Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2012

• Image needs Alt text.

• Added. Harrias ^talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no information about 2012 season.

• As the 2012 season has not yet started, it would be inappropriate to include anything about it: this is a list of champions, not of seasons: I will update it at the end of the season, once there is a new champion, not earlier. Harrias ^talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A template at the end will be helpful.

• Added. Harrias ^talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaKhan 22:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick comment on 3b, as I'm sure someone will mention, I think the list meets this certain criteria, as the parent article could be expanded and therefore render including this information redundant.

• I think as well, given that this bridges the Twenty20 Cup and the Friends Life t20 articles, there isn't really one parent article that it would be in. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could consider adding a history section such as in this list

• Possibly, but personally I think that would be more the purview of a history section of the Twenty20 Cup and the Friends Life t20 articles, and obviously, the individual articles. I think recently we have started to see more and more lists move away from the stand-alone format, and blur the edges between list and article, which is no bad thing, but for the moment with this list, I am happy to follow the standard stand-alone list format for this. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure there is much point in listing the counties that haven't won a championship in the second table it seems redundant to me.

NapHit (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are probably right: it is something I debated with myself a few times back and forth. I'll leave it in for the moment, and if we keep this visible, just for any further comment, but if nothing more is said on the matter, I'll get rid of it in a week or so. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Given no one else has voiced an opinion either way, I've removed them. Harrias ^talk 11:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm.. this has messed up the formatting of the references a little, as the image trails down into that section: have a look and let me know what you think? Harrias ^talk 11:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you could afford to put "English Twenty20 cricket champions" in bold as you're not linking the key terms until after that.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Daily Telegraph is actually The Daily Telegraph.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do have a tiny niggling wonder if you could have something along the lines of a History section which describes the various finals, but that may be better served in a List of English Twenty20 cricket championship finals?

• As I said above, I think something like that would be better served in the parent article(s), but yes, the finals specifically would probably be better placed in a specific list of the finals: should such a page be deemed notable. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image caption probably could use (players celebrating the 20xx victory) or something to put the image into better context.

• The issue is that the photo is specifically of them celebrating their semi-final win in 2012. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could have "(pictured celebrating their semi-final win in 2012)"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Harrias ^talk 06:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps worth noting that the B&H was an ODI competition with 40(?) overs, so the shortening of the matches came about naturally since half as many overs were played?

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Friends Provident t20" looks funny to my eyes, that you link Friends Provident and then have t20 unlinked afterwards. Would consider "the 'Friends Provident t20'...".

• Done, though for consistency have also done it for the B&H, Twenty20 Cup and FLt20. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "each team was allowed two overseas players" not sure you need to repeat "overseas players".

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider linking Quota players for "overseas player". I've never heard of "quota player" but the article does a bit of a job on explaining what you mean.

• Done, nice find, I've been looking for something decent to link that to for ages! Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "qualified for the Champions League Twenty20," (I'd say who that was) and how did they get on?

• I'm not sure on this one; given that the information provided here provides an easy way to check which teams it was, it would seem slightly superfluous to list the counties in the lead, and information on how they did I would think is more detail than is needed in this list article, but you could convince me? Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's okay, it was just a "maybe" for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Essex CC isn't linked in the table.
• Which then poses the awkward question, should all the top scorers etc have their county linked?!

• Linking these two points together: good point! I have linked the counties wherever that county was not the winner or runner-up, how's it look? I'm not against linking them all if it will be a visual improvement: it does look a little random at the moment! Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link each one each time, it does look a little odd... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Harrias ^talk 06:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure that "(Ordered by..)" should have a capital O each time. (And "... Runs" and "... Wickets" etc).

• That's how they copy from the source. I'm not against changing them, but I don't see that it does much harm either way. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't really do any harm, but I tend to apply the rules of grammar to ref titles as well as article content. Although I must admit that I can't find that in MOS anywhere, so I guess it's just a personal pref... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 3 should use an en-dash, not a hyphen in the title.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) As usual, thanks for your comments. A few of my replies probably require some further thought and discussion, so I look forward to your continued input. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done The lead should really be longer than one short paragraph. Consider incorporating some material from the Officeholders section.
• Done Officeholders: "until the laters death on 2 September 1969." "laters" → "latter's".
  • Now reads "latler", which is an obvious typo. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Done Add "on" in "until his death 10 July 1986"?
• Done "and was succeeded by Nguyen Van Linh. Linh...". Try to avoid repetition like this from one sentence to another.
• Done Same goes for "Mu o i. Mu o i..." later in that paragraph.
• Done "Le Kha Phieu was Mu o i's". His what?
• Done In the heading List of General Secretaries, the List of isn't really necessary since it's obvious that a list is here. It's a bit redundant to have that in the heading.
• Done Note 2: "are ranked in a official order of precedence...". "a" → "an".
• Done Don't think that links to Ho Chi Minh are needed in both notes 3 and 4. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Check to see if all of the images have alt text. Some do, and some don't.
  • Done The Trong photo in the lead still doesn't have alt text, although the others do. If you want me to be picky, the coat of arms in the politics of Vietnam template also doesn't have it. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No pictures have alt text... This is why I don't like alt text, its confused! --TIAYN (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Explained Why isn't this list called "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam"?

Because sources commonly refer to the post as General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, or just party General Secretary.. Even party sources just call the post sometimes General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (its the same with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which is an FL, and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China articles).

• Explained "the leading Party organ on military affairs" is that a quote? if so use quote marks.

Nope, its not a quote. --TIAYN (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done "For a long period in its history, the General Secretary " I would say "in its history, the position of General Secretary..." since the "history" relates to the position itself.
• Done "and he is ranked 8th in the Political Bureau (Politburo) ranking.[2]" I'm not sure what this means, but you certainly don't need "ranked", you could just say "he is eighth in the ... ranking."

Its explained in the "Notes" section. --TIAYN (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done "he was sentenced to prison " why?
• Done "and shot to death" does that mean "executed by shooting"?
• Done Nhan Dan should be Nhân Dân, be consistent throughout with your use of diacritics.
• Done "Lê died just a couple" -> "He died two months..."
• Done "and he was succeeded " -> "and was succeeded".
• Done "and Nguyễn Phú Trọng succeeded him, but Trong" consistent with diacritics please.
• Done "№" we should use "No."
• Done "Nông Đức Mạnh"'s image seems centrally aligned.
• Done "19 January 2011 . Retrieved 23 " odd space there.
• Done "Catholic University of America" is actually "The Catholic University of America".

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (Explained) No need for the bold text in No. or Rank. Unless it's for WP:ACCESS, in which case it'd probably only apply to one column.

They are both bold because of WP:Access and I see no reason to debold them... --TIAYN (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nope, we definitely don't use bold because of WP:Access. See WP:BADEMPHASIS and WP:MOSBOLD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done "from 1951–76" don't mix words and symbols, should be "from 1951 to 1976"
• Done According to the MOS, capitalization of titles may only be done when immediately in front of the name or when referring to a unique title. Thus "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam" is correctly capitalized, while when using the shorthand "general-secretary" it should be lower-case. (see MOS:CAPS)
• Done Either link "Indochina" or even better create an article about the "Indochina Communist Party"
• Done Any reason the 7th congress is linked, but not the 6th? Seems to me they would both be highly notable.
• Done The Politburo needs a brief explanation.
• Done Perhaps make a stub for the two people without articles.
• Done "Potomac Books, Inc" should be just "Potomac Books"
• Done Everything else in the table is centered, perhaps also the images should be?

Otherwise looks good. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TIAYN (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Beginning with Badai Pasti Berlalu (1977), Chrisye began to write songs; his first songwriting credit was "Merepih Alam"." Not keen on this sentence, in particular the "Beginning with ... he began...." repetition.

• How's this?

• "over his initial solo albums" I think "early" would sound better than "initial".

• Agree. Changed.

• You don't need to link "songwriter".

• Delinked.

• You link "arrangement" after you use the term "arranged", so I'd link it first time if I were you.

• Fixed.

• "the title with the most iterations is "Cinta Kita", which has three different songs attached to it" I would rephrase this as ""Cinta Kita" has the most versions, with three."
• Ref. should be Ref(s)

• Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed most. Not sure if "version" would be right, as the three "Cinta Kita"s (sp?) have a) completely different writers/composers b) completely different lyrics and c) a completely different tempo and arrangement. The only thing they share in common is the title. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit confused by the {{incomplete list}} template at the top of the page – which songs are missing?

• The Indonesian Wikipedia has him singing Titiek Puspa's "Hidupku Untuk Cinta" solo and "Marilah Kemari" with other artists on From Us to U. The album seems to be out of print (been looking for about two years), so I am unable to verify that. As visible from the history, several songs, like "Doa Anak Negeri", were added after a new book came out (minor songs, but still met the inclusion criteria).

• The Collaborators column largely consists of empty cells, whereas almost every entry in the Song column contains two pieces of information: the song's original title and its English translation. I wonder whether it might be worth swapping them around, i.e. have the English translations of song titles in the second column, and the collaborators in a small font underneath the original titles. I feel that a reader is more likely to want to sort the table by English title rather than by collaborator anyway. Obviously this is a major change to the list, so feel free to consider it at your own discretion.

• These are generally not official translations, as many of the songs did not see international release. The translations are only to give readers who don't speak Indonesian a rough idea of what the song was about. Giving it its own column would be undue weight, in my opinion. Also, songs like "Asalkan Pilih Jalan Damai" with six or seven artists would end up very messy.

• Speaking of the Collaborators column, was Chrisye the lead artist on all the songs listed, or for some of them was he a featured artist on someone else's album?

• He was part of a group for "Asalkan Pilih Jalan Damai", "Kidung", and "Kemesraan". I could indicate this with a footnote.

• The second sentence of the first paragraph took me by surprise the first time I read it. I was thinking "Whoa, Lilin-Lilin Kecil was number 13 in what exactly?", and it wasn't until I got to the end of the paragraph that I realised what it was referring to. Looking over it a second time, it of course made a lot more sense, and it reads better as well. But I wonder whether, for the sake of first-time readers, it might be worth moving the parenthetical remark to the end of the sentence.

• Changed

• "in 1989 and 1989" Is that correct? Or should the first one be 1988?

&Yep.

• The fourth paragraph repeats the word "songs" a lot. Given the topic of the article, obviously this is to be expected, but I wonder whether it might perhaps be worth varying the prose slightly with some similar words, e.g. "tracks"?

• Trimmed.

Overall, great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! I just wish we had better free pictures of Indonesians... pretty much every field is underrepresented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The photograph of Fariz RM is a different width to all the others – using upright rather than 200px on all the images would fix this, and would give extra space on the screen for the columns of the table.

• Removed. For some reason I can't get it to work.

• This is sort of what I was referring to. Revert it if you don't like the change.

• Duh. That's good.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Every cell in the Album(s) column lists just one album, so it might be worth changing it to just Album.

• Agreed.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Were "Kidung" and "Kemesraan" featured on any albums? If not, their Album(s) cells should just say "Single only" for the sake of consistency. Also, what were the groups that released these singles actually called?

• Agreed.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did Chrisye perform as a featured artist on anyone else's songs? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• None that I've found thusfar. After Badai Pasti Berlalu he more or less stayed a solo singer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do the two different versions of "Pergilah Kasih" represent two distinctly different recordings, or is one simply an edited version of the other?

• Essentially the same except for the extra instrumentals (recorded at the same time). To be removed?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave it to you – there's doesn't really seem to be any firm consensus either way. If each entry represents a song that Chrisye has recorded, then I personally don't think that things like post-prod edits or remixes need to be included, as the singer himself hasn't actually recorded anything new. However, other editors might argue that, since the extended version of "Pergilah Kasih" was included on the album, it's worth including it on this list too.

Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, unless there is consensus otherwise I'll keep it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "52,796.800 square kilometres (20,384.958 sq mi)" waaaay too accurate, just to nearest sq km/sq mi is fine. Apply throughout the lead.
• "to major cities " just me, but don't like "major" (e.g. in what way?) so either go for "most populous cities" or just "cities".
• kilometres or kilometers?
• Suggest that instead of numerical cells being left justified, they're right justified.
• Ref 12 is in Portuguese isn't it?
• Don't really need Category:Municipalities of Brazil since that's a sub-cat of Category:Lists of municipalities in Brazil.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, except the right align comment, which I don't think is that big of an issue. Albacore (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor, but add "the" to "while smallest by population..." in the third paragraph?
• In the Municipality column, Varzea doesn't appear to be sorting in the right order due to the diacritics.
• Not a huge deal, but alt text for the non-lead images would be a nice luxury. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, alt text added. Albacore (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I can add to the above is that the Natal image still doesn't have alt text. Other than that everything from my batch of comments is fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Albacore (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see this has been mentioned above, but I do think it would make more sense to merge the area columns using the convert template, I appreciate that would be a lot of work, but having two columns seems redundant when they can be accommodated in one using the template
• WP:CONTEXTLINK frowns upon bold linking, I know this is a consequence of scope row etc, so would add plainrowheaders to wikitable sortable entry to fix the issue.

NapHit (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both taken care of. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Malmö FF have won sixteen" rephrase this
• "sixteen national championship titles and fourteen national cup titles". you should put numbers with more than one digit in numeral form (16, 14)
• "the 77th overall" should be "its", "their", "the side's" or similar
• "in the two clubs' 144 league" "two clubs" is not necessary, just "the clubs'" will do
• "Matches from the Allsvenskan play-offs held between 1982 and 1990 are not included, however matches from Mästerskapsserien held in 1991 and 1992 are included, Mästerskapsserien was held as a secondary league stage to crown the Swedish champions while the Allsvenskan play-offs were held as a cup stage to decide the champions." Rephrase this, try "These statistics do not include results from the Allsvenskan play-offs (held between 1982 and 1990), but those from Mästerskapsserien (held in 1991 and 1992) are included. The Allsvenskan play-off round was held in cup format at the end of the league season to decide the national champions, while Mästerskapsserien was a additional league stage with the same purpose." or similar
• "avoid confustion," woops, typo: confusion
• I'd move one of the images up into the "Key" section, and lose the other one: having them in the "All-time league record" section squashes the results on my monitor, causing the "First" and "Last" columns to wrap rather unattractively, which also makes the rows uneven
• I see no problems with notes or sources. Alt text is present and of a good standard.

I hope all of this is helpful. Good luck, and well done so far! —Cliftonian (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of these issues are now fixed. Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Malmö FF playing against AIK in a 2009 fixture" worth telling us who Malmo is in the shot (i.e. dark red or light blue?).

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive my ignorance, but "The club is affiliated with Skånes Fotbollförbund, " what does that mean and who are Skanes Fotbollforbund? Perhaps a slightly more detailed explanation for our non-Swedish, non-expert readers?

I added a translation. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "goalscorers against Malmö " see no reason to italicise "against" here.

Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Use {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} rather than the plain symbols, for WP:ACCESS.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check sorting of the club names. I would think that English readers would expect to see "Örgryte IS" sort with the O's and "Ängelholms FF" with the A's. Also, maybe would expect "Råå IF" to sort before "Reymersholms IK" etc. See what you think.

I can see why you would think so but they are actually correctly sorted as the the letters ÅÄÖ, in that order, are the last letters after Z in the Swedish alphabet, which is exactly like the English alphabet except for the last three. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the table is sortable, link everything every time, most particularly the seasons.

Wouldn't that be WP:OVERLINK? I don't think I understand how the sorting ability would impact? I've only removed duplicate linking where Malmö FF have only met a team in one season. The link can easily be found in the left field, independent on how the table is sorted. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, over link doesn't apply to sortable tables where, after sorting, you have no guarantee that the first item is linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what column you sort, descending or ascending, the first item will always be linked in the "First" column, all seasons are linked there, and if you sort in a way that makes the first item in the "Last" column unlinked it is available right next to it in the "First column". I don't see the problem but I'll link them all if you deem it to be necessary. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a good argument! I'll buy it. Just looks a little odd with the combo of linked, unlinked and red linked in those two cols. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! It's indeed a misfortune that not all seasons in Swedish football have an article, perhaps I'll fix that when I have some more time. Do you have any other comments? --Reckless182 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5 has (Swedish) while all others have (in Swedish), and its position in the reference looks different too.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused: how many times have they won the league? Needs to be slightly rephrased so it is understandable how many leagues were won and how many titles were claimed (as far as I can see Malmö won the league multiple times without winning the trophy, but I had to check other articles to find that out.)

I added a sentence to try to make it more clear. I also added a footnote that was missing (A) that explains the nature of the Swedish Championship title. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Malmö have a derby or other rivalry? Could these be mentioned in the lead as well?

I added a sentence to the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think italics should be used as they are in the captions. Similarly, "The Scanian Football Association" should not be in italics, although you can optionally use quotation marks to show that it is an unofficial translation, or you can just leave it bare.

Removed the italics. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise an excellent article. Nice seeing more than just English football at FLC :) (not that there is anything wrong with English football, mind you) Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the other FLCs of this nature, the wikilinks in the "First" and "Last" columns link to league season aticles, rather than the "in [country] football" articles. Would it be possible for these wikilinks to be used instead? If most of them don't exist and the result would be masses of redlinks then don't worry about it.
• "Teams with this background and symbol..." - maybe it would be worth mentioning what the current season is?

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the statement about the current season, should be OK now. For the other season links, I could change the wikilinks since all of them are blue-links but I don't see the need since almost every one of the current links are blue links. Also, the current season articles display the league season tables for a few exceptions. I could add league season links for the red-links if you believe this is better? --Reckless182 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it's better with the current linking that's fine by me, just thought I'd throw it out there for your consideration. To be honest there wasn't much in the way of faults to pick out! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image captions that aren't complete sentences should not have a full stop (e.g. the lead image).

  done

• Five paras in the lead is a little heavy, although a couple of those paras are brief. Check out WP:LEAD.

• This is an unusual page and I grant the lede is long for the average list article, but WP:LEAD is not really relevant to lists, in that the introduction to a list is not (or not only) a summary of the list. The relevant guideline is MOS:SAL which requires that the lede, amongst other things, "provides any necessary background information" and "gives encyclopedic context". Most of the lede can be said to fall under those criteria. The page addresses the intersection of chronometers and HMS Beagle. The first para gives background on chronometers, the second para gives background on Beagle and her mission, the third para gives background on chronometers on survey ships, the fourth and fifthe paras address the reasons for large numbers of chronometers on the mission. All this seems to me useful background for the reader, and you have not indicated which of these areas you think should be reduced or cut. On the contrary, all your comments so far which affect the lede require an expansion.

• Actually, we do respect WP:LEAD at FLC. You could always create a history section, or similar. The purpose of the lead remains the same, to adequately summarise the whole article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point to where there is consensus for that? I am open to suggestions that this might be done another way with reasons why it is an improvement, but I am not very open to arguments that it is against guidelines when WP:SAL says something utterly contradictory. SpinningSpark 13:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, SAL actually links to WP:LEAD. And if you look at any recently promoted featured lists, you'll see what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is astonishingly misleading to just say SAL links to WP:LEAD and just leave it at that as if SAL was deferring to WP:LEAD in every respect. MOS:SAL actually goes on to say a lot more than that: "Stand-alone lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title." If that is not the consensus, then the guideline should be changed, but guidelines are usually taken as evidence of what the consensus currently is, so I don't know where that leaves us. I took your advice and looked at the three most recently promoted articles List of Georgia Bulldogs head football coaches, List of Major League Baseball player–managers and List of Somerset CCC Twenty20 players (all placed on the FL page by you by the way). None of them could be said to have a lede that merely summarised the content of the body. All of them contain mostly material that could be described as "background information" or "encyclopedic context". I might be persuaded to do something if I was convinced it was actually of some benefit to the page. I will take another look later, but for now I am declining and will wait to see where this review is going first. SpinningSpark 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not "astonishingly misleading" (unless you're easily astonished I suppose), but I'm just one reviewer. Let's see, it's certainly not a huge deal. No need to thank me for taking plenty of time for the review, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for not thanking you. I am, of course, grateful for reviewers attention, and know from experience how time consuming it is. SpinningSpark 15:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest you link longitude in the lead.

• done

• Only the second expedition has a link?

• As far as I know. The second expedition, as well as being notable for its mission per se, is enormously famous as the journey which carried Charles Darwin during which he began to formulate his Theory of Evolution. I have not dwelled on this aspect because that story is well covered elsewhere on Wikipedia and, frankly, Darwin has naff all to do with chronometers.

• " a copy of John Harrison's H4" if you mention Harrison in the lead, consider explaining why someone would attempt to copy his work, i.e. what is his significance?

• done

• " had become highly inaccurate" highly, or just unacceptably?

• done

• "By the time of the Beagle voyages, carrying chronometers had become routine and the ship carried a large number – an unprecedented 22 were carried on the second voyage." count the use of "carry" here in one sentence... suggest a minor rework.

• done

• "Such large quantities were necessary" not an immediate logical sequitur from the previous para.

• done

• Please make sure all tables meet MOS:DTT for screen readers etc. (That means including row and col scopes where applicable).

• done

Enough to start with, will come back once these are done. Nice list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replies so far. SpinningSpark 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC) to 11:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• "80 Cornhill.[18]" this could be expanded a touch so our international readers understand it.

• Added London, although Cornhill is linked on first mention and the London location should be assumed from the headnote if not explicitly stated otherwise.

• "furthest point south " horses for courses but somehow I prefer "most southerly point".

• Agreed, missed this one on the first run through

• The Nomenclature section is a little oddly positioned as sub-section to that which precedes the sections to which it is relevant.

• Moved up one level

• " (Des. column) " but the column title is in bold, not italics. Same with the other explanations. Perhaps ("Des." column) etc?

• My belief was that this was to comply with MoS (terms in italics) but as I also think quotes look better I have changed it regardless.

• Does an en-dash under "winding" mean not known? It's not clear.

• Well it means I don't know, but not necessarily that it is not known to anybody. Would you prefer the cells to simply be left blank?

• Well, perhaps it's worth a note so other readers don't ask the same question? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems superfluous to me. The note would in effect be saying rather obviously that the article has provided no information in fields which contain no information. Do you have a suggestion for wording? SpinningSpark 22:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe. It could also mean not required, or something else. An alternative would be to have "unknown" explicitly rather than an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really against writing "unknown" in here when what we really mean is unknown to Wikipedia. It is perfectly possible that information exists somewhere, I just don't know where to find it. A chronometer expert might well be able to identify the winding from the serial numbers. Frodsham's for instance still have records on individual chronometers going back to their foundation. It is also conceivable that "not applicable" might actually be the case: while batteries are, of course, not a possibility, there is such a thing as self-winding mechanisms, although I have never heard of a self-winding marine chronometer - at least not a 19th century one. SpinningSpark 11:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Liutenant Skyring" typo.

• done

• Adventure's Z chronometer comment needs an en-dash if there's nothing to say, to be consistent.

• done

• You have two separate tables with the caption "Chronometers on first voyage (Adventure)", I'm not sure why, but perhaps I missed something obvious?

• Ultimately, the justification for splitting the table into two groups is that Parker treats them differently in his description. Although he does not explicitly state this, I gather that the first group are his officially issued chronometers. They are mounted together in the same structure and given designations for identifying them in the log of readings. The second group are provided by manufacturers, probably for the promotional value of having their product on an important mission, and do not have designations. Unlike the main group, their pocketwatch format indicates they were used as journeyman chronometers, although Parker only explicitly identifies one used for this purpose. My original concept for this article was to give each chronometer its own subsection. This was changed to tables due to a suggestion by the peer reviewer and I would not now want to revert to a scheme that another reviewer found objectionable. The current format is a compromise between the desire to have a compact table format and the need to keep extended text close the chronometers to which it applies, hence two tables at this point.

• Not entirely convinced links to major geographical entities like Chile, Peru, Australia etc are required. In fact, things like gimbal would be much more usefully linked...

• Agreed, although individual decisions could be open to opinion. Left in Melbourne, Calcutta, Madeira, Río de la Plata, Tierra del Fuego, Tenerife, Cape Verde, Rio de Janeiro, Tahiti, Galápagos Islands, Canberra, Cape Horn, Tasmania, Mauritius, Arafura Sea, Dardanelles; unlinked Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Australia. Not sure why you mentioned gimbals, it is already linked on first mention. In fact it was linked twice and I have now removed the second mention.

• Why I mentioned gimbal is that when I saw you'd lined Chile, etc, gimbal was the nearest word to it that I thought should have been linked. I missed that it was linked before. The principle was to link non-standard terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " miles (15.3 km)on " space required.

• done

• "inflation adjusted £37,300" adjusted to when?

• The template automatically adjusts to the current(ish) value - ie, to the last time the template data was updated. It could be to a specific date but I feel it is preferable to let the template take care of it, that is the point of having a template.

• Why the big col spans for info in the "Chronometers on second voyage" table when you have a Comments cell that could contain most of this information? I fear, a little, for the accessibility of this particular table since you kind-of abuse the headings etc to get in images and additional notes...

• This is due to the same compromise mentioned above in going to table format. Placing all the text in the "comments" column would push down and cause a lot of ugly whitespace, and writing it elsewhere would split it from the target chronometer. The alternative is to keep splitting the tables which is moving back towards the original layout.

• I was referring more the fact you have used a bunch of extra cells using col spans which would cause havoc with a screen reader. It would be useful to speak with User:RexxS about how JAWS for instance would interpret this particular table with its curiosities... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have left a note for RexxS and have suggested a solution in my sandbox. SpinningSpark 11:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be consistent with the captions on the tables so "on the second voyage (Beagle)" perhaps?

• Why? the other tables don't require disambiguation. The Wikipedia convention is only to disambiguate where required. We do not put a bracketed disambiguation in article titles for instance, unless it is actually needed.

• The comment isn't one about disambiguation, more about consistency throughout. If someone were just looking at the tables, then it is not immediately clear which "second voyage" you are referring to. Honestly, for the sake of consistency, this shouldn't be too troublesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But the purpose of the bracketed suffix is all about disambiguation. I'm not really getting why we need table headings at all, but have taken it on faith because DTT calls for them. If we are going to have headings, there is no reason to not comply with MOS rules on headings. The headings could be something like "Chronometers on Beagle's nth voyage", but this would be breaking the rule not to repeat the subject in sub-headings. After all, the section heading just says "First voyage" etc, there is no reason we need to then expand it in the even lower level table heading. After all, the voyages are clearly identified and described both in the lede and in each individual section so their should be no possibility of confusion. SpinningSpark 11:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I missed this earlier. You've created table captions (not headers) which the MOS asks us to, partly to identify the table to a sighted reader, but particularly to index the table to anyone using a screen reader, Some of them can call up a list of all the captions of the tables on a webpage and allow the user to go directly to that table. That functionality is enhanced by having a descriptive caption that is not too long (for obvious reason), so I'd tend to agree with Spark's conclusion (but not his reasoning) here: as long as the caption is unique and clear, it should be kept short where possible. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not arguing the caption should be too much longer, but I am arguing (for different reasons) that they should be unique. Same goal different paths... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you're not arguing that, TRM, and I apologise for sometimes using these reviews to propagate general advice to whoever happens to be reading them. I suppose I ought to collect guidance up in one place some time, but the context of an actual review works so well ... Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• RexxS, no worries, of course. I take up so much of your wiki-life by diverting folks your way, I can hardly complain. General advice is brilliant advice when most of us aren't even sure what advice we're even supposed to be asking for. As ever, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "on 13 Oct 1843." in prose, even in tables, there's no good reason to not use October etc.

• Agreed

• You have Category:Clocks and Category:Horology but the former is a less refined category than the latter. No need for both.

• Actually "clocks" is the more specific category, and marine chronometers all seem to be in that category. Not very justifiably in my opinion since chronometers can be in the form of a watch. So I probably agree that horology is the correct category, but for different reasons. I have not had much to do with choosing the categories, but while we are on the subject, the article used to be in ship categories but they were removed by another editor on the grounds that the subject is not a ship. We could equally argue that the subject is not a chronometer. We really ought to be doing something consistent here, but I don't really have a proposal.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Responses so far. SpinningSpark 17:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC) to 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Never like to see blatant repetition from one sentence to another, like in "is called a chronometer. Chronometers...". Could try changing the second sentence to "First built in the 18th century, chronometers...".

The sentences are grammatically fine and I see no problem. Your personal preference should have no bearing on the nomination. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. We're looking for elegant prose. That's naturally subjective. Blatant repetition is far from elegant. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Chronometers were first built..." to "These were first built..." SpinningSpark 11:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Chronometer makers: In Arnold's note, we have "He opened his business in The Strand in 1763, and later going into partnership with his son, John Roger Arnold, forming the company Arnold & Son." Is "forming" meant to be "formed"? Otherwise, this seems off grammatically.

Should be 'later went' - 'forming' is fine, but could be 'and formed'. Will change. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Earnshaw: Needless repetition in "Thomas Earnshaw. Earnshaw...". Don't even think there needs to be a sentence break.

Fixed. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pennington: "from" is apparently missing before the years in "Robert Pennington & Son was a partnership with his son John 1832–1842."

• Surely it is either from x to y or a range dash is used instead. SpinningSpark 12:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if you use the dash you still need the "from" beforehand. If you're uncomfortable with that, the "from x to y" format works just fine.Giants2008 (Talk) 16:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to butt in, but you really can't have a dash after 'from'. Once you use the preposition 'from' you need to use the matching 'to' like: a partnership with his son John from 1832 to 1842. A date range is best used in apposition to a noun like this: a partnership with his son John during the years 1832–1842, but never like: a partnership with his son John from 1832–1842. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Third voyage table: In the Arnold No. 138 entry, is "in" missing from "and returned to Devonport 1842."?
  • This is still in the article. Any thoughts on this? Giants2008 (Talk) 17:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• fixed. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What is intended to be sourcing the three notes at the bottom of the article? That isn't clear at the moment.

• I think it is clear enough. Note 1 is sourced to Fitzroy, as the note says, and Fitroy's claim that chronometer B was not used can be found in the citation for the line of the table to which that note refers. For note 2, reference to 1041 is sourced to Fitzroy. The non-existence of 1041 is sourced to the Greenwich ledgers, as the note says. I requested the curators there to do a search specifically to establish that fact. Basically, Fitzroy has made a typo and the note is there merely to indicate that the table is based on that assumption for scholarly honesty. The only factual claim in note 3 is sourced to Gould with a Harvard ref. The rest of the note is editorial explanation which boils down to the statement that the table may not be complete. SpinningSpark 12:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Small point, but in ref 47 there should probably be a space between chapt. and 2.3, for consistency with other cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done SpinningSpark 11:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One more while I'm here: In the bibliography, there should be a space after before Joyce's name in the details of the Frank Leahy piece. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done SpinningSpark 11:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe all the issues you have raised have now been addressed. SpinningSpark 11:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although Zaharoff wanted the University of Paris to have a right of veto over the appointment, Oxford would not accept this." – The although irritates me a bit. It would appear to imply that Zaharoff's wanting it would make Oxford more likely to accept it. Would changing the sentence to read "Zaharoff wanted the University of Paris to have a right of veto over the appointment, but Oxford would not accept this" be acceptable to you?
• "...who from April 1918 was was supreme commander of..." – was was?
• "The French regarded the appointment..." – "If an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization." (MOS:QUOTE)
• "French Quarterly" – This strikes me as probably notable. Are you sure it shouldn't be redlinked?
• "French Institute in Florence" – Could this (or part of it) be wikilinked somehow?
• "Librarian of Brasenose College, Oxford" and "Master of Christ's College, Cambridge" – Could these titles be explained or wikilinked?
• Some of the sources requiring a subscription are marked as such, but not all of them.

Good to see you back at FLC. Goodraise 03:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift review and for welcoming me back.

• Although
• was
• Even as I put "The" in the sentence, I wondered whether I was right...
• Hmm, not sure. I found one half-sentence in an obituary for its co-founder that the journal had done much in its day to widen knowledge of French life and journal, and a search on JSTOR for "French Quarterly + Rudler" only threw up seven hits, most in French, so I wouldn't necessarily be able to tell if they discuss the journal in terms that would pass the GNG. I'll link it for now and we'll see what happens. I don't have enough to write even a stub showing notability, alas.
• Sadly, it isn't the Florence Institute! Wikilinked Florence but can't find a suitable article to link the institute to (we have no article on it, nor on the Palazzo Lenzi where it is based, and French Institute is wrong).
• I'm not sure that I need explain "Librarian of Brasenose College" or can explain it without repetition. As for Christ's, I've added "(the head of the college)" and linked it to a rather bare list at List of Masters of Christ's College, Cambridge
• Marked the rest with "|format=subscription required".

Hope this all meets with your approval. Bencherlite^Talk 08:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Zaharoff wanted the University of Paris to have a right of veto over the appointment, Oxford would not accept this" picky, but I would prefer to see a "Although... " at the beginning or an "however" before Oxford or something... or perhaps a semi-colon rather than a comma...
• "was that it should " mildly unclear as to what "it" is here.
• Could (could) link French Foreign Minister?
• Last three sentences of lead have "professor" overdose, could you say "As of 2012, the (post/position)* is held by..."?
• "necessary changes to the university's statutes were made " followed by "during the debate". What debate?
• Are you, like me, working under the understanding that capital letters don't take accents in French (e.g. Ecole?) while our own article thinks the opposite (École Normale Supérieure)?
• "Cambridge University"?? You should be ashamed, but I suppose you did this deliberately.... "University of Cambridge" me old mucker.
• Picky, but should the heading "Professor" really be "Professorship" or "Tenure" (bleugh)?
• Gross Domestic Product doesn't need to be so capitalised.
• Not entirely sure in the use of Category:French literature here, but open to being convinced...

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ", but" - would that do for you?
• changed "it" to "Paris", trying to avoid repetition of "University of Paris"
• added and linked the minister's name to the lead, put the position in brackets without a wikilink (on the basis that the individual is more relevant at that point than the office)
• professor - chair - position
• Clarified, I hope
• École'd throughout
• For you, m'dear, anything...
• I'm sure we've had this discussion in the past; looking back, I see "in office" at Bodley's Librarian and "Professor" at Laudian Professor of Arabic - but what about a simple "years"? Will that do?
• decapped, abbreviations for GDP and RPI introduced in note 1 and used instead of the full words in note 2
• I wanted to get it into a French literature category of some sort, and that seemed as good as any...

Merci beaucoup pour votre review, L'Homme Randonnée... Bencherlite^Talk 08:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• De rien mon ami. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two dabs, John Varley and Michael Bishop, need fixing.

• Done, they were fine in the table, just not the lead. --PresN 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems a shame that many of the winning works don't have articles...

• Yeah... A lot of stubs, too. --PresN 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "have not won either." have won neither?

• "Have also not won an award"? --PresN 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the winner of the 2012 award will not be announced until April 2012." well it is April 2012 now, so presumably we need to update this or get a clearer update date on it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ceremony is May 19 this year, so specified. --PresN 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Beginning with the 2009 awards, the rules were changed to the current format." The use of beginning implies to me that the rules have changed twice which doesn't seem to be the case. Would simply put: "The rules were changed to their current format in 2009."
• :Prior to then..." would change to previously
• I would use different colours to indicate symbols instead of using the same colour for both, slightly confusing and not easy to distinguish between tied winners and winners and joint winners.

NapHit (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, done, done. --PresN 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced about the opening paragraph. WP:BOLDTITLE states that "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." In this article, the title is emboldened in the third sentence, and while I can understand the thinking behind it, I would prefer to see the paragraph reworked slightly to place it in the first sentence, or not embolden it at all.

• Hmm, well, as I'm sure you figured out, my thinking was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to specify the novella award before saying what the Nebula awards are in the first place. I've kept this format for 17 award lists so far, so I rather like it, but I'm not opposed to dropping the bolding. Done. --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would expand the link to Nebula Award for Best Novel to be "[[Nebula Award for Best Novel|novel category]]" rather than simply "[[Nebula Award for Best Novel|novel]] category". At the moment I mistook that for a link to Novel.

• Good point, done. --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is hugely picky, but given that you've abbreviated "Ref." it needs to be defined somewhere.

• Ugh, really? There isn't anywhere to define it, and I don't want to make that column wider by spelling it out. As before, I've been calling the column "ref" or "ref." for 17 lists now, and I thought it was common practice to leave it abbreviated. Any suggestions on where/how to define it? --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, on second look this is far too picky: don't worry about it: it's pretty self-explanatory. Harrias ^talk 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes TechRepublic a reliable source? The article in question looks blog-ish in style, though I appreciate it isn't in the blog section of the site.

• TechRepublic is an online IT magazine, owned by CBS Interactive. It's run entirely professionally, with paid writers, editors, a subscription service, etc. Despite the styling, it's as reliable as any other professional-targeted magazine. --PresN 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is no specific ref, they are referenced to the general ref - a method which was accepted in the FLC I mentioned above. Dana boomer (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, sounds good. I'll give prose a look. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose comments from Crisco 1492:

• "glacially-derived landforms" - Do we not have an article on glacial terraforming or the terraforming effects of glaciers? That may be a better target.

• I haven't been able to find a link of this sort...I agree that it would make a much better target, but I'd rather link to straight glacier than a redlinked glacial terraforming... Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "and deciduous hardwoods are the dominant tree species, with some natural prairies and savannas." - You go from talking about soil to talking about plants in the same sentence. Perhaps split? Also, it reads like hardwoods are a single species. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into two sentences. And I think it reads correctly in the plural, since species is both singular and plural. I think the correct singular (if "deciduous hardwood" was a specific species) would be "and deciduous hardwood is the dominant tree species". Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image comments from Crisco 1492

Note that this isn't going to be a full image review; one is still needed. I selected five randomly

File:Eastern Brown Snake.jpg - I'm rather doubtful that this is an original work, due to the small size and lack of metadata.

I couldn't find anywhere that it was copyvio'd from, but I replaced the photo anyways. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Diadophis punctatus edwardsii could use cropping Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really horrible at cropping pictures, and I don't have the software to do it correctly, so if someone else wants to do this I won't have a problem with it but I most likely won't be doing it myself :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Crisco - much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The state of Michigan, and its location in the United States." no need for a period, it's not a complete sentence.
• "cold blooded" is a dab link and probably should also be hyphenated.
• I always get confused whether it's "Big Dove" or "big dove", so much so you have a red-linked "eastern massasauga rattlesnake" which is cited by a source calling it "Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake". It's not a major beef, but one day I'd like to try to understand how the English names of these chaps are supposed to be capitalised! I guess I just look for internal (i.e. within an article) consistency.

• Basically, it's completely confusing. Different projects do it different ways - bird names are generally capitalized, while apparently reptile/amphibian names aren't (at least on WP), but various sources go both ways, and, and, and... I think (?) I've made everything internally consistent, and I've fixed the redlink (by piping it to the capitalized name, which is where the article is...) Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "with differentiations based" is there a reason that isn't just "differences"?

• I think differentiations is correct, although I could be wrong. Scientists differentiate based on differences, so to replace differentiations with differences would basically end up with the sentence saying "with differences based on x difference, y difference and z difference" which is incorrect. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "again predominate" just a question, why not just "again dominate"?
• "Three species are considered..." of what? lizard or snake or turtle, or the whole shooting match?
• Would prefer to see an en-dash or something in the empty notes cells.
• Ref 12. Suddenly I see that mixed date formats are allowable for publication versus accessdate. It's very odd to me, I'd ask you to keep it consistent but it now seems that's a pure preference rather than MOS...

• Yeah, technically the MOS says you can have mixed date formats. However, it's just one, and it's not a huge deal to me, so I've changed it to match everything else. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TRM! I believe I've addressed them all - individual replies on a couple of things above where I had questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check that notes which aren't complete sentences don't have unnecessary periods.

• Would this be all of them? Technically, I don't think any of them are complete sentences (since none have a subject; they're all pointing to an earlier column in the table for their subject), but I'm a little unsure. Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think so. Although the one with the semi-colon may take one because a semi-colon can often be followed by a capital letter... (how odd is English?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed them all, including the one with the semi-colon. I think because the second part (after the semi-colon) isn't a full sentence either, there should still be no period (?). Don't know if I'm right on that though. We'll see if someone else comes through and says to do it the other way :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the first sentence could be rewritten from Michigan, one of the fifty United States, is home to two types of lizards, nineteen types of snakes and eleven types of turtles, all members of the class Reptilia -> The U.S. state of Michigan is home to two types of lizards, nineteen types of snakes and eleven types of turtles, all members of the class Reptilia

• No, because then you end up with a repetition of "state" again (United States state). The current sentence is grammatically correct. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reptiles are found throughout Michigan, although the only poisonous species, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, is found only in the Lower Peninsula. Using "found" twice in a sentence looks sloppy

• Tweaked. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of "considered" in the third paragraph also sticks out to me. Could a few others words be used here?

• I've reworked to remove two of the instances of "considered". Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm new to this type of list, but why do some of the listed reptiles remain uncited? Compare Plestiodon fasciatus to Coluber constrictor foxii for instance. Ruby 2010/2013 19:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Information that is not accompanied by in-line references comes from the general reference. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Ruby. I have added my replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Under 'television commericals', I seem to recall Rihanna starred in an advert for NRJ Radio, which I saw a while ago in France. Bit like the Capital FM one. Managed to track the advert for evidence, so you need to find a reliable source. Likewise, she appeared in a Renault Clio ad, which I'm guessing was aired across Europe.

• I can't find reliable sources to add them. Btw that is an award commercial, aired for limited time, and the Renault Clio one it does not really features Rihanna. Only a frame of her music video and the line "Feels so good being bad". — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2011, three of Rihanna's videos has met with criticism and controversy." → has is redundant and can be removed.

• Removed it. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In September 2011, Rihanna released "We Found Love", lead single from her sixth studio album Talk That Talk whose caused controversy from some activist groups", put 'the' between comma and lead single. Place comma between album and 'Talk That Talk'.

• Done.— Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing a quotation mark on Rockstar 101

• Added. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent with the date format for refs. Is it 2008-07-01 or July 1, 2008?

• Using the later one only now. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Rap-Up considered to be a WP:RELIABLE? If so, be sure to add a hyphen in its title on Ref 108.

• Sure is. I have used it in "Rehab" which is a FA and nobody complained about it on its FAC. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two deadlinks which need fixing

• Done/Fixed. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two dabs which also need fixing

• Done/Fixed. — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For Ref 82, BBC News is the publisher, BBC is the work. Be sure to use 'cite news' template for news sources.

• Done/Fixed. Maybe you can point me some others where I should use the {{cite news}}? — Tomica (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image doesn't need a period in the caption as it's an incomplete sentence.

• Removed period. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " dance-sequences." is that really hyphenated?

• Done. — Tomica (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "with her lover and husband" add an extra "her" before husband to make it 100% clear you're talking about two different people.