule matches all took place three days later on Saturday 23 June, the England v International XI was one of those matches. So, I have used the term "opening round". – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " being Nicole Bolton of Australia and " I would have a comma after Australia, to avoid "and and and" with no punc...

• Comma added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " one of 22" MOSNUM doesn't like this, so 1 of 22 or one of twenty-two.

• Spelt out numerals – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The most recent" probably needs an "as of" here.

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "11 times" et seq, I would start with "eleven" so you can go to "nine" and "eight", rather than "9" and "8" which look a little amateurish for me.

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " the 2017 World Cup" you previously qualified all instances with "Women's"

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "from a total of 1,094 matches,[28] a total of 182 centuries" no need for the "a total of"s, just "182 centuries have been scored in 1,094 matches..."

• Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "12, ahead of the Bristol County Ground with 7" twelve and seven.

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Per your key, are they still referred to as "batsmen"?

• As per the Summary of changes to the Laws of Cricket 2017 Code released by the MCC in April 2017, "The new Code of Laws is written in language applying to all persons, regardless of gender. The new Code includes an increased use of generic nouns like "fielder" and "bowler" and uses "he/she" when required, together with a broadened disclaimer covering all genders. The term "batsman" remains, however." So, it seems that those who were consulted on the updated Laws were happy for term to apply to the fairer sex, so that is the term that we shall use. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• When sorting date in reverse order, I'm surprised to see that the No. is very much not linear in reverse...

• Fixed using addkey=1 – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What's your rationale behind some venues having red links and some not being linked at all?

• None, just forgot to link them. Added links – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Outer Oval - the article says "while the Outer Oval also hosts domestic ODI and Twenty20 games." but doesn't mention WODIs, perhaps you could enhance that as a side benefit?!

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll hate this, but as it's ODI and susceptible to World Cups, I've often seen "Home/Away/Neutral" columns in these kinds of lists....

• I would argue that that would be redundant, especially as I have listed the country in the venue column – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all notes are referenced?

• Refs added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on my first dive in. Nice looking piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, thanks so much for your review. I have addressed each of your points inline above. Let me know what you think. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on your other featured lists you mentioned I'd say you got a pretty good list here. Personally, I think the summary table should be centered but both of your other lists don't have that so don't worry about it.
• One problem I notice off the bat is check ref 6 because there's a cite error with it.
  • Resolved this now. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the lead, you have multiple uses of "by an innings". Is that how it's supposed to be worded because it reads awkward to me. If not, I'd change it but if it's worded correctly then leave it.
  • I have linked this on the first use to Result (cricket)#Statement of result, which hopefully helps to explain it? Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I find that an odd opening sentence, you probably should contextualise it here by saying something like "Between 1946 and 1959, the England cricket team...."

  This remains odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Reworked this a little. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also I would explicitly state that cricket had been suspended for the duration of WWII rather than just leap in with its resumption.
  • Reworded this. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strikes me that it's reasonably important to bring out all the Ashes results in the lead since that's the seminal cricket match-up.... Thoughts?
  • The article does mention that "against Australia they won seven and lost seventeen"? Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, you could at least link the "against Australia" to The Ashes I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tweaked a little. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Lord's is piped to a redirect back to itself.
  • Fixed. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Start Date" -> "Start date".
  • Fixed. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not familiar with a statistic that divides wins by losses. Is that used commonly? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it odd too, it's what ESPNcricinfo uses. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any English cricket publications that use a similar (odd) rating? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not something I've particularly come across elsewhere, no. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it doesn't seem very helpful at all, unlike, say, an overall win%. By the way, I just checked and the W/L col doesn't sort correctly... Probably because of the blank cell instead of infinity... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @The Rambling Man: I've fixed the sorting, but left the column in general. I agree that it is weird, and would similarly prefer a normal win%. However, I haven't seen a source with that statistic. I could obviously calculate it simply myself, but don't know to what extent that would be considered synthesis or original research? Harrias ^talk 09:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• General

• I have centered the first two columns of the main table, expanded the key and placed in a table, centre aligned and fixed the data in the summary table and placed the correct ref in the Total matches column.

• Thanks. I don't like the centred text, but everyone else seems to be clamouring for it, so whatever. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead

• Image needs alt text

• Added. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• link runs in the caption

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• link all the teams in the second paragraph as you have done with Pakistan in the first

• Linked all. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• with their largest victory being by an innings and 248 runs against New Zealand in 1958 link New Zealand cricket team in England in 1958

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• was in 1956–57 against South Africa, when they won by 312 runs link English cricket team in South Africa in 1956–57

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you get a chance could you please review my latest FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's One Day International cricket/archive1. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianblair23: Thanks for your review; I'll definitely take a look at your FLC. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " It has a population of approximately 11,000..." I would caveat this with an "as of".

• Added 2014 & new ref.— Rod ^talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "...Act 1990[3] rests..." nasty ref placement, and the rest of that sentence has nothing citing it.

• Moved to end of sentence.— Rod ^talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "some of which are Norman. Many of the rest are urban" - in this context "the rest" could be churches or other listed buildings, so be clear.

• Added "of the buildings".— Rod ^talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "the large and powerful" is this necessary?

• Removed - I think I was trying to say they owned lots of land & controlled trade.— Rod ^talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "1235-1252" en-dash. There are a few others.

• Ahhhh - as you know I always have problems with these. I have tried to fix but may have missed some.— Rod ^talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rib's "mid 15th century" sorts before the "Unidentified monument"'s "15th century".

• This was a problem where I had made an error with the formatting of the "sort" template - hopefully fixed.— Rod ^talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Table needs scope rows and scope cols per MOS:ACCESS
• Some of the headers are centered and others aren't. They should all be centered.
• Are the ages of the artists needed? I don't really see the purpose are some recipients are bands and don't have "ages".
• Why are half the countries in "Nationality" linked but the other half aren't?
• Link Billboard in ref 1
• Link The Augusta Chronicle in ref 6
• Link The Hollywood Reporter in ref 8
• Link Business Wire in ref 16 and unitalicize it.
• Link The Washington Post in ref 17
• Add the website for ref 22

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: I believe I have addressed the issues you brought up. Thanks for the comments. Cheers! Erick (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more comments:

• The description of the award doesn't read well currently. I know it's a quote, but "Awarded for...given to an artist" doesn't read write. Just say "an exceptional career..." or "an artist's exceptional career"
• Italicize Billboard in infobox
• Fix spaced period in lead: "in 1993 . Gould"
• Sort Conjunto Primavera by last name.
• I would actually link all the countries in the Nationality column or at least the first instance of each country.
• Center refs 17 & 20
• I checked over your coding and instead of having "style...center" in every box just put it at the top of the table. If you don't know how I can do it for you.
• Shouldn't Billboard in the article titled be italicized? Like the actual article title?

I think that's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Alright, I took care of just about everything that I was bought. I didn't sort Conjunto Primavera by last name as they are a musical ensemble and not a person. For the centering, yeah I could really use help in this one as I'm not too familiar with coding. Erick (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Most recent winner could be listed in the infobox.
• "to an artist" well it looks like it goes to groups as well.
• ""El Premio Billboard (English" missing a closing quote mark after Billboard.
• "According to Billboard, the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award is decided by their editorial committee" reads odd. You don't really need the "according to Billboard", I'd just say that "the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award is decided by the Billboard editorial committee".
• "The Lifetime Achievement Award was first given to Morton Gould..." this sentence needs merging with the next one to avoid repeat.
• If "ASCAP Latin Award" is so notable, where's its article?
• "Beginning in 1994, the Lifetime Achievement Award is given during the" awkward phrasing. And does that mean the 1993 award wasn't presented in that way? I would re-phrase the current sentence as something like "From 1994, the Lifetime Achievement Award has been presented during...".
• "but may also be present to" no need for "also" and should be "presented" not "present".
• "who has helped " have.
• "helped raised the" raise.
• Since para 2 of the lead makes a big deal out of the fact that non-performers could receive the award, I'd make that clear in the table too. Maybe a notes column for each recipient's contributions?
• " 2005 and again in 2016, to commemorate his 30th and 40th anniversary" odd that the awards were 11 years apart to celebrate ten years difference in his career?
• " into the Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame.[9][6]" ref order numerically please.
• " Carlos Santana who won the Lifetime Achievement Award in 2009 was also given the Spirit of Hope by Billboard in 2015 for his humanitarian causes through his Milagro Foundation.[1][10]" not sure the point of this, especially since the "Spirit of Hope" award isn't even linked. And I would assume that other individuals on this list have received other honours from Billboard, why pick this one out?
• Everything that's linked in the table needs to be linked every time.

That should be enough from a quick run-through. Let me know when you need a re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments TRM. I don't know why Billboard commemorated Solis career 11 years apart, but that's what the articles for Billboard state. Any suggestions? I'm not sure about a note column since the award is more of a trajectory achievement as Billboard only mentions that and expanding Latin music for the recent recipients. That is something I have for my next FLC after this though... EDIT: Forgot to mention I added a key to indicate non-performing recipients. Erick (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention in the lede that the award is not always awarded, we have three years that no award was made.
• Ref 18 should be from "The Washington Post". Courcelles (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Thanks for the comments. Has everything been resolved? Erick (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Daft Punk is or are?

• Is

• Why is the bibliography there?

• No clue moved it

• Duo could be replaced with band at least once

• Used synonyms like "group" and "band"

This is pretty solid. I've additionally made made these tweaks which are hopefully all good. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hameltion Thanks very much for your comments! Made some additional ones above. And thanks for your edit! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daft Punk is still referred to as plural a few times. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hameltion Should be good now. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "the French house and dance genres of" I would reverse this, simply as this could be misconstrued as "French dance" and DP's influence far transcended the French genres.
• "Its next album" reads really odd to me. Maybe "The band's next album" or something that isn't simply "its".
• "continued Daft Punk's array of success." reads like a fan review.
• Items in the table which are linked should be linked each time as the table is sortable.

• I personally don't like having an overabundance of links but I see your point. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Any chance of linking from this page to the Daft Punk discography, and vice versa?
• Table caption doesn't need a full stop.
• "Indo Silver Club" shows as 1996 in the discog FL and 1997 here, why the discrepancy?
• "Revolution 909" as well, slightly different. I think what we're seeing is that you're using the release date of the album, not the singles themselves, right?

• Yeah "Indo Silver Club" was released as a single in early 1996 but was again released on Homework the following year. Same with "Revolution 909". I only write "single" if the song is a non-album single that doesn't appear on an album. If a song does appear on an album I just use the album's release year. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Thanks so much for your comments! Should be all good. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• All tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (specifically MOS:DTAB)
• All tables should be centered with names left-aligned
• You don't have the years in which they served under the dates in the lenox library table
• Put "Image" and "President" into their own columns
• If no image is available, put an en dash
• Change "Ref" → "Ref(s)" in New York Public Library table
• "On February 14, 1849 the" → comma after 1849
• Change the dates in every ref to American style dating, meaning 'Month Day, Year'
• "Lenox library" → "Lenox Library"
• "Astor library" → "Astor Library"

That's all I found off the bat. If you need any help just ask. Very good job so far! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeatlesLedTV I believe I have addressed all of your issues. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits that reflect the scope rows that I mentioned previously. Couple more comments:

• Date in ref 1 still needs fixed
• Link the website in every ref if it has it's own page. For example, HathiTrust (which shouldn't be italicized btw), The New York Times, etc.
• In the New York Public Library table, some of the terms you have exact dates down to months and days but others don't have that.

Everything else is good with me. Good job on this list! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeatlesLedTV. I have fixed everything listed above but two. HathiTrust is in Italics because the publisher in the {{[[Template:Cite Web|cite web]]}} auto-italicizes it. In addition, anthony marx is not precise to the day because of the template it uses to keep time current. Thank you so much. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 Actually the publisher doesn't auto-italicize the website does. To counteract that you put italics in the website itself. I'll do it for you. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lenox Library is linked twice in the lead; Astor Library once
• No space should be between year dashes (MOS:DATERANGE)
• Is the lifespan graph necessary? or sourced?
• The articles is an orphan: link to it from the NYPL page and possibly individual presidents' pages

I've additionally made these tweaks, which are hopefully alright. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hameltion, I've addressed all of your concerns save the lifespan graph. I personally feel that it is a nice alternative to having a 'living presidents' section. However, if consensus emerges that it should be removed, I will happily do so. Additionally, I have sources to the lifespans, but am not sure where to put them, so if the graph should remain, could you please tell me where to put the sources? Thank you. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd prefer the living presidents table (maybe the graph could be collapsed?). It couldn't hurt to put the sources in hidden comments (see WP:HIDDEN), and if it were to be a table, just make a Ref column. I also just noticed that some of the references have both YYYY-MM-DD and Month D, Year formats, so just make everything like the latter for consistency. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also the date span is only between years, not between full dates. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hameltion Better? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Once you've abbreviated New York Public Library, use the abbreviation!

Fixed

• Can I just clarify one thing, are these individuals elected, and then re-elected every single year?

That's a good question. The NYPL bylaws say nothing about term length other than

"The President shall be the chief executive officer of the Library and shall exercise general supervision over its affairs and have the usual powers and perform the usual duties pertaining to his or her office. The President shall be ex officio a member of the Board of Trustees and all Committees of the Board and of the Corporation and shall be counted in the computation of a quorum and entitled to vote in the same manner as other members of such Committees, except that the President shall not be a member of the Compensation Committee or the Audit Committee. The President shall have the power to appoint, suspend and remove all employees other than those elected or appointed by the Board of Trustees pursuant to these Bylaws.

and

The officers shall be elected by the Board of Trustees at each annual meeting and shall hold office for one year

So I'd assume yes,and have edited the page accordingly.

• "The trend ended in 1971, when Richard W. Couper became" well you probably need to tell me a little about Couper to help me understand how his election meant the trend ended.

Turns out that he was fairly prominent, and all presidents have been

• "Robert Lenox Kennedy succeeded him. After Robert Kennedy's " consider merging these sentences to avoid the repeat of the name.

yup, done

• It's a shame there are three separate tables for this, although I'm struggling to imagine a format that would suitably merge them into one...

yeah, I tried to think of a way, but couldn't find one

• Suggest term duration could be a separate column, and tables could be sortable.

done

Duration doesn't sort correctly I'm afraid, probably needs {{hs}} to be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we need to use {{sortname}} for the names to sort by surname correctly.... sorry! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did sort name, but does hs still need to be used, with your recent edits?

No, I think, including that new "age" template, we're almost there! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "1981-1989" needs en-dash.

changed

• Not convinced that the former living presidents needs a gallery, especially with only one of the two members having an image, looks a little odd to me.

removed. I'd like to note that this was added at the request of Hameltion (not saying they did anything wrong), but it did take the place of a previous timeline.

• Ref 20 I would expect United Nations to be a publisher so not in italics (and no The).

fixed

• Ref 14 - SHOUTING could be tweaked.

done

• Ref 18 too.

addressed

• Salary is mentioned in the infobox and, in passing, in the lead, but I'd add the current salary to the lead too.

mentioned

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I believe I have addressed all your issues. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Still unclear who elects the President. The NYPL itself doing the electing seems nonsensical? I suppose there is a board of governors or some such and that they elect the President?

Clarified. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• First paragraph seems to be lacking in references. Merged in 1895? One year term?

One year term is referenced in the NYPL Bylaws themselves. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe a better description than "millionaire" can be found for John Stewart Kennedy, given we're talking about a job that in modern times pays 3/4ths of a million dollars a year, this seems insignificant when you don't realise he died in the early 20th century.

Changed to Businessman, couldn't think of anything else. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles I believe I have responded to all your comments except the first. I'll happily move the page to President of the New York Public Library, or redirect that page to this page. Whatever you think. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BeatlesLedTV, Hameltion and The Rambling Man for more opinions about the name of the article. Courcelles (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me it feels that the page merits its current title, so a redirect is certainly in order. An article at the proposed title, I imagine, would contain more about the president's responsibilities and election than the few sentences about that there are now. (P.S. I noticed that Alexander Hamilton Jr. (1816–1889) should be disambiguated.) --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm honestly a little confused on what the problem is. Are you wanting to have President of the New York Public Library redirect to this list, make that page an entirely new page, or what exactly? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this article should be moved to that title. Perfectly possible to have an FL at a "base" title, and I suspect this is all we'll ever see written on the position. Courcelles (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh I mean I think it's fine how it is now. But because that page doesn't exist I think it would be good to create that page and redirect it to this page. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I'll create the redirect. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stats tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS

  Good spot, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Any way goals, caps, and refs can be centered?

  I'm sure, by adding copious amounts of extra markup, be my guest! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a couple blue and green links that should be fixed

Nothing else. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive links added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed and/or responded to above BeatlesLedTV, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They did in 2014, which is what that sentence is saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first clause says they did, however, saying he scored once in 2006 in the finals? Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courcelles Ah, by "finals", FIFA and the rest of us don't mean "the final", we mean the final actual tournament at which only those who have qualified from around the world participate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's just plum confusing using it in two different contexts in the same sentence. Suppose it works in BritEng, though. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's not really, well not for me... finals and final are very specifically different. There's only one "final" in each set of World Cup "finals", distinguishing those matches from "qualifying". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, I changed "finals" to "tournaments", but face the wrath of those who would suggest that qualifying games are all part of the bigger "tournament". Oh well, can't please all the people all the time... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of match played on 11 November 2017[5][1]" Refs in order.

  Removed the NFT so this problem disappeared. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "National Football Teams" an RS?

  See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• SHouldn't the portals be in "See Also", rather than "External Links"? Courcelles (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles, thanks, I've addressed and responded to your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not made keen on piped redirects, which you have for airplay (piped to heavy rotation, redirects to Rotation (music)).
• Same for "The Long Goodbye", "My List" (piped back to itself!)...
• "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American)" our article uses "and", not "&"
• "Veteran performer George Strait ended the year at number one" needs a full stop.
• " "Tracy Byrd - Biography". " needs en-dash per MOS:DASH, check others.

Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "total of 8 weeks" eight.
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Didn't think about this before but the table could be sortable so we could see all the hits from specific artists next to one another...
  • Done. For good measure I will add this functionality to the 2000 list as well shortly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor point but there's clearly a copy-paste issue with the retrieval dates because they are claim to have been retrieved before the sources were written.
  • Which ones? I'm not seeing that (unless I am missing something blindingly obvious, which is entirely possible) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blame me, I was reading this as being the 2011 charts, mea culpa. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My main (only) issue is the sourcing – with the exception of a solitary reference from The New York Times (which isn't even about the 2001 chart), all the references come from just one publisher: Billboard. The problem here is that, in any other article, having all the references coming from a single publisher would open up questions about bias and raise doubts about its neutrality – literally the entire article is based off of what Billboard alone has said about the chart. Obviously, this isn't such a massive deal in this case (it's not like we're discussing List of leaders of the Soviet Union or anything), but, if it's going to be featured on Wikipedia's front page some day, are there any non-Billboard sources that discuss the chart for this year?
  • I have added a load of non-Billboard sources covering individual number ones/chart feats...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "had the most weeks at number one of any act during the year". How many exactly?
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• ''Billboard'''s -> ''Billboard''{{'s}}
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit confused by the sentence about Jessica Andrews. It begins "In contrast...", but who, exactly, is making this contrast? Is it the author? Because, if so, then it's skating a little close to original synthesis for me, i.e. "Keith Urban has had fifteen number ones, but Jessica Andrews has only had one!" The following sentence (about number ones from first charting singles) is fine because it's a third-party source (written by Silvio Pietroluongo, Minal Patel and Wade Jessen) that's making the contrast, but I'm not seeing that in this case.
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the source for the info about "Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)" being written in response to 9/11?
  • Reference added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• You could probably get away with replacing "Artist(s)" with "Artist", since every number one was only by one artist.
  • Well, Brooks & Dunn are arguable two artists..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Dates in references switch between mdy and dmy formats. Since the subject of this article is American, they need to be in the former.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a FL criterion, but it might be worth considering adding archive-urls to any weblinks to prevent WP:LINKROT (according to Checklinks, a lot of them currently have connection issues).
  • Billboard changed their URLs - I have fixed them now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I have addressed (hopefully satisfactorily) all of the comments above, but A Thousand Doors hasn't edited since making the comments over a week ago..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link "released" in the opening sentence to Beastie Boys discography.
  • Done.
• What's NYU?
  • New York University. Changed.
• Sometimes you use "the Beastie Boys", sometimes you say just "Beastie Boys", why the difference?
  • Fixed. I thought it would sound weird without the "the" but their official name has no "the" in it.
• "success[11] and" avoid this kind of thing. The readers can probably wait to the end of the sentence for the ref. See others.
  • Done.
• " return to their hardcore punk roots with the EP Aglio e Olio.[13] The return would be short-lived however, as, in 1998, their next studio album, Hello Nasty, returned t" return, return, return...
  • return; recurrence; reverted
• Link Billboard, shouldn't it be in italics?
  • Fixed.
• Ref 2 needs pp., not p. Check others with multiple pages.
  • Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man Fixed everything you commented upon. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]