Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2012

• " typically August to August" you need to run that by me again! Do you mean "the calendar year from August to July"?

• If only it were that simple. It runs from a specific date in August to a specific date the following August, but oddly, the specific dates seem to vary each year: "August 11, 2010 - August 3, 2011" for Stafanie Taylor, but "24 August 2009 to 10 August 2010" for Shelley Nitschke. I assume it is done so that it doesn't stop midway through a series or tournament possibly? Hence why I've had to say August to August! If you can think of a better way of phrasing it I would be grateful! Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps "from August for a year" or something?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Have rephrased this slightly based upon your suggestion, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you?! Forgive me, I am on holiday but what did you change?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhmm. Apparently not. I wrote something really smart sounding too, and can't remember it now. I've put your suggestion in ad verbatim. If I remember what I put before, I might change it to that again (and it may notice this time.) Strange. Harrias ^talk 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how you'd do it, but it may be worth considering adding a set of statistics for each one for the year that they won the award, because I don't know, for example, how many matches the women play?

• I think it would be very difficult to do that and maintain an appropriate width to the table while keeping it sortable. I think this information is presented reasonably in the rationale section, and the focus in that section is on the average, which shouldn't give too much advantage to those playing more or less matches. An entirely seperate statistics table could be created, but I think it would then make it a completely different article; I think the focus should be more on the winners than the anaylsis of their performances itself. Harrias ^talk 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood, and no need to present undue weight to analysis. I guess I'm ignorant to women's cricket mostly, and since I'm pretty keen on men's cricket, this feels a little odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could add alt text to image.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Link ICC in the lead somewhere!
• You have "Since 2009" before "Prior to 2009"... I would reverse this so it's in chronological order.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "has been given out," ->"has been presented"?
• "without having won the award" -> "without winning the award"

• Done. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref -> Refs.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A caption for the table wouldn't go amiss (for our WP:ACCESS friends).

• Done. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rolton has "runs" linked, no-one else seems to. Table is sortable so link each time or not at all. Check for this in the table for wickets as well. And check other terms!

• Done. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You use ODI without explaining it.

• Done. Added a note at the start of the section. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 17 is a note, not a ref.

• Renamed the section rather than having it on its own for visual purposes, though I can switch it over easily enough if you think it appropriate. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stef Taylor, although I've never seen any mandatory requirements for it, I'd prefer to see the refs in numerical order.

• Done. Rearranged. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider if it would be appropriate to add Category:Cricket lists here.

• Done. Added. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Should 'short-listed' require a hyphen? In this case it should be one worded (shortlisted)

• Our article is at short list, so I would say no? Removed hyphens wherever I'd accidentally put them in. Harrias ^talk 14:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 22 needs capital letter on October Lemonade51 (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, sorted. Harrias ^talk 14:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just minor ones.

• You may separate Note from the References.
  • In this case the only note is a very reference related one, so I don't see any advantage in splitting it out. Harrias ^talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a template at the end of the list.
  • Any particular template you have in mind? We have thousands on Wikipedia.. Harrias ^talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may add {{Template:International women's cricket}}. ZiaKhan 11:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, added. Harrias ^talk 12:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Use work parameters in the References.
  • I disagree, in this case all of the "works" are more or less the publishers of the site: ESPNcricinfo is published by ESPN and BBC Sport is published by the BBC, but both of those are very self-explanatory, and do not, I feel need a seperate clarification. The ICC self-publishes as does the ECB. Harrias ^talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You may link "ESPNcricinfo", International Cricket Council" and "BBC Sports".
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Add an accessdate in Ref# 19.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaKhan 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the "]" at the end of refs. ZiaKhan 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 13:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article (specifically about the British Army) seems to use Lieutenant colonel (note both link and capitalisation). Just a thought.
  • A Google Books search for usage at the time has "LC" and "L-C", the ODNB has "l-c" (but not as a title), so there are multiple ways... In fact, the source given by the WP article on LC(UK) is this one, which uses "LC", so I'll stick with what I've got apart from refining the link as you suggest. B
• You haven't linked "sanskrit" early doors.
  • Done. B
• And "a Sanskrit chair " may be a little odd to most people who recognise that a chair is something one place's one's backside on....
  • Done. B
• "by Convocation (a large body of Oxford graduates)" judging by our article, Convocation is not just about Oxford grads which this note seems to imply.
  • removed from the lead, because it's too complicated to explain in brackets there. We need a decent article on the topic for Oxford. B
• "The first two professors were elected by Convocation (a large body of Oxford graduates). Horace Hayman Wilson won by a narrow majority in 1832" mildly confused (I know, I would be) but on nearly immediate retrospect, perhaps put a semi-colon instead of a full stop here so we know the first two profs are the two you go on to talk about in the following sentences...
  • I used a colon instead. B
• Just a note, I love the fact that the lead image photo was taken by Lewis Carroll. Fantabulous.
  • Indeedy. B
• "when the university statutes were revised," is there a good link for uni statutes? Or more specifically those dark blue stats?
  • We need some decent articles on 19th-century reforms at Oxbridge (note to self), and there's no useful link I can find. B
• Consider linking British India.
  • Changed "India" to "British India" on first appearance and linked. B
• "has held the chair for the longest period" is period really needed?
  • period B
• "(professor 1860–1899)" followed by "Since 1882, the professors have been appointed as fellows of Balliol College, Oxford" seem strange to me, what has 1882 go to do with it if the prof ruled supreme from 1860 to 1889?
  • Shifted to the previous para and reworded. When the university commissioners were rewriting the regulations of the university and its colleges, Monier suddenly found himself a fellow of Balliol midway through his professorship. Lucky chap. B
• " His daughter Elizabeth died in August 1827, ..." don't easily see the relevance, since original Boden died 16 years prior to this.
  • Yeh, but no, but yeh, but the thing is, like, yeh, like the money didn't go to Oxford when Boden died in 1811, but only when his daughter died in 1827 - it's the reason why there's such a long gap between the colonel's death and the professorship's birth. Not as exciting as the litigation about Downing College, Cambridge, I suspect... B
• "As the religious historian Gwilym Beckerlegge has put it," seems odd "has put it", maybe "notes" or "states"?
  • Done. B
• Youse use fellow and Fellow (sorry, Jamie Carragher just appear on my TV, so I've slipped into Scouse innit?)
  • I've got Alan Green on in the background AND IT'S SO TEMPTING TO SHOUT ALONG WITH HIM as I listen to England being awful. Think it's consistent now. B
• Why not "Monier Monier-Williams" per his article? (And because I love the splendidly stupid repetition....)
  • Ah, this is fun. He was "Monier Williams", then he was knighted for the first time in 1886, becoming "Sir Monier Williams", then was knighted again (for luck) the following year as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire (KCIE) and then changed his name so that he was "Sir Monier Monier-Williams", probably because it sounded better. So, I've called him "Monier Williams" as that's what he was when he was appointed and for the majority of his time as professor. Does that make sense, Sir Rambling Rambling-Man? B
• " and credited his victory to the university's realisation that it was the last chair in Sanskrit left in the United Kingdom." (lead) vs "and credited his victory to the university's realisation that it was the last chair in Sanskrit left in the United Kingdom" => so repetitive, I called Legal aid to help me sue....
  • When one reaches perfection... hey-ho, reworded for variety. B
• "Educated at schools in England and Balliol," reads odd, like Balliol could be a country.
  • It just thinks it is. Excised. B
• A lot of X University where our articles are University of X. Any reason why?
  • None that survives your scrutiny... B
• Ref 10 has a raw URL. Is that because of a template? I would avoid the template or change the template if we have to put up with grubby text like that......
  • No, it was because I forgot that the "jstor" parameter just takes a number not a full url. B

• A DAB link

• Fixed. - DB

• Why do we need the first column for the numbers?

• This is the way it is done in every NNL/NHRP/NHL, etc list on WP (I had nothing to do with that, I'm just working with what was there). I'm not sure I want to remove it without a further consensus... - DB

• Date formatting on reference three

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers it is acceptable to have publications dates in one format (month day, year) and access dates in another (yyyy-mm-dd). - DB

• Not convinced the image column is needed; the four images could be presented larger off to the right hand side of the table

• Done. - DB

• Abbreviate NNL in the first sentence, almost 600 United States National Natural Landmarks (NNLs)

• Done. - DB

Albacore (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As Albacore said above, it would be better if you indicated what NNL stands for -> example: National Natural Landmarks (NNL)...

• Done. - DB

• This link tells me that "the page cannot be displayed"

• It appears just fine for me. Are you still having trouble accessing it today? - DB

• Use consistent date formatting (2012-06-07 vs. May 12, 1999). Ruby 2010/2013 22:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers it is acceptable to have publications dates in one format (month day, year) and access dates in another (yyyy-mm-dd). - DB

• None of the NPS links work for me yet ("... unavailable...") so if you could ping me at some point, I'd like to check the sources!

• They seem to be back up and running now? Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool, seems to work fine. Now I can see it, I suggest you individually reference the landmarks using specific page numbers of that publication. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The information in the table is found on three pages within the document, so I've just added page numbers to the general ref. I think individually referencing the landmarks would be really repetitive, given the small number of pages that the information is pulled from. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also note that some of the precise names of the landmarks differ in that publication from those we have here. Is there a reason for that? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've double checked the landmark names and tweaked a couple of them - I had just been working with what was on the list when I started. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Another thing to consider, the format and refs for the geo-location of each landmark. I don't know where they're referenced (I guess they're not) but despite that, they have differing formats and levels of accuracy (e.g. compare Tobico Marsh – degrees, minutes, seconds – with Porcupine Mountains – degrees, minutes – with Toumey Woods – degrees, decimal degrees to 5 and 4 d.p respectively &ndash with Dukes Research area – degrees, decimal degrees to 2 and 5 d.p. respectively) and wonder also about the symbols you use for degrees and minutes (I think we tend to go for " and ' rather than the slightly slanted ones you're using?). And is specific ref 1 any different from the general ref? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #1 is the same document, but with an extra page added. With the geo-location, part of the issue is that the size of the various landmarks varies significantly, so some geolocations can be more specific than others. Another part of the issue is that I haven't been able to find specific geolocations for some of them, so have used the geolocation of the state park/recreation area/whatever that they are located in. The symbols for degrees and minutes is a function of the {{coord}} template, so that's not me :) I'll check into how to switch from decimal points to degrees/minutes and work on standardizing those in a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've figured out how to convert coordinates, and so the list should now be standardized. Please let me know if there are any other issues you see. Dana boomer (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the comment above about the number column. It seems meaningless to me as it seems to sort identically with the name of the landmark. Plus, there's the added confusion that it could be misconstrued as the order in which the Landmarks were recognised (if one doesn't pay much attention to lead, of course).

• I've removed the numbers column. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "while the latest, the" -> "while the most recent"?

• Done. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To bulk up the list, I note you have in the lead who owns the various landmarks, presumably this information could be added to the table?

• Added. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article on the Black Spruce Bog area is called "Waterloo State Recreation Area " so which is right? Or is it that the area was "recognised" when it was called the Black Spruce Bog?

• Black Spruce Bog is a part of the Waterloo State Recreation Area, and the bog is the only portion of the WSRA that was recognizes as a NNL. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent and link every linkable item each time in this sortable table (e.g. beech-maple forest).

• I've beefed up the linking - please let me know if it's too much or still not enough. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Michigan's last virgin beech-maple forest" forgive me (and perhaps the NPS source would tell me) but precisely what do you mean here by "virgin"?

• It's another term for "old-growth". I've linked to virgin forest. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't get ref 3 either, but it looks like another NPS link so why isn't NPS mentioned in the ref as the publisher?

• It's a PDF of the pertinent Federal Register, which is a government-published journal. The NPS is just hosting it. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I believe I have addressed everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gareth Ainsworth played for QPR for seven years, in over 150 matches" needs a full stop.
• The hat note could use some elegant pipe linking so I don't have to see "Category:" or "#..."
• Suggest you expand football to "association football" in the lead.
• Think the lead could be expanded a bit, it's two brief paras, I think it should be three decent paras...
• "more than 1100 players" I won't fall on any sword for it, but in BritEng I'd expect to see that written as 1,100.
• "Statistics correct as of end of 2010-2011 season" seems oddly positioned, needs an en-dash and is usually indented by one colon in most articles I've seen.
• "the country/countries" is this necessary, are there any multiple country reps?
• Struway2 would be upset if somebody didn't say "Pre-1960s" and "Post-1960s", so what about the actual 1960s?
• How is the position of each player referenced?
• Current -> current (or just leave it –)
• Key says Sub, table says Subs.
• In fact, the "Table headers" (which I imagine would be better as Key) is missing several of the items in the table headings.
• Check all image captions. Complete sentences need a full stop.
• Waddock - "1992-1992" ?
• Our article on Shittu says he's a free agent, not a QPR player.
• "Official Website" could be "official website".

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in responding, I'd made the changes a week ago and had completely forgotten to leave a note! I've made the changes as suggested - the Waddock thing was because he joined and left during the same year, which I've changed to just "1992" instead. As for the positions, the position numbers for the players are included in the source - based on the typical tactics played then (which was usually a 2-3-5 formation believe it or not) the positions for those players which don't have articles can be determined - however where the articles exist, the positions are based off there (or at least they should be!). Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Need to place QPR in parenthesis behind the full name to its obvious what it is an abbreviation for, or rephrase the one instance it is used
• London FA -> London Football Association
• Comma after 'Alan McDonald'
• 'third highest' -> 'third-highest'
• Endash, not hyphen, after 'name' in the key
• Don't think the key should be in bold
• Link '1939–40 season' to 1939–40 Football League
• 'substitute' should link to substitute (association football)
• Ernie Howe is listed as LB, which is not in the key
• I find center-aligning text disturbing to read. I know other people might disagree, but especially when there is a flag there it looks messy and slows reading. Esthetically I don't think it is an issue as the row to the left has the same alignment.

Otherwise looks good. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made the changes as noted, and aligned the countries column to the left. Miyagawa (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why there is no image in the lead?

• Ideally I'd like it to be one of the players mentioned in the lead, so either Tony Ingham, Alan McDonald, George Goddard, Brian Bedford or Don Givens. I'd even take Marc Bircham due to his uniqueness in the list - but there isn't any free use images avaliable of those on commons (that I'm willing to use - there is one of Alan McDonald but I don't trust that it's free use as there is no source information given). I am still searching for an appropriate image - I had similar problems with the Scottish National team hattricks article and one eventually turned up. I'm thinking that an image of one of the earlier players to make the list or a photo showing multiple players would also be appropriate. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would align Goalkeeper, Forward, and utility player centrally so its clear those positions apply to both pre and after 1960s

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Frank McLintock, William Coward and Samuel Abel do not sort correctly by position

• Fixed - it was actually Warren Neill who was wrong rather than Samuel Abel, and was pushing Abel out of the correct position. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Arsenikk commented that substitute should be linked and you've said you addressed all the issues but I still se it unlinked

• I misunderstood and linked to it in the lead - its now also linked in the key. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would add a sentence to the end of the substitute key description stating that substitutes were not introduced in the football league until the 1960s

• I saw that something along those lines was in the Liverpool table linked to below, so copied it over to this one too. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also something stating the changes in the names of position, basically add the third bullet under the players section in this list

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Queens Park Rangers's record appearance-maker is Tony Ingham". Don't think the second s is necessary in "Rangers's".

• Yep, that is a typo, fixed it and removed the errant "s". Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also don't believe List of should be part of the section heading. It's pretty obvious that this is going to be a list, since we say so in the article's title. Just having Players would be better.

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get the statistics updated through the end of the most recent season, instead of having the list be a year out of date?

• That's me being a dipstick - it is updated to the end of the current season... I just typed in completely the wrong year! :S I've fixed the year stated. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher of ref 2 shouldn't be italicized, since ESPN Soccernet isn't a printed publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the nation of Israel in " any need for "the nation of" immediately after "national..."?

• I guess not. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is fielded by the" maybe just me but this reads odd, is that the same as "governed" or similar?

• I'm not so sure. It could hypothetically be fielded by a separate organisation than the one which governs Israeli football (though that would not make much sense). We could reword if it reads strangely, but to me it look okay as it is. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "at least once" seems redundant to me.

• Ja, you're right. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "As the number of Israeli international players runs into the hundreds, only those with 20 or more caps are listed here" I would just have a semi-colon after the previous sentence and then say "only those with 20 or more caps are listed here."

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• When you pipelink tournaments, I'm not sure there's a good reason to include "in" in the piped link.

• I was always under the impression you shouldn't link years on their own, as it could make people think the link goes to an article about that year. This removes that possibility. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The active player closest..." he's domestically active, but how can you prove he's still internationally "active"?

• He played against Germany on Thursday night, but I agree "active" is not a term I would usually use in this context. I've replaced with "current". —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Same comment for Aouate.

• I've replaced with "eligible for selection". —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Players are listed by number of caps" "initially listed"... it's a sortable list.

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see a need for the # column since it sorts identically to the Caps column.

• It lets you easily see what rank the player holds in terms of international caps without having to count the rows manually. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " Where two or more players have the same number of both caps and goals, they are listed alphabetically." well, when I sort by Caps in ascending order, Nimni comes before Kirat despite them having the same number of caps and goals...

• Eh, I can't get the thing to sort this right, so we'll just lose it for now. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cohen's image (on my screen) creates enormous whitespace after the table.

• Okay, we've lost it. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a stupid question but what makes elel.co.il reliable?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They give a list of sources here. I don't know if you read Hebrew or not, but I think the chances are you don't, so I'll give a basic summary. It lists lots of Hebrew newspapers, with dates (for example, Amar 1936–1942, Davar 1930–1990, Doar Hayom 1930–1936 etc), some foreign ones (which are given in English, so you can read them), and some websites (the Israeli FA, the Wingate Institute, the RSSSF and and FIFA). It then lists individuals who gave time and effort, and thanks some other people, football clubs and organisations for photos. I think it seems quite solid but I'll defer to consensus if it goes against it. Honor replaced it with an RSSSF ref. Thanks for the comments Rambling Man. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing I feel is missing from the list is the mention of national team captains. Would it be possible to mention this in the lead somehow or highlight players in the list who have also captained the team? I realise that this may be a layout problem since an additional column would probably make the images to the right appear incorrectly due to the lack of space.
• This might be me being picky but the "work" parameter for all references as well as the "trans_title" for the references in Hebrew could be used to make the reference list even better. For the latter parameter the original Hebrew title would be placed in the "title" parameter and the title translated into English in the "trans_title" parameter.

Other than the minor issues, I think this would be an excellent addition to the collections of FLs. Great work! --Reckless182 (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a separate list of captains could be made at some point? I fear adding this kind of thing could cause a great deal of clutter and overcomplicate somewhat... As for the "work" and "trans_title" parameters, what would you suggest adding in the "work" parameter? "eng.football.co.il"? I don't really see what that would add, if I'm honest, and it would be repeated so many times... So far as "trans_title" goes, the article titles will be in Hebrew, which I'm not sure most readers on an English encyclopaedia such as this will be able to read. In any case, if you want to see the Hebrew title you can easily click the link and read the article. I'm not even going to get into the potential issues that can result from putting right-to-left script in the middle of the left-to-right text. So again, although I appreciate the suggestion, I'm not sure it would necessarily be a great improvement. Thanks for the comments, and I look forward to seeing more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the problem with the captains, a separate list is a great idea. You could still mention the fact in the lead, for example Benayoun, something like "he is also the current captain of the team", and the same for any of the other players mentioned in the lead. I hadn't really though about the problem with Hebrew writing, perhaps it is better to leave it as it is. For the work parameters, I myself would add eng.football.co.il for these refs for extra clarity but I would happily support this list either way. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've put that Benayoun is captain, and put an appropriate reference. I really don't think the eng.football.co.il work parameter is necessary, frankly, it just clogs the references section up and doesn't really add much. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image could use alt text (I couldn't seem to see any).
  • It's there, you musn't have been looking very hard! Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reinforce "association football" in the lead (so our American/Canadian/Australian readers aren't dreadfully confused....)
  • Done, despite my dislike for the usage of this particular seldom-used term... Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Later that year York were elected" would be better to say "Later that year, the club were..." as the last mention of York was of the city itself, not the club.
  • Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder, do we have a suitable article to link to for election in this regard?
  • Apparently not. However, this gives a description of the election process. Do you think that'd be worth linking? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that looks like a good link. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Relegation to the Football Conference occurred in 2004 after York" make it active rather than passive, i.e. "York were relegated to ... after they finished.."
  • Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a question, you say "first competitive league game was " did they play any other kind of league game?
  • Nope, have removed "competitive" as it seems redundant. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "are correct as of the match played on 28 April 2012." would it be cleaner to say "as of the end of the 2011-12 season"?
  • Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Key, switch bullet three and four so it matches the order of the columns.
  • Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably also switch the last two bullet points to become the first two bullet points.
  • Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure you need " pp. 232–410." in the general ref since you kindly specify page ranges specifically later on.
  • Little confused, whereabouts are these page ranges? Within refs 1-4? In any case, the Batters ref is one of the two being used to cite the content within the table, so would it not be best to specify the page ranges? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Batters, Dave (2008). York City The Complete Record. Breedon Books. pp. 232–410. ISBN 978-1-85983-633-0." you don't need the page range here because each time you ref Batters, you give a more specific page range. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are nitpicky comments as I'm struggling to find faults with the list:

• Personally I would include the season in the wikilink when you link seasons
  • It's personal preference but I tend not to include "season" in the wikilink; I think the season range only being linked is sufficient as that's what is specifically being referred to, not the "season" bit. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "the club's first and only league title." not sure you need the first, only would imply they've won one
  • Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Still lacks a bit of impact from lack of author images.
• Zelazny's article has a blue link for The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth, maybe we should think about consistency here?
• I would consider discussing the inaugural winner in the lead, at the least, and perhaps the most recent.
• You have a "Publisher or publication" col, but it doesn't appear to contain any publishers, or else the publisher is incorrectly represented in italics?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Responses:

• Every story that has an article is linked, as is every winner, even if it doesn't have an article- a reviewer a bunch of lists back pointed out that if something has won the award, it should be notable enough for a redlink.

• I mean, look at The Doors of His Face, The Lamps of His Mouth, and Other Stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. The article is about the similarly-named short story collection, not the story itself, so usually I wouldn't link it, but in this case it seems that it does discuss the story for a sentence or two further down. Linked. --PresN 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is one publisher in the column- tor.com; everything else seems to be in a book or magazine. --PresN 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, ok, I missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid linking bold, most FLs don't have boldface in the lead.

• Removed BB

• Similarly, don't use boldface in the notes

• Removed BB

• The lead is far too short. I would say the length in Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent is an absolute minimum.

• Expanded BB

• No need to repeat the Sheffield United: Head to Head bibliographic information a hundred times. Create a bibliography section, include the link there and use the ref notes to annotate what pages are referenced where.

• Changed BB

• All information in the lead needs a reference.

• All ref'd BB

• I don't see the point of the "overview" section. Section headers such as "overview" and "introduction" should be shunned on Wikipedia as it is the lead which serves as an overview. The information could just be moved to the lead, but it needs references.

• Merged and ref'd BB

• Why is Crawley Town entered with zero value in all fields?

• As per note below, technically Crawly are a league opponent as they are in the same division as United but we have yet to play a game against them. BB

• Would "matches played on 30 May 2012" be the end of a season? If so it would be nice to have that stated explicitly.

• Changed to end of season BB

I'll take a second look when the lead issues have been resolved, but the table itself looks good at first sight. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at some revisions over the weekend. Re Crawley - they are currently a divisional rival of United (as the divisions have been convened) but as this is the first time the two clubs have ever been in the same division there have never been any league matches between the two clubs as of the current time (or any matches at all in fact). Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All these are done now Bladeboy1889 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image: make it bigger if possible, and don't have a full stop in the caption, it's not a complete sentence.

Done Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it "The Blades" or "the Blades"? I would question the use of the nickname throughout, stick with writing encyclopaedically and with Sheffield United or just United.

All updated to use Sheffield United or United. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Especially when you start a para in the lead with "United played ..." and relink Sheffield United...

As per above.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "whilst" nice but archaic, mainly we just say "while" these days.

Updated. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " the most number of draws " why have "number of" here?

Got rid of the number bit. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you call Soccerbase SoccerBase?

A typo and then a lot of copying and pasting :( - revised. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 4 is a single page ref so it should be p. not pp.

Fixed.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 8 etc should use an en-dash for page ranges per WP:DASH, not a hyphen.

Fixed Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Crawley there with no stats?

The thinking was that they're currently a league opponent of United, just one that we haven't played yet. I've hidden the row though. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All updates covered I think Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs should come after punctuation, two instances in the first para of this being flouted. Also ref 4 is used twice in the same sentence, I would remove the first usage and leave the one at the end of the sentence
• You use an m dash for 1890-91 season in the first para it should be an n dash
• n dash needed in the image caption
• No need to link sheffield united twice in the lead
• "The Premier League" no need to capitalise the
• ref 5 not after punctuation, move it to the end of the sentence
• link 1939-40 season, also remove the s from season as it was just that season that was abandoned

NapHit (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed cheers. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd remove "(known as 'The Blades')"; it seems redundant now every other reference to the nickname has been removed.
• Do you think it'd be worth adding the county after Sheffield? I think it'd add a little extra context.
• Like NapHit said, en dashes (–) should be used to separate season ranges, not em dashes (—).
• The sentence starting "The football committee" seems a little long at 52 words.
• Few words that need dashing, e.g. newly formed, ever present.
• "Sheffield United" and "League One" only need wikilinking once; they're currently linked twice.
• Since United have had spells in the Premier League they haven't been ever-present members of the Football League, so I think that sentence needs rephrasing.
• "Midlands team Aston Villa" -> "West Midlands team Aston Villa"?
• I think the second and third paragraphs would be better merged into one, since they each cover the same topic.
• Could you give the years for the club's spells in The Football League and the Premier League, since you've done the same for the Midland Counties League and the Northern League?
• Doesn't "For the sake of simplicity, present-day names are used throughout, unless the club in question changed it's name since the last league fixture with United in which case the name during the last fixture is used" contradict itself? At first you're saying present-day names are used, then you're saying historical names are used; or am I missing something?
• And "it's" (and all future instances of it) should be "its".
• "Statistics correct as end of the 2011–12 season." would be better written out fully, so "Statistics are correct as of the end of the 2011–12 season."
• I'm not sure why every entry needs referencing twice; surely Soccerbase or Waring will suffice?
• There's a number of clubs whose names aren't written out correctly; Grimsby should be Grimsby Town, Hereford should be Hereford United etc.
• "Notes" - there's a lot of inconsistency with regards to singular v. plural when referring to clubs and teams. They're either one or the other. The rule of thumb is clubs being singular and teams being plural, so I'd stick to that.
• I think "Peter Waring (2004). Sheffield United: Head to Head. Breedon Books. ISBN 1-85983-416-7." should be incorporated into the "References" section and be placed under the title of "General", with the specific refs being under the title of "Specific", like this.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've picked up all of these (hopefully). In terms of referencing it was an attempt to be comprehensive -the book has more information than Soccerbase but only goes up to 2004 and the data was compiled from a mixture of the two (where relevant). I don't think it harms the article does it? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A few follow-up comments.

• "(1992–1994 and the 2006–07 season)" - maybe "(1992–93 to 1993–94 and 2006–07)" or some such, to spell out the seasons?
• Similarly, you could change "(from 1992–1994 and the 2006–07 season)" to make it consistent with the format used for the previously mentioned leagues, so "(from 1992 to 1994 and 2006 to 2007)"?
• "For the sake of simplicity, present-day names are used" - I'm still finding this a little confusing. I'd personally just use the names of the opponents when they last played United, which is what they key says is being applied with the Glossop example.
• "Statistics are correct as end of the 2011–12 season." -> "Statistics are correct as of the end of the 2011–12 season."
• Sorry to be a pain but I think "Soccerbase" should be preferred over "Soccerbase.com" for the publisher parameters.
• And there should be a space between p./pp. and the subsequent page number/s.
• "Waring, p.31}" needs fixing.
• York -> York City.
• "General" and "Specific" should be titled using a semi-colin to make them bold, rather than using level 3 headings.
• If there are any instances where both Soccerbase and Waring are needed (perhaps for opponents United played in a league that Soccerbase doesn't cover and have also been opponents from 2004 onwards) then they should both be retained, but when only one suffices I think it'd be best just to go with one.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated all these. I've changed the website name to Soccerbase as it's generally referred to on WP although it's worth noting that the site is actually called Soccer Base (as can be seen in the browser title of the home page [9].) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This should be it hopefully.

• "1992–93,1993–94" needs a space.
• "and the 2006–07 season" -> "and the 2006–07 seasons".
• Refs 1 and 4 use the same book, so you need only retain the author names and page numbers for ref 4.
• Same goes for refs 3 and 40, which duplicate the content in ref 2.
• The Waring refs need full stops after the page numbers.
• "lcfc.com" should be written out with the club's full name, so "Leicester City F.C". Same goes for "leytonorient.com", "nufc.co.uk" and "swfc.co.uk".
• Could a page number be added for the Greenslade ref?
• Might be worth adding Clarebrough and Kirkham as a General ref due to the level of its usage. If you did you should remove the bibliographic info for that book's specific refs, retaining only the author names and page numbers.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All updated. I've redone the book refs in a different format so they should be consistent now. Bladeboy1889 (talk)

One last query before I cap my comments is about the wikilinking in the newly formatted refs. At the moment when I press any of the wikilinked refs (e.g. ref 1) I'm not taken anywhere. The template documentation at Template:Sfn gives a demonstration of how the the author and date info provides a link to the general reference in the "References" section. I think that would be worth looking into. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That should work now. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor, but the prose gurus I know from FAC wouldn't like the hyphen in "newly-formed".
  • My bad, I recommended that. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I doubt that two Midland Counties League links are needed in the lead.
• Key: "For the sake of simplicity clubs are listed under their at the time of their last league fixture with United". Missing "name" or similar?
• Never liked seeing "whilst" instead of "while", but maybe that's just a personal preference.
• Last word of the Notes and Refs column should be decapitalized.
• Comma usage in the notes could be made more consistent from one note to another.
• In reference 1, the pp. should be changed to p. since this is a single-page cite.
• The titles of refs 1, 3, 4, and 106 could use en dashes per the MoS. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all done as above - I can't see 'whilst' in the text though I've read it so many times now I may have gone word blind. TBH I don't see an issue with whilst - it's correct English and I've met 'real world' grammar practitioners who insisted it's more correct in formal written prose, and that using while all the time is Americanisation. Anyway - it's probably preference, it just happens to be the way I speak. Still can't find it in the piece though :)

Cheers Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the key. I'm inclined to let it slide anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Should some info be provided on his career trajectory, especially the in-and-out of the team portion for a couple of reasons. The info provides better context to the scores.
    • This is included in Mohammad Yousuf.
  • The spade should likely be replaced by † or something else that's acceptable per ACCESS guidelines.
    • Replaced.
  • Date needs a key entry -- score date, Test start date?
    • Done.
  • For sorting scores, NO should rank better than out at the same score.
    • Done.
  • Test series -- Wastn't the Sharjah Test considered as "Home" officially?
    • According to the reference it is a neutral venue.
  • There are some typos in the lede, a quick copyedit should do the trick.
    • Please take a look.
  • I'll go through in lede in detail later, but overall it's come along quite well.
    • Thank you. ZiaKhan 05:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Astronomyinertia has made changes, I think you should take a look now! ZiaKhan 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• When sorting by score, 102 not out is better than 102 so it should sort above it.
  • Already done.
• "as a Middle order batsman" no need for capital M here.
  • Done.
• Put (ODI) after "One Day International".
  • Done.
• "during 2003-2010" use en dash for year ranges.
  • Done.
• "ocasiones" proper typo here... "occasions".
  • Done.
• " to official cricket with" not really, just back into the Pakistan national team.
  • Done.
• Lead is all out of order, your second para is talking about stuff in 2008 etc, but then you go on to talk about stuff that happened in 1998. Needs a lot of work.
  • Done.
• "Stadium in the 2005–06.[19]"... grammar fail.
  • Done.
• "Yousuf, among 24 centuries, has scored 4 double centuries, while his Test centuries have been made at 16 cricket grounds, including 11 at venues outside Pakistan" awful prose I'm afraid. Maybe "Yousuf has scored 24 centuries, including 4 double centuries. His Test..."?
  • Done.
• "record breaking" is usually hyphenated.
  • Done. ZiaKhan 20:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it there, the lead is a little too lengthy and needs serious copyediting. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried a little, please take a look now! ZiaKhan 21:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astronomyinertia has made some change, You should take a look now. ZiaKhan 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, still opposing until you get a good copyeditor involved

• " the Pakistan side in 9 Test and 8 ODI matches during 2003-2010.[5][6]" -> nine, eight, and use en-dash not hyphen for year ranges. And I would even avoid that, perhaps "between 2003 and 2010".
  • Done.
• "in International cricket than" no need to capitalise International.
  • Done.
• "century—120 not out—came " suggest you replace unspaced em-dashes with spaced en-dashes, and link not out.
  • Fixed.
• "at Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore in the same year" usually would say "at the Gaddafi...". Apply throughout.
  • Done.
• " at Gaddafi Stadium, in third of the 3 match Test series " -> avoid repeating yourself, so "at the same venue, in the third of the three-match Test series..."
  • Done.
• " He has made 24 centuries including four double centuries.[10]" you already said the 24 centuries thing in the first paragraph of the lead, and I would expect double century to be hyphenated.
  • Done.
• "He holds the world record for the most number of runs in a calendar year" presumably you mean in international Test cricket, or do you mean of any player playing anywhere in the world in any format?
  • Added "In Test cricket".
• "he was named the Wisden Cricketer of the Year" one of. They usually name five if I recall correctly.
  • Done.
• " Inzamam-ul-haq." -> " Inzamam-ul-Haq."
  • Corrected.
• " list of leading century-makers" no need for "leading".
  • Removed.
• "Yousuf has made 7 centuries at home grounds and 8 at other venues." seven, eight.
  • Done.
• "played only three" remove "only".
  • Removed.
• "all against England during 2006-2010," see note above about year range phrasing.
  • Done.
• "Meaning" entries in table don't need a full stop.
  • Removed.
• B/F doesn't sort correctly (and you could just call it Balls).
  • Fixed.
• The 104 v India, really his "373"rd match?
  • Changed to 58.
• Avoid the space between scores and superscript notes.
  • Removed.
• You have "Forfeit" in the table but not in the key.
  • Done.
• Faislabad->Faisalabad.
  • Corrected.
• Is ESPNcricinfo a publisher or a work? Check the formatting of it in your links and refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed. ZiaKhan 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• formarly->formerly.
  • Done.
• "Yousuf's first ODI century came", no need for 'ODI', since you have already stated that.
  • Done.
• "his position in the all-time lists for making centuries is tenth overall in both Tests and ODIs". This statement needs clarity.
  • Fixed.
• "eight opponents"->eight different opponents.
  • Done.
• Inconsistency in "Venue" column.
  • Fixed.
• You have used "Draw" in the key but represented the same as "Drawn" in the "Results" column.
  • Corrected.
• You must use ESPNcricinfo for the "work" parameter. ESPN EMEA is what you should use for the "publisher" parameter.
  • I don't think this is necessary.
    • You had earlier used "ESPNcricinfo" in the publisher parameter. It must be used in the "work" parameter. Only the "Publisher" parameter is optional and you don't need to mention if the website is a self-publishing one. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your concerns are addressed by Astronomyinertia! ZiaKhan 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why some of the ref titles are italicised.
  • Fixed.
• B/F – denotes balls faced -> Denotes his position in the batting order.
  • Link "balls faced" and if possible also link batting order.
    • Done.
• "However he has made the most number of international centuries for Pakistan". You don't need to explain this again, because it's the caption given for the image.
  • Removed.
• "When sorting by score, 102 not out is better than 102 so it should sort above it". This comment made by TRM is still not addressed.
  • Done. ZiaKhan 13:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The prose part of this article generally appears to be weak and is certainly not upto FL standards. Given the number of concerns, I may have to oppose this list at the moment. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did some copyediting and reorganization in the article. I think it needs to be reviewed again. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ZiaKhan 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

I'm convinced with the prose but still there are a few issues:

• Unlink the second occurrence of "runs" in the first para.
• Since you've already used the Cricinfo link for "List of Test and ODI centuries" as a part of specific references in the list, there is no need to specify it again and distinguish them as "General" and "Specific" ref.
• Is he retired form T20I? If not, the sentence "but failed to score a century" must be rephrased. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed all three points, I hope. Bencherlite^Talk 08:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "His 24 centuries include 4 double century knocks as well." – This is definitely not encyclopedic language.
• In the lead you use "not-out" and then in the table later, "not out": be consistent.
• The first ODI result: "Lost." has a full-stop, but none of the others do.
• The "No." column and the date column disagree on the ordering for his Test centuries: this can't be right.
• Some clarification is needed on the "match number" column: is this the number of the Test/ODI, the number of Tests/ODIs he had played to that point, or the number of Test & ODIs he had played to that point, or something else?
• Is the "No." column really the best to define as the row scope? Harrias ^talk 12:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. ZiaKhan 16:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look through after the work by Bencherlite, and the prose is vastly improved. I still have some concerns in the table with the inclusion of the "match number" I still think this is not sufficiently explained in the key. A minor point is that the key lists "S.R." while the table has "S/R". Harrias ^talk 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. ZiaKhan 16:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of piping the Tippeligean and Norwegian Football Cup I would use the full links to give a bit context to the reader. Also as you refer to it as the top league some readers may mistake that for the real name, so best to unripe the links
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Since it has only spent 1978 at a lower tier." -> It has only spent one season outside the Tippleigean since, which was in 1978.
  • Fixed. The reason I keep using "top league" is because of a name change from First Division from 1991, after which the First Division became the second tier. Thus using the term Tippeligaen for 1978 would be incorrect. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The best result is reaching the quarter-finals of the 1996–97 UEFA Champions League[1] and co-winning the 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup." I'm not sure best result is correct, as you can't compare these two achievements, as one is a win and the other is a quarter-final berth.
  • Reformulated to make more sense. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Harald Martin Brattbakk is 151 goals the club's all-time top scorer..." This sentence does not make sense
  • Should now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Odd Iversen holds the game record of 6 goals and the season record of 30 goals." -> Odd Iversen holds the record for most goals in a single match and season, with 6 and 30 respectively.
  • Corrected. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "John Carew is the club's most expensive sale, being sold to Valencia for 75 million Norwegian krone in 2000." The club received their highest transfer fee for John Carew; they received 75 million Norwegian krone when he was sold to Valencia in 2000.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK
  • Gone. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don' think you need the message above every section stating what it is, its redundant as the section headers do that job
  • I've removed them where redundant, but sometimes they add necessary definitions (such as time period or limiting to the top league). Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The tables fail MOS:DTT, you need to add row and col scopes to them. Also they are a bit bare, do you not have information, for different cup competitions, like Norwegan Cup, Europe etc, so it can be formatted like the appearances table in the Liverpool list?
  • I've added for European matches. No statistics exist for the cup, so I have left that out. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Caps in the appearances table should be changed to appearances as that is what header states
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid use hash as a table header per MOS:HASH
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Images could do with alt text
  • Added alt texts. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to link Hibernian twice in record defeats section
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In the streaks sections, do you not the have information for losing streaks? Its not exactly neutral with just winning streaks at the moment
  • I agree that it is not neutral, but I have not been able to find statistics for losing streaks. Had I found it I would have added it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• likewise in wins/draws/losses in a season, would be a good idea to have lowest points total in a season
  • I presume my thought when creating the article was that it would be comparing apples and bananas, as Rosenborg has had an 4-game season in 1932 and a 30-game season lately. However, I have added the relevant information. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Again attendance section its one sided with highest totals only, would add lowest attendances as well for neutrality.
  • A bit limited number of sources available, but I've found a few and added those. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Bit curious about the league away attendance how is that a record and verifiable?
  • The bottom table in the reference contains a list of "the most attended RBK away games in Norway". Ranks 1–10 are cup finals, while the 11th place is a league match. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ref 22 needs an author
  • Added. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ref 23 the scoreline needs an en dash
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• you have both rec sport soccer statistics foundation and RSSSF in the refs, be consistent, ideally the first as acronyms should be spelled out
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• would also spell out uefa as well
  • Ditto. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• One more comment, would add a total column to the appearances and goalscorers tables, do give more context to the reader. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Good idea. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Space needed in "thequarter-finals" towards the end of the first paragraph.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "has play 416 league matches". "play" → "played".
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The tables in the Players section should be sortable by last name, not first name. The second one isn't sortable at all, which is a surprise. It would be nice, especially given the presence of sortability in the first table.
  • All tables are now sortable and all players are sorted by surname. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Goalscorer: "A asterisk" → "An asterist"? Also, this table isn't sortable either. Neither is the next one. What was the basis for determining which tables to have sorting for, and which not to?
  • Fixed. See above comment. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Most-winning: "as well as the years they player took the titles." "they" → "the".
  • Corrected. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• UEFA is fully spelled out in reference 9, but not in any of the other refs. To me, the best way of handling this is to spell it out consistently, but this creates a lot of annoying work. An easier alternate method is to spell out the first usage of UEFA in ref 1, with the abbreviated version in parentheses immediately afterward; once done, it's okay to leave UEFA in the other refs. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All spelled out for consistency. Thanks for the feedback. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could consider making the lead image a little larger, I think up to 300px or so?
  • Sure. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You link the 1960 cup but not the 1932 cup. There may not be an article yet but you should be consistent I think.
  • Not quite sure why I hadn't linked that. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "winning it in its inaugural season" presumably you mean the club winning the league in its first season, at the moment it's unclear what "its" relates to, the club or the league (and the league was operating before that season....)
  • Should be accurate now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "win is 17–0 against Buvik in 2003; the league record " in what competition?
  • Specified. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "season when it had only won a single match" -> "season having won just a single match."
  • Thanks. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Better to pipe link Undefeated season to Perfect season#Association football.
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "He also holds the most titles, " not really, I don't think individuals get "titles", the clubs do, the players just have then honour of playing in a league or cup winning team.
  • Replaced titles with honors. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The club received their higNorwegian Premier Leaguehest transfer..." second sentence of lead using "It is..." whereas here you use plural...
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Norwegian Premier League[11][12][13]" would prefer a colon after League (and similarly for the others).
  • Added. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Eggen caption needs a full stop.
  • A bit embarrassing missing with so many captions, but they should all be fixed now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Our 2008 Intertoto cup article says Braga won, not that Rosenborg shared it with them... This probably needs a note here.
  • Note added. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strand's caption needs a full stop.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So does Johnsen's.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure of the necessity to relink things in the same section (e.g. you link Iversen three times in quick succession in the goalscorers section.
• "An asterist (*)" that's asterisk.
  • Gee, the last reviewer told me to replace the x with a t :P Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Most-winning section, I think it should say it's the number of times a player has won a title with the club.
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Winsnes caption needs a full stop.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• First UEFA match: - which competition?
  • Added. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In Europe table, anchor the total row so it doesn't "sort".
  • Got the opportunity to learn some new syntax today too. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "are from the 1967 season." not really, you mean they only take into account matches from the 1967 season onward.
  • Yes, indeed it would be odd to only have attendance statistics from one season. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Things like the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation aren't works, they're publishers, so they shouldn't be in italics.
  • Fixed. I've left the two newspapers in italics. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]