Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2009

• "all were won with the Texas Rangers or the Detroit Tigers, though Rodríguez has played in both leagues." You might make parenthetical notes of which leagues the teams played in.
• "Hall of Famers to win as"-->Hall of Famers to have won as or Hall of Famers who have won as
• "Gold Glove-winning" The dash issues get tricky here. When we have a compound adjective, of which one element ("Gold Glove") has multiple words, the hyphen should be an en dash. I know I haven't broached this topic before, but there it is.
• "a one error, .999 fielding percentage season"-->a one-error, .999 fielding percentage season Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the dash. WP:DASH says that en-dashes are used "[to] convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges" and "[as] a substitute for some uses of and, to, or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions". These examples are when the en-dash indicates disjunction. This is a different situation altogether; the hyphen indicates conjunction here. I realize that the article Dash says that "[the] en dash can be used instead of a hyphen in compound adjectives in which one part consists of two words"; however, the operative here is "can", not "must", "should", or "is", and WP:MOS doesn't subscribe to that particular usage. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you on this, but I was overruled in an FA discussion ("Academy Award–winning director" in the second para of lead); I was told that "WP:DASH does not coherently address the case of the compound adjective one element of which consists of two words; please see any standard manual of American English style". In any case, it's not a big issue for me. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I love (sense the sarcasm) how we're just supposed to know things and do things the way "a manual of English style" tells us, even though all of the manuals disagree. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The thorny old Irish issue. I'm pretty sure it is incorrect to use the tricolor for the 19th Century. Also, in the first two entries the venue is listed as being Northern Ireland, with a link to the nation state, which didn't exist at the time. This bit ought to be solved easily enough - the rest of the list uses "Stadium, City", so putting Belfast would seem more appropriate. Likewise for the "Ulster" ones.
    • Fixed the locations. Possibly an obvious question, but what flags, if any, should be used for Ireland in the times you specified? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen the St Patricks cross used, but whether this is truly correct or not I couldn't say for sure. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (e/c!) I replaced the flags with the red diagonal cross flag, per the early Home Championship articles, I trust that's what you were after? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "professional" in "current professional players" seems redundant. I'm guessing it was put in specifically for Paul Scholes, but I'm not sure that's necessary.
    • We had a question on the talk page about this. There isn't really a concept (as far as I'm aware) of Current England players as they're selected on a game-by-game basis - Capello could select a completely different of players for the next match. All this code is trying to show is that these players still play and are still eligible for selection for England. Frankly, I'm not bothered about it and may remove it altogether as it's a simple note which is causing more grief than usefulness. Would removing it do any harm? I've removed it... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there could be a note somewhere to say that the list doesn't include wartime internationals. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would that be because wartime internationals aren't considered full internationals by the FA? Otherwise hat-tricks scored in them should be listed... advice? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting they be included, since as you say they aren't regarded as full internationals, but since not every reader will know that, I think its worth pointing it out under Notes. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, I've added a note at the top of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the EL Fred Dewhurst scored a HT but he isn't listed here, any reason?
  • Oversight. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Albert Allen's HT has a different date to the reference and EL.
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The tables lists Tommy Taylor's first HT against Denmark in the Home Nations Championship, put in writing I'm sure you can see there's an error :)
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lineker's 14 October 1987 HT was in European qualifying not World Cup.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's probably just the Ireland 'situation', which I haven't got my head round, but some of the HTs either side of WW2 appear to contradict the accompanying reference. For example George Mills 1937 HT is listed as against Northern Ireland when the ref says just Ireland. Comparing the list with the EL the only difference in terms of teams is Willie Hall's 1938 HT which is down there as Northern Ireland. Some sources including Wikipedia say that 'fiver' was against Northern Ireland so can you check this.
  • Checking. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, the Hall's hat-trick, I'll probably stick with the FA's interpretation of the opposition that day, i.e. Ireland. Wikipedia's article on Hall is poorly referenced. I suspect, as is the way these days, many of the sources quoting Northern Ireland are actually ripping Wikipedia. As for Ireland issues, I've stuck with the rest of Wikipedia convention and pre-1950 it's Ireland, with the historical flag. I will also remove the external link as it seems to be unreliable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's nice to know, I used the EL to compare ;) --Jpeeling (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You say Michael Owen scored the previous HT to Walcott's but it was actually Crouch, so either add 'competitive' or switch wording to Crouch's less important HT. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Competitive added.
• As always, much thanks. I'll do some more work on the "ireland" situation tomorrow when (and if) I wake up. Much tired. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

• Camsell's Belgium HT is listed as the same venue as Dixie Dean's two years previous but the reference disagrees.
  • Dudenparc-tastic, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My English skills aren't top notch but should it be the Netherlands in the lead with regard Marco van Basten's HT, the picture of MVB does include 'the' in the caption. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added The. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The England part of the FA website is down (at least on my computer) but it looks like Johnny Byrne's HT needs a different ref. Also on this HT the venue is 'Estádio Nacional, Lisbon' but other HTs at the ground have 'Estádio Nacional, Jamor', a consistent location would be better.
  • Yes, the archive section of the FA website is currently down. I'll get onto the incorrectly titled reference as soon as I can. Location made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In the competition column there is '1984 European Championship qualifier' and 'Euro 2000 qualifier' should these by in a consistent format?
  • Well since about the 1996 contest, it's commonly been referred to as Euro xxxx and beforehand it was the European Championship. I kept with the common names. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Off topic but should the Wikipedia articles for European Championships from 1968 to 1992 not be renamed to what you describe as there common names. I see they were all moved in Feb 2008 but I can't find a talk page or Wikiproject discussion. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably. It wouldn't be without controversy though so I suppose it should be proposed first, maybe at WP:FOOTBALL to see what the consensus is. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Should MvB's HT have finals added in the competition column. --Jpeeling (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some captions have the opposition country linked, some don't, Germany and Croatia are linked in the lead so that may cover those two but Jamaica at least needs a link.
  • Jamaica now linked and, as you say, other countries are already linked.

--Jpeeling (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your detailed input. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that the Dixie Dean and Stanley Matthews pictures are copyrighted, I'm not a image expert and you probably know better but I think you need to fill in a 'non-free media use rationale' if you believe the use passes the non-free content criteria. Or you could replace them with a couple of free images, if they're avaliable. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "56 England footballers have scored three or more goals in a game, with a total of 79 hat-tricks between them." I think it should be explicitly mentioned that 3+ goals consitute a hat trick, i.e. "56 England footballers have scored three or more goals in a game (a "hat-trick"), with a total of 79 hat-tricks between them."
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The first players to score three or more goals for England " Once you use the word "hat-trick", do not go back to using the initial definition.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image caption: "Geoff Hurst scored a hat-trick in the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final which England won 4–2." Comma after "Final".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Jimmy Greaves has scored the greatest number of hat-tricks with six." Comma after "hat-tricks".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Five players, Albert Allen, Frank Bradshaw, Walter Gilliat, John Veitch and John Yates have scored" Comma after "Yates".
  • Not done. I don't use a serial comma after the last of a list. It's not mandatory and I prefer the probably more BritEng version. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is different. First of all, if I were asking for a serial comma, it would be after John Veitch. Second, commas are used to set off nonessential clauses, and this is one of them. You could use em/en dashes to do the same thing: "Five players—Albert Allen, Frank Bradshaw, Walter Gilliat, John Veitch and John Yates—have scored" Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That teaches me for trying to be a clever sod. Fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Geoff Hurst scored a hat-trick in the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final which is generally considered one of the most famous hat-tricks of all time"-->In the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final, Geoff Hurst scored a hat trick, generally considered one of the most famous of all time.
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• More later... Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good good... thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Richard Hofmann was the first player from outside the Home Nations to score a hat-trick against England. He scored three goals for Germany in a friendly match in May 1930. " I think that first period would be better suited as a semicolon.
  • Sentences merged. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bryan Robson scored a solitary hat-trick in an 8–0 victory against Turkey in 1984." Do we need "solitary"?
  • No, gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The sorting of the "Competition" column... I would have expected it to sort alphabetically first, and then chronologically when the types of match were the same. For example, I think Euro 2000 should come before FIFA World Cup.
  • Sorting sorted I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know if the external link is directly relevant to this article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Is there a reason you're not linking First World War in the opening sentence but waiting until the next paragraph?
  • " 29 January 1856.[2][3] (gazetted 5 February 1856)[3] " something odd here isn't there?
  • Are we using BritEng? If so "mobilized" should be "mobilised".
  • "pumping their entire scientific and industrial capabilities" - pumping reads a little journalistic to me.
  • Why the reference list after the lead?
  • "The Victoria Cross was awarded 628 times to 627 recipients for actions in the First World War." almost identical to opening sentence of lead.
  • Date formats within references should be consistent, i.e. all ISO or all dmy or all mdy.
  • Aren't footnotes B & D complete sentences so need full stops?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all I think. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The VC image now leaks over into the next section on my screen which pushes the table to the right. Also, one of the general references still has a date inconsistency. I can script convert them all to dmy if you like? I use Sprk's script, pretty easy... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the VC image, apparently doesn't fit for all browsers and resolutions. If you wouldn't mind running the script, that would be helpful thanks. Woody (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Victoria Cross is a military decoration awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of armed forces of some Commonwealth countries and previous British Empire territories." I know nobody's ever said anything about it before, but I'm wondering if this sentence should be backed up by an inline citation. After all, it does have quoted material.
• "Over 70 million " Prefer "More than", but it's purely preference.
• "had been militarily and politically defeated, with the latter two ceasing to exist as autonomous entities." The noun + -ing construction is awkward. Suggest "had been militarily and politically defeated, and the latter two ceased to exist as autonomous entities."
• "During the war, Britain called on its dominions and colonies who" Comma after "colonies". I think this is one those EngVar things, but shouldn't it be "which" instead of "who"?
• "Australia provided the First Australian Imperial Force (AIF)" According to the main article, the abbreviation is "(1st AIF)".
• "A total of 331,814 volunteers from Australia were sent overseas to serve as part of the AIF." "A total of" is redundant, although I do see that we can't start sentences with numbers.
• "New Zealand sent the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF)" Comma after here.
• "Canada sent the Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF)" Comma after here.
• "The 628 awards of the Victoria Cross given for action during the First World War accounts for almost" 628 awards is plural, so it should be "account". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Glad to see you back! Besides 3b, another thing that has changed is that the images need alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and thought I added it earlier, I have since expanded the first one. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for missing that. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Regards,Woody (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is one disambiguation link; check the toolbox on the right of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, thanks, Woody (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ivory Coast sorts before Australia and it shouldn't
  • Odd. Just using the standard nationality templates. I'll have a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't sort out of order for me using IE7 I'm afraid... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the strangest thing I've ever seen. I tried it on IE and it was fine but in FF Ivory Coast went to the top. I've messed around and found a fix, and I checked that it still works in IE. My frustation is that I don't understand what the two browsers were doing differently so I can't easily point to a fix if this occurs in the future. This might be something that needs looking out for in future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just thought, I had a couple of edit conflicts with 03md yesterday - I seem to recall we should be using {{CIV}}. That may fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The 2003 match, sounds like it's famous or has been referred to before
  • Slightly rephrased to denoblify it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nicolas Anelka (Arsenal, Chelsea Manchester City) need comma between names
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kevin Campbell (Arsenal, Everton, Nottingham Forest,) don't want comma after NF
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't the Shearer and Solskjær images have periods after the captions like the others?
  • Yes. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ferdinand for Newcastle against Wimbledon, looks like there is a space in the middle of the score
  • There was. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• [8] Football: Barmby poses a national problem is actually linked to the url of [7] Football: Deane gets about Town
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• [123] Fowler fires Liverpool, actually has the url of [121] United hit Saints for six
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• [176] Football: Chelsea 6–1 Derby County: Lampard hits four as Derby reel under Chelsea backlash is actually linked to the url of [175] Liverpool 4–0 West Ham
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple of score ranges within the refs need ndashes, like the soccerbase ones and BBC's "Blackburn 4-3 Man Utd" theres probably a few more
  • Do we fix these then? They're all direct copies from the sources...
  • Can anyone point me to a suitable script so if we agree this needs to be done (no big problem) I don't have to do it by hand?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should fix these but the script I usually use doesn't seem to be working at converting them :< Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've done them all! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your eagle eyes! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For some of the later away hat-tricks the result column appears to have entries the wrong way around or at least inconsistent with the rest of the list. For example Emanuel Adebayor's HT on 13 September 2008 came in a 4-0 loss for Arsenal, others I spotted are dated 26 December 2001 (Fowler), 16 October 2004, 17 December 2005, 4 February 2006, 28 October 2006, 15 December 2007 and 28 April 2008. As well as the result being wrongly ordered on Fowler's 26 December 2001 HT the result is different to the source.
• Yakubu Aiyegbeni is sorted by Y in the main list but A in the additional table.
• Steffen Iversen is listed as Swedish on one HT, Norwegian on the other. Less clear about Andrei Kanchelskis, a quick google news search he has been described as both Russian and Ukrainian, either way one nationality should be used. According to Wikipedia Henri Camara was born to Guinean parents but given he was born in Senegal and has played for them 99 times that would appear a more accurate nationality.
• The lead states 'Nineteen players have scored more than three' but this is incorrect, there have been 19 occasions but four players have scored more than three twice, so 19 occasions or 15 players but not 19 players.
• The biggest concern I have is the completeness of the list. I've found a few HTs that aren't listed: Sylvain Wiltord [7], Nick Barmby [8], Stan Collymore [9], Ray Parlour [10], and there could be more. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fantastic detailed review, many thanks. I've addressed your immediate concerns, but as for completeness, well there's no one definitive source for this (unless you know of one?) so if you spot any further holes in the list, I'd be extremely grateful if you can point them out. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source but this website lists the hat-tricks season by season. It may be worth checking to find any missing ones and then look for a RS to back them up. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, thanks. I'll let you know when (I think) I'm done... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I went through every year, I think I'd missed four or five more so hopefully now all of your concerns have been addressed? Thanks for the link to the great (useful and inspiring!) site by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your praise for that site may have been premature, the Anelka HT you added is mentioned in the lead as one taken away by the Dubious Goals Committee. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hah. Removed. I hope that's everything? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since the inception of the English association football league competition, the Premier League in 1992," Comma after "Premier League".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "over 100 players have" Prefer "more than".
  • Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The first player to achieve the feat was Frenchman Eric Cantona" Comma after here.
  • Comma'd. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "four goals in 12 minutes"-->4 goals in 12 minutes or four goals in twelve minutes
  • Would you mind explaining why? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MOSNUM; comparable quantities are formatted the same. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1999, Manchester United player Ole Gunnar Solskjaer scored four goals in 12 minutes as a substitute against Nottingham Forest" This seems to be a random fact; did it break any players?
  • I assume you mean records. It is possibly the fastest four-goal streak, I'll go looking. The notability comes from the fact that I think (and I'll check this too) he's the only Premier League hat-tricker who's come off the bench. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I did mean "records". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • New source found, it was indeed the fastest four-goal streak ever. Re-worded and re-cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The fixture between Arsenal and Southampton in 2003 saw both Jermaine Pennant and Robert Pires score a hat-trick for the home team. " Who was the home team (latter, former)?
  • Added "... at Highbury ..." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Robbie Fowler has scored nine hat-tricks while Thierry Henry and Michael Owen have scored eight hat-tricks each." "while"-->and
  • Too many and's in your sentence, I've semi-coloned it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Four players have each scored hat-tricks for three different clubs: "
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Dubious Goals Committee has ruled out hat-tricks as a result of goals being credited to other players." This reads strange. Perhaps "The Dubious Goals Committee has ruled out hat-tricks that have resulted from goals' being incorrectly credited."
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt text lesson time: generally, there shouldn't be names of people in alt text, for two reasons: 1) that info is already mentioned in the caption, and alt text shouldn't repeat info in the caption; 2) Alt text simply describes the picture, so there is no interpretation – for example, if you looked at File:Michael Owen 072007 cropped.jpg without an image caption, you probably wouldn't be able to tell it was Michael Owen.
  • Well really. The alt text (which seems to show up on IE7 but not Safari) now reads quite basic, nothing like the alt text you get on the BBC, for instance. I really wonder if this is what a blind person or one with similar limited access to this website wants to hear. But hey ho, lesson learnt - based on your "A man in casual clothing" alt, I've added others. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There are quite a few redirects; consult your handy redirect script.
  • You are aware that redirects don't actually need to be fixed if they redirect correctly, are you not? I'll see what I can do though. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diacritics and such should be addressed though. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that's true really, because I would assume COMMONNAME here, like all the sources do. But diacritics fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If every team is going to be linked in the lead, Wigan should be as well.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not 100% sure Shearer's first name needs to be repeated in the lead.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Dubious Goals Committee has ruled out hat-tricks that have resulted from goals being incorrectly credited to other players." Wait a minute. If other players didn't deserve the goals, why wouldn't the players be given hat-tricks? Doesn't make much sense to me, especially when the next two sentences are about goals given to other players.
  • The Dubious Goals Committee rules out hat-tricks after the event. So players who score hat-tricks during the game (or at least think they do) are credited with them until the goals are taken away and awarded to someone else afterwards. This can take days. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the sentence implies that the committee is making errors in its rulings ("that have resulted from goals being incorrectly credited to other players."). Shouldn't this say that the players originally credited with hat-tricks were given goals they didn't deserve? Or am I just reading this the wrong way? Giants2008 (17–14) 00:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the Committee don't award goals, they just take them away. Goals are awarded during the matches, the committee sits days afterwards. It doesn't say that the Committee credited the goals to the players. I've tried to add a timeframe for each event (ie goals/committee decision) - see if that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The part that is confusing me is the "other players" bit. Is it meant to refer to the would-be hat-trick scorers, or the players who ultimately received credit for the goals? If the former, it's problematic because Anelka did have hat-tricks in his career, meaning he's not really an "other player" (different from those on the list). It almost reads like the latter, though I don't think that's the intention. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've removed the word "other" as I agree it wasn't helping. I'm not sure there's much else I can do with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Solskjaer caption: Would be nice to see it briefly mention when the game was played.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ronaldo caption: 84 league goals could use a cite.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (17–14) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes " Spell out NWA here.

• Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "is a professional wrestling hall of fame created to honor people "-->is a professional wrestling hall of fame that honors people

• Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got interrupted; will finish commenting later. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. If you have any more, please let me know. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "and another eight are scheduled to be added to the Hall of Heroes in 2009."-->and another eight will be added to the Hall of Heroes in 2009.

• Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "NWA give speeches"-->NWA deliver speeches

• Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many presenters are people who have been involved in the inductee's career"

• I suppose that was unnecessary clarification. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you center the em dashes in the table? Use {{center}}.

• I learned some new table formatting here. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "NWA World Six-Man Tag Team Championship (Texas version)/WCWA World Six-Man Tag Team Championship" Spaces on either side of the slash. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "the hall is seperate from the NWA Hall of Fame and is not officially endorsed by the NWA, but the NWA has given permission for the use of its name." Too many NWAs in one sentence for my tastes. Please consider changing at least one for variety.

• Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Inductees and other former NWA wrestlers are seated at tables with fans in order to provide an intimate atmosphere."

• Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The real names for Thunderbolt Patterson and Blackjack Mulligan are cutting off about halfway up.

• I'm not sure how to fix this. It looks fine on my screen. Can you suggest anything to fix this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen this once or twice before at FAC/FLC. I remember someone saying how to fix this once, but unfortunately don't recall the method. It's not something I'd withhold support over, but I figured it was worth mentioning during a review. Probably some setting on my computer that I don't know about anyway. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes a fanfest website reliable for information not directly relating to the fanfest, such as the NWA giving permission to use its name? Is the fanfest affiliated with NWA in some way?

• I believe that the website is just used to source that one fact. I think it's an important fact to include, and the reference says that the name is used with permission of the NWA. I believe it is reliable. Please let me know what you think. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw, but didn't take into account, that the fanfest hosts the HoF's ceremony each year. That probably makes it just reliable enough for a fact on the HoF. If a better source could be found, however, I would prefer to see it as a replacement. Won't withhold support over it, though. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes The Wrestling Gospel According to Mike Mooneyham a reliable source? Looks like a personal website to me. Is Mooneyham an expert an wrestling, as required by WP:SPS?

• He is an established journalist and writes regularly for the Charleston Post & Courier. He has also published the book Sex, Lies, and Headlocks: The Real Story of Vince McMahon and World Wrestling Entertainment through Random House. Please let me know if you need more information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the non-Hall of Fame parts of Mid-Atlantic Gateway reliable?

• Some are written by Steven Johnson, who is a regular columnist for SLAM! Wrestling (in fact, several of the references used are from Johnson's columns on SLAM!). He has also published The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Heels and Benoit: Wrestling with the Horror That Destroyed a Family and Crippled a Sport through ECW Press. All of the rest are from David Chappell, another long-time wrestling writer (he has been cited as a valuable source in the aforementioned The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Heels book, as well as Superstar Billy Graham: Tangled Ropes, published by Simon & Schuster). Again, let me know if you need more information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page ranges need en dashes. Also, multiple-page ranges should be presented as pp., not p. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response alt images added saying Photograph of X.— Rod ^talk 19:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to describe architecture (for me at least), but could you be a little more descriptive in your alt text? See List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the alt tags attempting to describe in words what the pictures show - but I would agee this is not easy.— Rod ^talk 10:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This just occurred to me, but would it, in your opinion, be useful to add a "date listed" column? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't think so - this would be an administrative action not related to the age or state of the building, but dependent on the specific councils or quangos concerned. They have been carried out over the last 50 years (originally as grades A, B & C) & then regraded to Grade I. If we were going to add the date of original listing we should also add the dates(s) of reclassification/relisting. In my opinion this would just make the list messy without adding anything useful for the reader.— Rod ^talk 19:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your response. I was just curious. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Since the Reformation the 13th-century Hanging Chapel in Langport, has been" Remove the comma.
• "Naish Priory, which was built around "
• "has parts dating to the 14th century, with other sections dating to the 15th, 16th, 18th, and 20th centuries" I don't think you need to tell us every century that sections dated back to. Perhaps "has parts dating to as early as the 14th century" Also, change the semicolon at the end to a period.
• "Nikolaus Pevsner praised it saying"-->Nikolaus Pevsner praised it, saying
• "two giant Corinthian pilasters,[28] The" I think that comma should be a period.
• "The small William and Mary style[29] house, was" No comma.
• "between 1725–30 by"-->between 1725 and 30 by
• "has been described as the most beautiful house in England." This is a pretty big claim, you might mention who said it in the text. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - thanks I think I've got all of those now.— Rod ^talk 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Last two sentences of the first para of lead are really short, sort of reading disjointed. Can you elegantly merge this information somehow?

• I've merged then, but I've never been accused of being elegant.

• • "Ham stone" redirects to Hamstone here on Wikipedia. I think that would be better, especially when you have Ham stone Stoke sub Hamdon Priory - linktastic.

• I think I've got all of these - there is also Ham Hill and High Ham to get in the way

• • "Its funder, Henry Hoare..." maybe it's been a long day for me, but I think this is slightly ambiguous as to whether you're referring to the stone or the tower from the previous sentence.

• I changed this after a previous comment above - I've had another go

• • Ham stone (see above though) is linked twice in the lead. As is Tudor (to the architecture article).

• Done

• • 7 bays by 5 bays - no reason for this not to be "seven bays by five bays" is there?

• Done

• • " in 1698–1700." - inelegant, perhaps "sometime between 1698 and 1700"?

• Done

• • "Early 13th century" sorts after "13th century and 15th century" but before "13th century".

• I've now got "Early 13th" before "13th" with "13th & 15th" coming in that list - awkward but I can't see anything better

• • note 1 - "organization's" - should be using BritEng I suspect for such a Brit-centric list - organisation's.

• Done

• • Refs 1 & 12 should have format=PDF.

• Done

• • Ref 8 has National Trust in italics (a work perhaps?) while Ref 27 has it in regular font (a publisher I suspect) - I imagine the latter is what you're after.

• Done

• • Ref 32 is a Daily Telegraph ref but it links to our own article on Waugh - no way of finding the author, title etc of this ref?

• Problem - I took this from the Brympton d'Evercy article (which doesn't include further details) & thought it made a nice closing sentence for the lead, however the Telegraph online archive doesn't appear to go back that far & I can't find the details. The "authorlink=" makes it link to his article. Shall I remove this sentence?

• • Ref 90 seems to be missing its publisher. Check others.

• Done & I can't see any others with this problem

• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - Thanks for spotting these - mostly dealt with but see Waugh reference problem above.— Rod ^talk 17:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting problem. I found this link which attributes the quote to a "Christopher Hussey", writing about architecture for the Country Life magazine; this interesting link isn't much other than another opinion on how beautiful it is, but it's still interesting; this one may even be useful. Not much on attribution of the claim to Waugh though... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - User talk:GiacomoReturned is currently searching for the clipping from the Telegraph. I have changed this to Christopher Hussey with cite per your first suggestion - Do you think this is OK?— Rod ^talk 20:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Response2 - Thanks to some detective work by User:GiacomoReturned this has returned to Auberon Waugh but with a full citation.— Rod ^talk 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Don't start with "This list..." - see some recent FLs for how to start our best lists off.
  • What does Pos. mean?
  • I recommend you add the total number of tests for each record, i.e. 1/5, 2/3 etc (meaning first Test of five, second test of three)...
  • Test 6 has an odd date...
  • ODI tests 6 and 7 out of initial order.
  • Images are huge - per WP:MOS#Images, should use just thumb and not force image size, except for the lead image which can be up to 300px.
  • Be consistent on what you link in the references. Sometimes you have a URL link to Cricinfo, sometimes not. I'd say don't. Also sometimes it's just Cricinfo, sometimes Cricinfo.com, sometimes just content-www.cricinfo.com, sometimes it's the publisher, sometimes it's the work.
  • Category:Cricket records and statistics is a supercategory of the others so remove it.
  • Sharjah links to a dab page.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address those concerns and made several updates. Thank you Abeer.ag (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) More details:[reply]

• • Don't start with "This list..." - see some recent FLs for how to start our best lists off.
    • Fixed
  • What does Pos. mean?
    • Info added
  • I recommend you add the total number of tests for each record, i.e. 1/5, 2/3 etc (meaning first Test of five, second test of three)...
    • Done
  • Test 6 has an odd date...
    • Fixed
  • ODI tests 6 and 7 out of initial order.
    • Fixed
  • Images are huge - per WP:MOS#Images, should use just thumb and not force image size, except for the lead image which can be up to 300px.
    • Made images smaller; added other images; Alt text also added.
  • Be consistent on what you link in the references. Sometimes you have a URL link to Cricinfo, sometimes not. I'd say don't. Also sometimes it's just Cricinfo, sometimes Cricinfo.com, sometimes just content-www.cricinfo.com, sometimes it's the publisher, sometimes it's the work.
    • Done,
  • Category:Cricket records and statistics is a supercategory of the others so remove it.
    • done
  • Sharjah links to a dab page.
    • fixed to Sharjah (city)
• Comments
  • How could Test Century number 4 come in India's 4th innings? What kind of Test was that?!
    • Changed key, which was misleading: it was the 4th innings of the test match.
  • This is, perhaps, a little picky, but I would expect a not-out innings to rank above an out innings when the scores are the same, e.g. the Test 100's.
    • I don't know how to do that! Sort is by score and then by date. Abeer.ag (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can use the {{sort}} template to make the column sort exactly how you like it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done Abeer.ag (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may look into linking some of the cricket jargon so our non-cricketing readers can get their heads round what you're talking about, e.g. innings, Test cricket, batting order...
    • Added a few links. Abeer.ag (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• No need to link Indian.
  • I disagree completely. India is his home country, his nationality, and where he has played and scored many of his centuries. I would say a hugely critical wikilink. SGGH ^ping! 13:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:OVERLINK on linking common geographical terms. Most people know what and where India is, and that broad article wouldn't be of much aid. However, I compromised and pipe linked "Indian cricketer" to Cricket in India. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "He has scored 100 runs or more" You might explicitly explain that this is a "century".
• "He is sixth in the list of leading test century makers for India." I thought "test" was capitalized? "in" should be "on".
• "and he is only the third player ever - and the first since John Hampshire in 1969 - to score a century on debut at Lord's."-->and is the third player – the first since John Hampshire in 1969 – to score a century on debut at Lord's.
• "fourteen different cricket grounds"
• "nine of them in venues outside India. "-->of which nine were in venues outside India.
• "He has been dismissed four times above the score of 90" What does it mean to be "dismissed"?
• "ten different opponents"
• Can the keys be moved to above the tables?
• Some of the external links aren't directly relevant to this article, such as the player bio and "Cumulative Player Averages". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your comments. I've done almost everything. I delinked 2 external links, but left the player profile on, since it can be used as a link to the online statistics operator, Stasguru. There's also info. on a few centuries. Moving the keys doesn't look visually appealing. I couldn't find anything in WP:MOS about them. Perhaps I can add a link to them in the contents instead? Thanks again Abeer.ag (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the key, it's not prescribed in a style guideline, but most other featured lists do it that way, and it makes sense for the readers to familiarize themselves with the abbreviations, jargon, and symbols before looking at the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right:done. Thanks again Abeer.ag (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Text had been added for most images. Now added for title image as well. Abeer.ag (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The number of ODI centuries for Jayasuriya and Ponting mentioned in lead is incorrect.
• Ganguly scored four ODI centuries at home not five as mentioned in lead.
• Test century number 10 was not out.
• SR on ODI century numbers on 12 and 21 are different to source.
• Position on ODI century numbers 6, 7, 9, 12, 16 and 22 are different to source.
• Innings (1s and 2s) on ODI century numbers 10, 19, 21 and 22 are different to source.
• Ref 2 should be after punctuation to be consistent.
• Rather than simply Sourav Ganguly Ref 10 should have a more detailed name like Ref 6. Ref 8 could also include a bit better description such as 'Statsguru - Sourav Ganguly - Test match nineties'.
• The test in Ref 6 should be capitalised.
• Ref 48's commas and spacing needs tidying.
• Refs 5 and 11, and 7 and 12 are the same, use refname to avoid repetition.

--Jpeeling (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I've made all the changes you recommend. Thank You Abeer.ag (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strike rate on ODI number 21 is still different to source.
  • The final suggestion from me would be to change one of the section headings, either the first section to 'Test centuries' (my preference) or the second section to 'ODI cricket centuries' so there's a consistent format for both. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Changes made, ODI 21 fixed. Abeer.ag (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]