Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2011

• Four lead paras is a little excessive.
• "Award recipients included " include - it's still current, right?
• Just for You is a dab link.
• Boyz II Men caption needs a full stop.
• Fanmail -> FanMail.
• Sisqo is missing a diacritic.
• Isley Brothers -> The Isley Brothers.
• Blige caption needs a full stop.
• Benet missing a diacritic.
• No need for Category:Grammy Awards since you have a more specific Category:Grammy Awards for rhythm and blues.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have adressed all of your concerns. Crystal Clear x3 22:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• no dabs
• check the external links please. The connection to nationalarchives.gov.uk timed out on me
• References are missing the locations
• Hosptial Apprentice? Should that be Hospital Apprentice?
• Regarding the rank column, is this the rank at the time the VC was awarded? Maybe a note makes this clear.
• "Died of his wounds" should end on a full stop like the other notes

Nicely done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Archives works for me. Does it work for you now? Might have been temporary? I've fixed the typo, added locations and a note about ranks. In terms of references I don't think that is the case, I think it would be counter-productive in this case to be honest. All of the people are listed alphabetically with rank in the last 14 pages of one of the books. The ref names would have about 100 people in even a two-page ref name. In that sense I don't think it is needed here. Every item is referenced to the general references. It has been ok for previous lists though has it now become necessary? Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, the link now works fine. Regarding the citations, as I said, this was the feedback I received while working on the Knight's Cross lists. Let's see what the other reviewers have to say. However, I have to admit that enforcing this on me was actually beneficial. I found a number of inconsistencies and minor errors by going over the lists and citing every entry. This may not be necessary in this case since the number of VC recipients is smaller than the number of KC lists. Oh thinking about this while a type, this list is by nature not complete. Unlike the KC the VC is still being awarded so you should consider how potential new entries are added and sufficiently cited. Just a thought! Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "for saving his brother, Lieutenant Hugh Gough. Hugh Gough...". Try not to have this repetition from one sentence to the next. Honestly, I even think this could be a single sentence.
• Minor, but a comma after John Gough would be nice.
• Can we get a dash in the section heading (A-F)?
• The comma after "Indian and Nepalese convention is for the family name first and the given name second" would be better served as a semi-colon.
• References 4 and 6 appear to be identical apart from a semi-colon; any chance they could be combined? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done those thanks. Woody (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The National Archives links to a list of national archives, it could be more specific.
• Can you reference the notes?
• Ref 12, the government isn't a work, it's a publisher.
• I'm not 100% sure but when using author names in repeated refs, as long as there's no ambiguity, I think you can just use surnames...

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved the archives link to external links, I didn't use it when creating this list. I've referenced the Chavasse note as that was a specific one but the other two cover many people as a generic situation. I don't see how I could cite each one using the notes format. For ref 12, it was created by the New Zealand Government but published by Scoop a news site, which is why it is in the publisher field. Should it be switched or Scoop removed, I'm not sure what to do in this case? In terms of the repeated refs I thought as long as it was consistent, there isn't an issue. I'm happy to switch but I don't see a particular need here. Thanks for the comments, Woody (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Referencing notes is tricky, I always have to look at WP:REFNOTE. I would tend to use the original publisher of the work, in that case the NZ government, but it's not a huge deal. As for the repeated names, like you say, no need to switch. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Switched the publisher now, thanks. Woody (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "he annual Woldcon" shouldn't that be Worldcon? The article it links to makes no mention of a Woldcon.
• "In the 3 years that the award has been active, 16 works from 10 series" -> "three years ... , sixteen from ten..."

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed. --PresN 20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "List A" in the second sentence.

• Done.

• "appearance" "appeared" repetitive.

• Changed second use to "played".

• Links for Natwest trophy and C&G?
• "of the competition..." ah, is this the same competition with different branding? Perhaps a note, or something for the non-expert?

• Added a note to this effect.

• Timothy Walton is a dab page.

• Fixed.

• Do you "take" a stumping or do you "make" it?

• Good point, you make it. Have added it in, although it might be worth reworking slightly?

• Maybe worth noting only three non-Englishmen in the list.

• Added a sentence, though it isn't very exciting!

• Can we consider making the table accessible with row and col scopes? User:RexxS is usually a diamond geezer for this kind of thing.

• Pretty sure I've managed this now: I had concerns before due to the emboldening, but with the "plainrowheaders" option, I got around that. Harrias ^talk 08:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason the captain's table is centrally aligned within the article?

• No, it's now left-aligned, like the rest of the article.

• Not keen on a red-linked category.

• It's now blue.

• Daily Telegraph should be The Daily Telegraph.

• Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments: I've had an initial quick run through your points, and will come back to the others later. Harrias ^talk 19:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "closely followed by Jonathan Kent who made eleven appearances." Minor, but a comma would be nice after the name.
• "Players are initially listed in order of appearance, where players made their debut in the same match, they are initially ordered by batting order." Two things. First, the first comma would be better as a semi-colon. Second, "ordered by batting order" is a touch redundant. That could use a different term.
• One more minor one: reference 1 could use a PDF designation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been almost two weeks and there's no response here or above for a couple of TRM's comments. Not that these are the most important things in the world, but it would be nice to see them addressed all the same. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I've been pretty busy in RL lately, and let this slip through the cracks. I've addressed all of your points now, and I believe the only one outstanding from TRM is the row and col scopes, which I will look into, but I'm no expert in that yet myself. Harrias ^talk 08:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed

• Music video is more about short form videos to promote singles

fixed

• Rhythm Nation is a song. I think you mean Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814.

fixed (but I've left the title unlinked and as Rhythm Nation 1814 since its most likely a video from her 1989 tour and because Rock On The Net simply lists the name as that.)

• I think {{n/a}} would be better than dashes in empty cells

done

Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inout. I believe I have corrected all the problems you pointed out. If there are anymore please let me know. Crystal Clear x3 02:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rock on the Net is unreliable. Use [6] as the general ref and replace other ref(s)

done

• You cannot simply remove links if they are dead. I have found many dead Grammy.com links at the wayback machine.

Thanks.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Should use the spaced en-dash, not spaced hyphen between artist and song title in the table.

fixed

• Same for year ranges, although in the prose I'd prefer to see just "In 1984 and 1985".

fixed

• "a musical program must be" program? I thought we were talking about videos?

fixed

• "It was then subjected to another title change..." -> "It was renamed in..."?

fixed

• "The Grammy Award for Best Short Form Music Video recipients include the artists, directors, and producers ..." not in 1984 or 1985...!

fixed

• "The Girlie Show - Live Down Under';" is that semi colon needed?

fixed

• "award winner for directing the music video," which one is "the" music video?

done

• Avoid all caps in the ref (e.g ref 3).

fixed

• Rolling Stones are The Rolling Stones.

fixed

• Comma needed between Hammer and Don't.

fixed

• Image captions that are complete sentences need full stops (e.g. Sting's caption).

fixed

• Beach Boys is The Beach Boys.

fixed

• And once again, White Stripes -> The White Stripes.

done

• Don't have see also links for things you've already linked in the article.

done

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have corrected all of the above issues. Crystal Clear x3 21:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "In order to quality" should be "In order to qualify".

done

• "Between 1984 and 1985, this accolade was originally known as Best Video Album. It was renamed in 1986, being awarded as Best Music Video, Long Form." This seems a bit clunky and doesn't read well in 2 sentences, try "From 1984 to 1985, the accolade was known as Best Video Album, but in 1986, it was renamed to Best Music Video, Long Form."

done

After that, consider my vote a support. Great work. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Award-winning albums have been performed by Mexican artists more than any other nationality" - albums aren't really "performed"

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the captions should have a full stop

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The general ref only goes up to 2008

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the general reference only covers from 2000 to 2008, I added references for 2009 and 2010. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These refs should be placed in the ref column. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "to established duos or groups" just noticed this. What does "established" really mean? What are the criteria for being "established"?

Fixed, it was a mistake, in the guidelines it does not say established. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5 is in Spanish, should be noted as such.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 19, lose the leading zero on 08 September.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be self-referential (This list of tallest buildings in Austin ranks...) It's almost the same as "This is a list of talles buildings in Austin", which was done away with a couple of years ago. The cat article doesn't begin "This is an article about cats" or "This article about cats describes...."
• "56 floors", "56 floors", "21 skyscrapers" need no breaking spaces
• "more than 30" --> "more than thirty", "in the past 3 years" --> "in the past three years"
• "Multiple buildings proposed in Austin could possibly finish in the top 12 if constructed." top 12 of what?
• "The city is going through a second building boom, with a multitude buildings already built, under construction, approved, or proposed in the past 3 years." Both statements need fixing to a specific date or rewriting ("Between 2008 and 2011" or something for the second one, perhaps)
• William B. Travis State Office Building doesn't have a year of completion in the table
• Something's up with the sorting with the year and rank. After clicking the year column a couple of times, and then Rank, the rank gets sorted either as 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 46, 44, 42, 4, 38, 37, 36, etc, or 1, 10, 11, 12 ... 19, 2, 21, 22 ... 3, 30, 31, 33, etc. It only happens after clicking the year column first.. perhaps it's to do with that empty cell

Neutral for now. Not too bad, just a bit of cleanup. I'm assuming the refs are all okay as they have been in previous tall building lists. Haven't checked the image Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially Complete: I have fixed most of your concerns. Unfortunately, however, I could not find a completion date for the William B. Travis State Office Building. Also, what do you mean by "a non breaking space" and how do you fix that? Sorry, I just have kind of a low html editing skill (I'm only 11 :-/)TheAustinMan (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't go telling people that if I were you. A non breaking space means that at screens where the 56 is at the end of the line, it puts it at the next line so the following word is next to it, not separated. Instead of a regular space, type & nbsp;, so you have 56& nbsp;floors (no spaces -- don't know why "nowiki" won't work Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Forgot to add -- I'm guessing by your name you're from Austin, can't you go to the State Office Building and see if there's a plaque on the wall or something? That should be okay as a primary source. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I fixed your concerns. I added the non-breaking spaces, and I found a link for the year of completion for the William B. Travis Building (1985). I tried sorting the years and rank and few times, and it seems like its all in good order. If the problem with the sorting persists, then I'm not sure what's going on then. If you have any more concerns, please state them. TheAustinMan (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It might also be useful to have image mapping for the first two photos (thy skylines), which I can do if you don't know how, as long as you tell me what all the buildings are. If not, at the very least I'd like the image captions to state which buildings are which, from left to right, and from which compass direction they photographs were taken. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

400px

Well I don't know how to map images, but I'll give you the info. I'll provide you wikilinks, if any, so you can check with them to see if they match. You can also search them up on Wiki Commons. I'll go left to right with the descriptions below:

• The first sizable building on the left is AMLI II, or the short one on the left.
• The building sticking up above it (with the red "trimming") is One American Center
• The prominent building on the left half of the image, the tall gray/blue one, is W Austin Hotel and Residences
• Smack dab in the middle (the blue one) is the Frost Bank Tower
• The apparent tallest one in the image is The Austonian.
• Overlapping the Austonian is The Ashton
• The Ashton itself seems to overlap 100 Congress (the one with the triangle face)
• On the furthest right with the staircase design is One Congress Plaza
• This photo was taken in Butler Park, facing a north or northeasterly direction

400px

• Furthest left with barely any lighting on is Spring (building). It's the green one.
• Sneaking behind Spring is The Monarch.
• Next right is a building that has a semi-circular top. That's 300 West Sixth.
• After that is a building with a bunch of antennas and red lights. That's One American Center.
• Moving in front of One American Center is the Chase Bank Tower. (It's black and has a white top).
• Next right is 360 Condominiums. It is probably the building that takes up the most photo space out of all the others.
• The brightest building in the image (next right) is the Frost Bank Tower.
• The building with the green lights is AMLI II.
• The only building under construction in the picture is W Austin Hotel and Residences.
• The next building (with the crown lighted in blue/white) is The Austonian.
• The building who's color is crimson-brown is The Ashton.
• The Ashton overlaps 100 Congress.
• The building with the blue lighting around its borders (like an outline) is One Congress Plaza. It has the moon directly above it.
• The next building is San Jacinto Tower.
• The building behind S.J.T. that has a bundle of red lights on top is Four Seasons Residences.
• This image was taken from Lou Neff Point, facing an ENE direction.

TheAustinMan (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll get on this later. I've hidden the pics for now.. Probably not best to have two big pics in the middle of an already lengthy page at FLC. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While I love the mapped skylines, the second one means the table (on my screen) is really constrained horizontally. Not ideal.
• Might also be worth saying which direction (left to right e.g. north-east to north or whatever) these panoramas show.
• "of varying statuses. " what does that really mean?
• Read the first para of the lead and count how many times "building" is used. Makes the prose repetitive and dull.
• Any reason why the Scarborough Building isn't linked in the lead?
• Second para, count the "Austin"s... I guess eight? Again, needs some work to make the prose less repetitive.
• "in the top 12 of Austin's" why top 12? Mostly it's top 10. Just curious.
• "fifth in height if completed." in US or just Austin?
• Sorting by name, I'd expect 21 Rio to sort before 100 Congress. Use the {{sort}} template.
• Frost Bank Tower - "Known as the first skyscraper" - well either it is or it isn't. Which is it?
• "One Congress Plaza was ..." caption needs a period.
• Be consistent when linking the Austonian. Sometimes you say "The Austonian", sometimes "the Austonian" and sometimes you just link "Austonian".
• Don't mix date formats in the references. Either all yyyy-mm-dd or human-readable.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh hey Mr. Rambling Man. Thanks for your comments. I fixed some of them, but the majority I'll work on later. TheAustinMan (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One dablink
• I appreciate that you want the various buildings seen in the images, but 400px is a bit excessive. Could you reduce it a little? Maybe 275–350px?
• Is there any point in making the rank column sortable, when it sorts in the same order as height?
• Year→'Year built' or 'Year erected'
• "If built, will take all titles The Austonian has" - this makes it sound a bit like a real estate takeover. Surely the only "title" that is exchanged is 'Tallest building'?
• "Emporis.com" should be "Emporis" or "Emporis Corporation"
• Dates should all be formatted one way. YYYY-MM-DD or Day Month Year or Month Day, Year, but not a mixture. I would suggest the first or third format, as the second is British English.

• The note should be source with inline citations, not in-prose ELs.
• Also the last reference is a bare URL. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been fixed. TheAustinMan (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "SkyscraperPage" → SkyscraperPage.com. Skyscraper Source Media

• This still needs to be addressed.

• Oh, sorry. I didn't notice that concern. But yes, its been resolved. TheAustinMan (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove space before reference 1.
• "with a multitude of buildings proposed or were constructed." The "were" is clogging up the flow of this sentence.
• A couple of the notes in the main table are lacking periods at the end. They should likely have them, especially if there's one at the end of "Tallest all-hotel building in Austin." The ones without periods have a similar structure and should be handled in a similar manner.
• Timeline of tallest building: "This list includes buildings who have held the title of the tallest building in Austin." Buildings aren't people, so using "who" in this context is inappropriate. Try "that" or "which" instead.
• Is there a cite anywhere for "Residents' fears of losing views of the state capitol kept buildings shorter than it for nearly a century"? I don't see one here or in the table.
• Photo caption: "Since then, it has been surpassed by 16 other buildings." There are 17 buildings now taller than it, so I assume this refers to when it was knocked down to the second-tallest in Austin. The problem is that the caption isn't that clear; it only refers to when it was completed and how long it was tallest, without a date when it was first surpassed.
• Second word of See Also section heading should be without the capital letter.
• Why is Skyline capitalized in the one note?
• Is the one website Skyscraperpage or SkyscraperPage? The references, and note/EL, give the name two different ways, which creates an inconsistency. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I have resolved your concerns. For your 5th concern, I simply erased it, because there was no source I could find. Cheers. TheAustinMan (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are there two images in the introduction? It seems like one should be sufficient, especially given that they seem to be taken from a similar vantage point.
• Is there a panorama shot of the Austin skyline that could be added to the article, below the Table of Contents? See List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia for an example.
• As with List of tallest buildings in Mobile and List of tallest buildings in San Diego, it would be great if an image could be added for each building in both the main Tallest buildings list and the Timeline; you can add a new "Image" column between the "Name" and the "Height" columns. It appears that many of the buildings in the city have images (see commons:Category:Downtown Austin, Texas, and adding more images would be be especially useful for the buildings that don't have their own articles. For buildings that do not have an image, just add an em-dash ({{sort|00|—}}) to the empty cell.
• The height column shouldn't have "ft" and "m" written out in every cell. I realize that you are using the convert template, but including the measurements every time is redundant. Just use the measurement in feet followed by the conversion in meters (for example, "683 (208)" for the Austonian).
• If possible, a coordinates column should be added after the Year column (this applies to both the main Tallest buildings list and the Timeline). See WP:COORD and Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. You can use the GeoLocator tool to find coordinates for the buildings; let me know if need help with this.
• The "Year built" column should be titled "Year", as you have already described what it means in the introductory paragraph of the list. "Year built" is also vague, as typically buildings take several years to be built.
• The "Rank", "Height", "Floors", and "Year built" columns should all be centered. In addition, in the "Notes" column, every entry that does not contain text and just contains references should be centered as well.
• Rename "Tallest buildings under construction and proposed" to "Tallest proposed", as there are no under construction buildings in the list.
• In the Tallest buildings under construction and proposed section, why is the "Year" column filled with "Proposed"? And do any of these buildings have estimated dates of completion? If so, they should be listed.
• In the Tallest buildings under construction and proposed section, all empty cells should have centered em-dashes (use the code {{sort|00|—}}).
• In the Tallest buildings under construction and proposed section, the note "Table entries without text indicate that information regarding building heights, floor counts, and/or dates of completion has not yet been released." needs to be revised. All the buildings do have floor counts, and the use of "and/or" is discouraged. I would suggest: "Table entries with dashes (—) indicate that information regarding building heights or dates of completion has not yet been released."
• In the Timeline, it would be great if a "Street address" column could be added (see List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia), as that is standard for lists of tallest buildings.
• I know this contradicts a reviewer above, but fragments in the Notes column should not contain periods. Since most of your statements are phrases, they do not need periods - use semicolons to separate fragmented ideas, and only use periods if there is a complete sentence. For example, Spring should read Tallest building in the West End district while 360 Condominiums should read Stood as the tallest residential building in Texas until the Austonian surpassed it; the building was originally planned shorter, but more floors and units were added.
• The building was originally planned shorter, but more floors and units were added sounds a little awkward. What about The building was originally designed to be shorter, but more floors and units were later added?
• The Austonian is the tallest residential building in Texas and west of the Mississippi River and tallest building in Texas outside of Houston and Dallas → Tallest residential building in the United States west of the Mississippi River; tallest building in Texas outside of Houston and Dallas (don't need to write it as a complete sentence, and don't need to repeat building name)
• Shouldn't the T. Stacy and Associates Hotel & Condo Tower have its own article?
• I think you should remove all information about skyline ranking; I have been going back to remove it from older featured lists, as it is very subjective. You can mention instead that the city has more high-rises than any city in Texas besides Dallas and Houston. You should also probably mention that the city is home to 118 high-rises with 3 more under construction, per this Emporis source.
• The Tallest under construction and proposed section should have the same cutoff as the main Tallest buildings list (pick either 180ft or 250ft).
• Don't use the word "currently" in prose; use "As of May 2011" instead ({{As of|2011|05}})
• In the Timeline, I don't think you need the sentences All buildings that have claimed the title have always been at least 300 ft (91 m) tall. Currently, The Austonian holds the distinction of the tallest building in Austin, and has been doing so since 2010. These facts are both easily determined by looking at the timeline.

• Overall, good job with this list! Cheers, Rai•me 00:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially Complete: I have worked out most of your concerns, the rest of the coords and all the centering will be worked out later. To answer your question, the T. Stacy Tower does not have a page because the first time it was created (a few years ago), it was deleted due to a consensus that the project was canceled, and that it was non-notable due to the lack of verifiability. (Click for discussion) It was created later, but it was deleted once again according to the Speedy Deletion Criteria G4, in that quote, "Essentially the same as the previous version. The additional sources in this version are fora and not RS." The project, once canceled, has been moving forward with plans again, but I still think it's wise to wait until later. Also, I would like to say that I think a coordinates column would be better in the timeline than a street address because the coordinates also appear in the other list. TheAustinMan (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, how do you do (| align="center") with cells that have (rowspan=2)? TheAustinMan (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you should use rowspan=2 if it means that the "Rank" column cannot be sortable. It is important that that column in particular be sortable so that readers can return to the default ranking settings after sorting other columns. Just use #= for buildings that have the same height, and note in the lead that "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings." As for the above, I definitely agree with your reasoning behind the T. Stacy Tower - if the article has already been deleted twice, I don't think it should be recreated a third time until after the building has begun construction. As for the timeline, I think that both a street address and a coordinates column should be included, as that has been the standard for other recently promoted lists. My apologies for linking the Philadelphia timeline as an example, as it hasn't yet been updated with a coordinates column; List of tallest buildings in Mobile is a better example. The street address column is generally important because buildings that have changed names multiple times can become more identifiable by their street address than their current name. Here are a few more final comments:

• The Image column should not be sortable, and 100px images are a little large - I would recommend 75 or 80px. Each image should also contain alt text.
• The dashed entries in the image column and the coordinates column should be centered. The Height column and the cells in the Notes column without text in the "Tallest proposed" section should also be centered, as should the Height, Years as Tallest, Reference, and Coordinates columns in the Timeline. (You were probably already going to do this, but I thought I would point it out just to be sure)
• In the "Tallest proposed" section, you can remove the Status column, as the section header implies that the status of each project is "proposed." Although, looking through some of the references, it appears as through some of the buildings have been approved (see the Emporis ref for the Hotel Van Zandt), so if this is the case the section should be retitled "Tallest approved and proposed" and the projects that have already been approved should be marked as such in the Status column. SkyscraperPage doesn't differentiate between approved and proposed projects, so you should only use Emporis or other sources for this information.
• The two notes in the "Tallest proposed" section are fragments, not sentences, so they shouldn't have periods.
• The first sentence of the introduction, Austin, Texas, is the home to a number of skyscrapers and high-rises built, under construction, or proposed, could use some polishing. It is confusing to say the city is home to many under construction high-rises when you later go on to say there are only 3, (especially when none are tall enough to meet the list cutoff). Also, a city isn't "home" to a high-rise that is only proposed and hasn't been built yet. I would reword it to something along the lines of the first sentence of List of tallest buildings in Miami: "The U.S. city of Miami, Florida is the site of 295 high-rises, 59 of which stand taller than 400 feet (120 m)."
• In the introduction, you should add references for the building heights mentioned. Also, "second tallest building" should be written as "second–tallest building" (with the en-dash). Similarly, in the third paragraph, "fifth tallest" should be written as "fifth–tallest."
• I think that the introduction should mention the fact that the Austonian is the tallest residential building in the United States west of the Mississippi (as well as mentioning that it is the tallest building in Texas outside of Houston and Dallas), as that is quite an interesting piece of information. But that is just my opinion :)
• "The third tallest is the Frost Bank Tower, which was Austin's tallest from 2004 to 2008." → "The third–tallest building in the city is the Frost Bank Tower, which was Austin's tallest structure from 2004 until 2008."
• In the second paragraph, where you talk about the building booms, you may want to give examples of buildings constructed in each "boom". For example, you could say: "Since 2007, the city has been going through a second building boom, with a multitude of buildings constructed, including the Austonian and 360 Condominiums. Additionally, over 30 high-rises are proposed for construction." (The latter fact is also taken from this Emporis ref)
• "As of May 2011, only one building is under construction in Austin over 100 ft (30 m), the Federal Courthouse" → "As of May 2011, the Federal Courthouse is the only building under construction in Austin that is planned to rise over 100 ft (30 m)."
• For this Emporis ref, use <ref name=> so that it doesn't appear multiple times in the list of references.

• Cheers, Rai•me 07:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete: I think I'm done with your concerns, but if I missed a note by accident, please tell me. :P TheAustinMan (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll do the alt text later, there's a hefty amount of alt to do and its nightfall already. TheAustinMan (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It has been over a week, but the images in the table still have no alt text. In addition, the "Coordinates" column needs to be centered in the main tallest buildings list. Cheers, Rai•me 03:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete: The alt text has been added and the coordinates column has been centered. TheAustinMan (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Within the references on some occasions Churches Conservation Trust is wikilinked (eg 6,8,11...) but on others it is not (eg 1,4..).
• In the description of St Lawrence Broughton Eligius points to a dab page - I assume Saint Eligius is intended?

Apart from these it appears to be will written, illustrated and laid out. Columns sort as expected and it is well referenced.— Rod ^talk 15:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting those. Both fixed (completely, I hope). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One too many words in "which was built in in 1876–78."
• St John the Baptist Mongewell: "near the The Ridgeway long-distance path." Remove first "the"?
• St Mary Capel-le-Ferne: Minor, but a comma would be nice after Staveley's name.
• St Peter Preston Park: Again minor, but I've always thought "among" was a little less overly formal than "amongst".
• St Thomas a Becket Capel: Add "the" before 13th century? That seems to be consistent with how the rest of the descriptions are handled.
• St Mary Pitstone: "a 12-century font" → "a 12th-century font"?
• St Clement Knowlton: Another comma would be good after Narborough's name; this is similar to one of my earlier comments. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks also to you. All fixed. I'm repeatedly intrigued by the "missing" of such details, both by myself and others (should I be?). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• " built in 1876–78" not keen on built "in" a range of years, perhaps, "between 1876 and 1878".
• Table caption "year of construction" probably better to say "date" or "era" of construction here.
• Our article on Purbeck marble has Marble capitalised. Similar for Bath stone. (I've probably said this before....!)
• Elsewhere I've seen the Nativity referred to as The Nativity.
• Not sure you need all the See also's when you have a template specific for this purpose.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've fixed the first four points. But I'm not sure about the See also section and the template/navbox. I agree that they duplicate each other, so for the purist one "should" go. (Here I must say as an aside, that I am not a fan of such templates. I did not create this one, although I am grateful for the effort put into it by its creator.) But IMO we should be here to serve the general reader, the person who looks maybe quickly at the article, and then wants to see something similar and related. The See also section is ideal for this; obvious, quick and easy. The general viewer will not have a clue what that blue thing at the bottom of the page is "for". Even if you open it, its function is not necessarily clear (it took me some time in my early days to make much use of them, but I readily took to the See also links — perhaps I am thick). So if the presence of both causes a problem of duplication, I would go for deleting the template rather than the See also section. I am of course interested in what others think about this.

Another idea might be to condense it in the following way:

See also

For lists of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in other regions see:

• East of England
• English Midlands
• Northern England
• Southwest England

--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well like I said, I'm not sure you need them, but it's not a massive issue for me if they both stay. I prefer your idea of being as helpful as possible to the reader, so I think your suggestion above is the best solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Winter Olympics were in Vancouver" -> "were held in Vancouver".
  • Done. Courcelles 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "New events were contested in Salt Lake City; ... The 78 events in Salt Lake City..." Salt Lake City repeated quickly.
  • Done. Courcelles 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Both men and women competed at these Games, with 886 female and 1,513 male athletes attending the Games" Games overdose.
  • Fixed. Courcelles 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Athletes from 24 of ... medal; athletes from 18 won at least one gold medal.[7] Athletes from Australia and China won... 55 athletes" I know, perhaps I have a compulsion to bring this up, but how many times in a few sentences do you need to repeat athlete....?
  • Toned it down some. Courcelles 06:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The United States teams in the four-man bobsleigh event won" think a comma after teams and event.
  • Done. Courcelles 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What does FIS stand for?
  • Fédération Internationale de Ski, though, much better recognised as FIS. Courcelles
• Col widths aren't the same from section to section (in Safari).
  • They're all set at 200/175, so I'm not sure what's going on. They should be the same width, unless you're on a very small monitor. Courcelles 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In captions, I often see "pictured left" etc in italics. What do you reckon?
  • Done. Courcelles 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there snow on Madagascar's mountains?

• Occasionally on about two of them. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting to know. Hopefully the map-making-people will one day make a new map with better color scheme. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the map label, "Atsinanana" partially covers "of the" for me.

• I'm not sure how to change the coding so this issue is resolved. Would you kindly point me in the right direction? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no clue either. You could ask at one of wikipedia's help desks or at Template talk:Location map. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what you changed, but it looks good now. bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not the most intriguing starting sentence, and not sure what the current guidelines as for boldfacing in featured lists are.

• I will have a look at this. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Revising the lead is the next point on my to-do list for this article. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I revised the lead - see what you think. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me now. bamse (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a technicality: "Increased illegal logging ... placed...". I believe UNESCO "placed" and think that this should be mentioned.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you mention the French names of sites on the tentative list?

• While on the tentative list, the names are not translated but rather retain the name given in the original language by the designating country. I have just added an explanation in the text. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did not see any explanation. Can you tell me what you added? If sites on the official tentative list are in French, shouldn't they also be in French in this article's table? bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you tell me what you added? bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The names and descriptions of all tentative sites are recorded by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in the language selected by the nominating country. Tentative sites in Madagascar are named and described in French and have been unofficially translated below, along with the year each site was added to the tentative list." The tentative list on the Featured List for Spain has the entries listed in English only although they were originally entered in Spanish. Since the original-language entries are provided in the lead, I think it might add unnecessary bulk to provide them in French a second time. One option that might work better is to just provide the English translations in the lead, and then provide the French and English versions in the table. Which do you think would look better? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, missed those sentences. In my opinion, the French names should appear in the table, since those are official. As for how to organize the rest (whether to translate it to English in the table or in the lead, etc), I don't really care. bamse (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What has the Intangible Cultural Heritage to do with the World Heritage Sites? That paragraph should be removed unless there is some connection.

• UNESCO created this categorization so that world heritage beyond physical sites could be recognized and preserved. It's related (i.e. UNESCO world heritage) but not exactly the same (i.e. not physical), yet since Madagascar only has one such type of world heritage, it will most likely be overlooked by visitors to the site if it is not incorporated into the article somehow. If a similar explanation were provided here, would you find it adequate to justify the inclusion of the intangible heritage entry in the article? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't see how it belongs into a "List of World Heritage Sites" (i.e. physical sites) article. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All right. I put it in See Also instead. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "Anjanaharibe-Sud" be marked separately as it is not a new site but an extension?

• I believe it should be kept separate, since it has its separate entry on Madagascar's tentative list. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, if UNESCO treats it in the same way as completely new sites, that's fine with me. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Coordinates of "South-western Madagascar, Mahafaly country" seem incorrect. Please check others as well.

• I will look into this. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change section name: "List of sites" to "Sites" or "Inscribed sites" or something like it.

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not too fond of the "period" column in the first table, since only one of the three sites has a non-trivial entry there.

• Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You could have put the years into the description column, not too lose that information. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do when I rewrite the descriptions. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Meaning of UNESCO criteria (i...x) should be wikilinked or explained in the article somewhere.

• There is a brief mention of what those mean in the article: "criteria i through vi are cultural, while vii through x are natural". I lifted that from the Featured List on WHS in Spain. Do you have something specific in mind when you suggest using a wikilink for those? Lemurbaby (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly you could link to this or better (if it has not been done yet/ask the people at the WH Sites Wikiproject) create a redirect to this section at Selection criteria of World Heritage Sites (or a similarly named article). Without telling what these criteria mean (more than "natural/cultural"), it is pretty pointless to list them in this table, IMHO. Replacing the numbers with "natural/cultural" would convey the same information. bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh this is very good - Great thinking. I've now added the wikilink. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I thought about wikilinking the first occurence of the word "criteria", i.e. in the "Inscribed sites" section under "UNESCO data" and not all of the "i", "ii",... bamse (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference titles in French should be translated with "trans_title" parameter.

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher should be wikilinked in references when possible.

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• More categories should be added.

• I included the categories that I've seen on other World Heritage Sites articles. It might be best not to deviate from the norm, unless there is some Madagascar-specific information that needs to be included and doesn't fit in any of the existing categories. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion this list should be at least in a sub-category of Category:Madagascar. All country specific WH lists that I have seen are. For instance List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba is in Category:World Heritage Sites in Cuba which is a sub-category of Category:Cuba. If there is no Category:World Heritage Sites in Madagascar you could create this category (a good idea in my opinion) or alternatively you could put this list in Category:Madagascar or better a more specific sub-category of it (Category:Malagasy culture?). bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Added it to Category:World Heritage Sites in Madagascar. bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh! Sorry, I thought you meant categories in the tables. Thanks for this addition. I will add another. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit confused by the procedures for tentative sites. On the one hand you write, that "[tentative sites]...are under consideration by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for elevation to official status." and on the other hand "...member states can maintain a list of tentative sites that they may consider for nomination" which sounds as if the sites on the tentative list are not yet nominated. Which is correct?

• Nominated... to become an official world heritage site. So they are both correct. I will try to make this clearer. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a bit clearer now. As for the sentence: Nominations to the World Heritage list are only accepted... By whom? Possibly need some rephrasing, if what you mean is: Sites are only nominated to the WH list, if they've been listed on a tentative list. bamse (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded again - how does it sound now? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. bamse (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize that UNESCO often uses superlatives to justify inscription of World Heritage Sites. However I am not sure whether such emotional language is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Generally it is discouraged in wikipedia articles as far as I know. Examples from this list: "spectacular", "impressive", "stunning views", "extraordinary beauty",...

• Revised. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better. Possibly something could/should be done about "thrive" and "flourish" in view of NPOV. bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not essential, but I would prefer more variety in the way the "Descriptions" are started, i.e. not always: "[Name of WH site] comprises..."

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the sentence: "The construction of the palace on a rocky outcropping 1675 meters above sea level provides views of rainforests extending east to the Indian Ocean and a series of waterfalls fed by the Onive river." could be removed as it is likely not essential for the designation of the cultural site "Royal compound of Tsinjoarivo". bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The abbreviation UNESCO needs to be fully spelled out somewhere (preferably at the start), with the abbreviated version in parentheses after it.

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "renowned for their remarkable biodiversity" comes off as quite POV for the lead of a featured piece of work. I feel that should be toned down a bit.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Key: I see UNESCO Description here and Description in the table. The key should match what's in the table. If UNESCO isn't part of the heading in the table, don't put it in the key.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rainforests of the Atsinanana: "This site was inscribed on the list of World Heritage in Danger in 2010...". "Sites" is missing from this sentence.
  • I don't think so. It is really called World Heritage in Danger (without "Sites"). bamse (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be nice to spell out UNESCO in the references as well.

• I'm afraid between this and the translation of the article names in French, this may create redundant bulk in the references. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're concerned about bulk, try spelling out UNESCO only in the first reference, and then provide the abbreviation in parentheses in that ref just like in the first sentence of the article. I've seen that in several FLs with numerous cites to one abbreviated publisher. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general comment, I'm noticing the same language that Bamse mentioned earlier, and agree that it is unencyclopedic. Again, this is a POV issue that should be addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I've revised the descriptions, let me know if this works better for you. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I'll try listing it and see what happens! Lemurbaby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some WP:ACCESS work myself, and having checked through the English references to ensure that there is no paraphrasing in the table, I'm close to supporting. We could do with additional citations for the following two things though:

• The claim that Andrianampoinimerina lived on the Royal Hill, and indeed something backing up the "most notably" part.

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A link between the coup d'etat and an increase in logging.

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be a pest, but the link doesn't work. —WFC— 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for catching that. It should work now. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, —WFC— 18:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image caption doesn't require a full stop as it's not a complete sentence.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this is a matter of taste but I would link Madagascar in the lead, especially if you link Canada.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ouch, so this is a list of three sites with some others being considered? Presumably if they are turned down we'll enter into a 3b debate here?

• The sites on the tentative list don't get "turned down" per se - they are either selected by the committee for nomination to the World Heritage List or they aren't (but the committee doesn't "remove" anything from the tentative list unless it's to nominate it to the WHL). The tentative list is like a holding pen for sites until the committee decides to award WHS status to them. I'm not aware of instances where the nominating country decided to withdraw sites from the list - there's no harm in keeping them there indefinitely and that's what countries seem to prefer to do in the chance that one day, the committee members will look favorably on the site and nominate it to the WHL. So there shouldn't be any big changes for a while, and certainly not until after Madagascar gets its political situation sorted out, since it's being entirely shunned by the international community for the moment due to the 2009 coup. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of 2008, Madagascar..." it's now 2011...

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer col widths to be the same from the actual sites to the proposed sites section (in Safari they're different).

• I don't know how to do this type of coding. Could anyone provide some suggestions/help? Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 4 needs an en-dash.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 17 looks like it's missing a closing parenthesis.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where do I see MJ being part of USA for Africa being referenced?

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Lightning Seeds should be The Lightning Seeds.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Outkast->OutKast.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if a non-expert will understand "opening batsman".

• Linked to Batting order (cricket)#Opening batsmen.

• "on 19 occasions in Test cricket, and 6 times " I know you're following MOSNUM here, I'd prefer it the other way round, "nineteen occasions... six times.." but it's my own personal pref so no major trauma.

• Changed as suggested: I prefer that too.

• I like the quote but what's a "tyro"?!

• Linked to the wikitionary article on tyro.

• Link Wisden as the other Wisden link goes straight to the COTY article.

• Done.

• "he was run out on 83 by Nasser Hussain" interesting nuance of cricket. Most would expect the run out to be by an opposition player. Can we rephrase this to reflect that it was (I assume) a poor decision to run (by someone!) which ended up in Strauss being run out?

• Expanded to "he was run out on 83 by his batting partner Nasser Hussain" – how's that?

• "who he went on to replace in " can we be clear here, i.e. "who Strauss went on to replace"?

• Done.

• "match of the series against the West Indies" is there a link to that series? Same for the following Eng series vs SA.

• Done and done.

• I think we have an article for England captains somewhere you could link to? (for "as England captain in 2009")

• Linked to List of England cricket captains.

• "during an Ashes series" could link the generic "The Ashes" here.

• Done.

• "He scored his second century the following season, scoring 152..." don't repeat "scor..." here, perhaps just "... season, with 152.."?

• Replaced "scoring" with "reaching".

• "third highest total " would have thought that should be third-highest.

• Done.

• " his batting temperament suited itself to" - "his batting temperament was suited to..."

• Done.

• "he was named Man of the match." -> "named man of..."

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, sorry in the delay getting back to you! Harrias ^talk 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention Lord's being his home ground, but on the second time of mentioning it, any reason for that?

• It fits in better on the second use! I could probably reword the first instance if you think that'd work better (which it probably would I guess) – I think to be honest I didn't think about it the first time!

• I think it would fit in fine the first time and would be less strange (to me!). Just do what you've already done, a semi-coloned statement that Lord's is his home ground. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved to the first time. Harrias ^talk 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He was appointed as a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2006 as part of England's 2005 Ashes winning squad.[4]" SSurely his MBE was for more than one series... find another way to say this, unless causality is really what is being meant here. (And if this is meant to imply causality, say it explicitly.)

• He, and the whole of the rest of the England team that played in that Ashes series, were appointed MBE purely for winning the 2005 Ashes. Paul Collingwood, who played only one match of the series, and to that point, not a lot of international cricket at all was awarded one! He has also just been given an OBE, so I need to tack that onto the article too. I don't really understand what you mean by causality, that's a word above my pay grade! Harrias ^talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"who Strauss went on to replace in the team." Again, rephrase. If he was run out by the fellow, how'd he replace him on the team?

• Yup, removed the part about Hussain altogether, it obviously isn't very clear. Harrias ^talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth does English cricket team in South Africa in 2004-05 redirect to History of cricket in South Africa from 2000–01? Given there's more content in History of cricket in South Africa from 2000–01 than 2000 and 2001, perhaps that article needs a rename?

• Because southern hemisphere cricket seasons are denoted "YYYY–YY", like English football seasons; so that article refers to cricket in South Africa from the 2000–01 season onwards. Harrias ^talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

column and row scopes in the tables

• Would you make the score the row scope? Harrias ^talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking the date, but the score works, as well. Courcelles 23:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the date makes more sense. Done. Harrias ^talk 12:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Inn. denotes the number of innings in the match." This may have been missed before, but this isn't what the column is indicating. The column is indicating which innings in the match Strauss hit his century, not how many innings were in the match.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 05:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I've replied to each of them, and left a question to one. Harrias ^talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the above are correct. Some images are upright, and some are poor resolution. What do you suggest - removing the upright params and the small images? (I happen to think the Davey Johnson image adds a lot because it's hard to find pictures of players from the era, but of course I'm open to suggestions.) — KV5 • Talk • 00:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. A shame that we have images that are weaker in resolution that the upright parameter "argue" with. I guess you're complying with MOS, so there's no "technical" grounds for complaint! No worries then... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I highly agree with you. I'm always on the lookout for more images, though, so hopefully eventually we will have enough good-quality pics to remove the LQ ones. — KV5 • Talk • 02:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]