Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2010

Comments from KV5

I supported this list before the re-insertion of Amazon.com as a reference. Since it is being used only to verify release dates in this case, I'm willing to overlook my personal concerns with its reliability. I see only two comments that would need to be addressed before I confirm my support:

• Blacksmith (in the lead) is not a proper noun; de-capitalize.
  • Fixed.
• Reference formats are not consistent. Some use only the author's name, while some use the name and year. One is also misspelled.
  • Fixed.

Once those are fixed, I'll be glad to re-support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticed a major issue: dates don't sort. They are sorting alphabetically by month name, when they should sort chronologically. You'll need to use {{dts}} for all dates.
  • I used {{dts}} on the airdates. It worked fine for seasons one thru five, but beginning midway into season six the dates were replaced with Error: too many #time calls. From what I read in what help I could find this is a result of too many sortable entries. I have chosen instead to make the airdate columns unsortable. (After all, this is a huge list.) What order would anyone like to sort them in anyway? Chronological? They're already in that format. Reverse chronological order? You can achieve that by sorting either of two episode number columns.
    • Good solution. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also noticed that there is an extraneous period/full stop in "Calvin Clements" in season 13. Is there a difference between "Calvin Clements" and "Calvin Clements, Jr."? If not, this needs to be standardized throughout the entire list.
  • Extraneous period removed. Yes, there is a difference between Calvin Clements and Calvin Clements, Jr.; both worked as writers on the show.
    • Were they related in any way? Just checking. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither of the two books that I have on Gunsmoke (the ones I used for references) list them as being related, and I can find much info about them on the internet. I think, however, it's a fairly safe bet that the two were father and son. Jimknut (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMDB, while not reliable, does say that they are father and son; I think that it might make sense to make it Calvin Clements, Sr. and Jr. to make the distinction clear. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed Jimknut (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sentence fragments should not end with a period/full stop (for example: "39 half-hour episodes, black-and-white." is not a complete sentence).
  • Fixed.
• "Amanda Blake left this series" - should be "the series" unless she stayed with the radio program (if she did, that should be noted).
  • Fixed. (Georgia Ellis played Kitty on the radio version.)
• "for the final season. (1974–75)." - extra period/full stop.
  • Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the "Robert Stewart"s are "Robert C. Stewart", there are some "Robert C. Stewart Jr."s. Are these the same person? If so, they should be standardized; if not, they should be unambiguously named. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now standardized as "Robert Stewart" Jimknut (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The final first run episode aired on March 31, 1975." You lost me on this sentence. What is a "final first run episode"?
  • Gunsmoke still airs on television, although now in syndicated reruns of episodes from its twenty-year run (1955–75) on CBS. "Final first run" means that it was chronologically the last episode broadcast that was not a rerun. I'm open to suggestions as to how this sentence could be re-worded to sound better.
    • I added a hyphen for clarity. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No chance for creating separate articles about each season?
  • Plenty of chances. But this article is about the entire run of the series, not individual seasons. I prefer to do one thing at a time, so let's get this polished up to FL status and then do articles on individual seasons.
    • OK, just making sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Saturday, 10-10:30" Needs an en dash.
  • Fixed.
• Why are the tables not sortable by date?
  • I used {{dts}} on the airdates. It worked fine for seasons one thru five, but beginning midway into season six the dates were replaced with Error: too many #time calls. From what I read in what help I could find this is a result of too many sortable entries. I have chosen instead to make the airdate columns unsortable. (After all, this is a huge list.) What order would anyone like to sort them in anyway? Chronological? They're already in that format. Reverse chronological order? You can achieve that by sorting either of two episode number columns.
    • Unfortunate, but not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I doubt you need to link "color" or "black-and-white"; would readers have any doubt about what those terms mean?
  • The word "color" links to the article on Color television, so I think it's a valid link in case some one may want to brush up on the history of the color TV. I can't make a link to "Black-and-white television" since no article currently exists, so I suppose the black-and-white link could be ousted.
    • I still don't think either link is necessary, but won't push further. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Nielsen ratings section, why are the programs airing opposite Gunsmoke mentioned? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gunsmoke aired on American television before the rise of cable TV and the home video market. During its twenty-year run three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) dominated US TV broadcasting. Unless they tuned into a local broadcast, audiences of the day had to watch one of the shows from these networks. I thought it was a good idea to give readers on opportunity to have a wider spectrum of TV from that era by listing what shows aired opposite Gunsmoke. Jimknut (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first sentence should "is" be "was"? Also, "television series, which was developed by"
  • No. Correct: "Gunsmoke is an American western television series" Incorrect: "Gunsmoke was an American western television series" It may no longer be in production and no longer airing first-run episodes on the CBS network, but it is still a television series and can still be viewed as such (by way of syndicated reruns or playing video cassettes or DVDs). "Was" indicates that it no longer exists or has changed into something else. Consider this: "Charles Dickens was a British novelist" or "Orson Welles was an American filmmaker" (past tense because both men are now dead); however, "A Tale of Two Cities is a novel" or "Citizen Kane is a motion picture" (present tense because both works still exist).
  • "which was" has been cut.
• "All episodes of the series were broadcast" – it's clear that we're talking about Gunsmoke
  • "of the series" has been cut.
• "episode originally aired" – as the subject of the sentence is the first episode, one would guess this is the original airing
  • "originally" has been cut.
• "series expanded to an hour-long series" repeats "series". Also, the series isn't an hour long, but the episodes are
  • Changed to "The series expanded to an hour-long episodes"
• "Beginning with its second season" is ambiguous; how about "During its second season"?
  • Changed.
• "moved quickly to number one" switch around "moved" and "quickly": "quickly moved to number one"
  • Changed.
• Beginning a sentence with "According to" makes the sentence sound out of place; I suggest "Alan Wagner, who was ... at the time, said" followed by the quote. Also, you can take out "who was" in "who was the network's vice president"
  • Changed.
• When you say "a fifth character was added to the cast", does this mean a fifth regular character?
  • Changed to "fifth regular character"
• Is Miss Hannah an alternate name for Kitty? If not, the last sentence of the third paragraph should be clarified
  • Changed to "Amanda Blake left the series at the end of the nineteenth season (1973–74) and was replaced in the final season by a new character, Miss Hannah, portrayed by Fran Ryan."
• Throughout the list, the dash before "Part 1" and "Part 2" should be spaced on both sides. For example, ""Guns of Cibol Blanca The Guns of Cibola Blanca"– Part 1" should be ""Guns of Cibol Blanca The Guns of Cibola Blanca" – Part 1"
  • Changed.
• I don't think any episodes have more than one director (except season 2), so you can take out "(s)" in the heading
  • Heading changed to "Writer" and in season two the one episode listing two directors has now been changed to one. (This is per my sources. I've made a valiant attempt to be accurate, but with 635 episodes to deal with a flub can creep in here and there.)
• In episode 266, is the producer name of "Robert E." correct
  • Corrected.
• I would avoid using "two-parter" (season 16) as it sounds a tad too informal
  • Changed to "two-part" episode.
• In the Nielsen ratings table, some columns are centered while others aren't. I can see why the "Season" and "Nielsen rating" columns are centered, but one date column is centered while the other isn't
  • Corrected. Also season numbers have linked to the episode listings.
• In the Home media release table, I would get rid of the thin empty rows (i.e., the | height=5px colspan=6|). This is just a personal preference, though. Also, none of the section links in the "Season" column works (missing the dashes in the link)
  • Changed and correct. Empty spaces are out and the "umbrella" titles are in a silver background.
• Italicize "Gunsmoke" in the See also link
  • Changed.
• None of the Barbaras {{harvnb}} templates work. Also, note the year typo in reference 34
  • Typo fixed and {{harvnb}} should work now.
• In reference 2 (Newcomb), the name should be "Last, First"
  • Changed.
• Remove the two "(MBC)" abbreviations in reference 2 and the second external link as it's not used elsewhere in the article
  • Removed.
• Reference ten needs an en-dash
  • Corrected.

As I said, I'll be happy to support once the above issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now? (I also tidied up the headings for the episode numbers) Jimknut (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The series ran for 20 seasons" from when?
• "The first episode aired in the United States on September 10, 1955.[4][5] The final first-run episode aired on March 31, 1975.[6][7]" merge these.
  • Merged and moved into the first paragraph. I think it more or less answers your first comment.
• "were a half-hour in length" nasty, maybe "were 30 minutes.." or "were half an hour in"?
  • changed to "30 minutes"
• "and quickly moved to number one" specify.
  • changed. I think it reads better now.
• "following a shift in its programming time" specify.
  • Expanded to "following a shift in its programming time from Saturday to Monday night"
• Ref 51 is malformed.
  • Fixed.
• Can you tell me why tvshowsondvd.com is a WP:RS?
  • It seemed like a good idea at the time. I've changed the ref to Amazon.com. The statement is that episodes of Gunsmoke were released on DVD. Since the Amazon page clearly shows that they have these DVDs for sale I think we can safely consider them a reliable source this time around. Jimknut (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do our whole audience know what a "classical scholar" is?
  • Linked classics
• (Repeat warning) Also, might there be something specific to which you could link Warden and Provost in this context?
  • Linked Warden (college) and Provost (education)
• I'm wondering if there's a legitimate case to link geometry in this article..
  • Found one usage to wikilink
• Pending comment - the first was "appointed" while, say, Titchmarsh applied. I'm hoping to learn in subsequent paragraphs how the position has been/is selected.
  • Have now found a copy of Savile's original provisions and will try and add more detail. In short, he reserved the right to appoint during his lifetime, then gave the power to elect to various worthies such as the Archbish of Canterbury, Bishop of London, Lord Chief Justice, Lord High Executioner etc. In the late 19th century, this was changed as per the article; then (from what I can tell) the whole system of university statutes was reformed in the late 1990s/early 2000s, removing specific rules for appointment boards for professorships.
  • Update, now done.
• " degree at a minimum" (my own ignorance warning here) I would as "as a minimum" here, but that could my own poor upbringing...
  • Typo fixed
• Euclid et al get a link but not Aristotle or Plato. How rude..
  • Linked. I'll apologise to them in person for my rudeness next time I see them
• "in basic mathematics in English" did I miss the bit where the instructions would be otherwise provided in a foreign language?
  • Education was in Latin in those days, added this in brackets (in fact some Oxford formal ceremonies are still in Latin although fortunately the lectures aren't. Well, not in Law, anyway. Although I had to study Roman Law, so there was some Latin there...)
• I'd link ∞.
  • Didn't think of that
• "it seems that " not tremendously encouraging, can you say why it "seems" this way?
  • Because the source says so, I think. I'll double-check
  • Update: source made reference to Gregory's name appearing in a rate-book in 1701, so explained this
• Halley, while prominent, doesn't need to be linked in every section of the article...
  • Delinked a bit
• Stow on the Wold is actually Stow-on-the-Wold.
  • "- - -" added
• "brother at the age of 15, a year before he entered Cambridge" who entered Cambridge?
  • Reworded
• Betts' description is a sea of blue links. I don't often get too worked up about but there you go, anything you could do about it?
  • reworded slightly, Prime Minister delinked
• "run (unsuccessfully) an evening " don't like this construct, I'd prefer just "unsuccessfully run an".
  • And now you have it
• I'm wondering, second wrangler ought to be Second Wrangler per our own article.
  • OK
• " The Times in its obituary called him" - commas after Times and obit.
  • Reworded as "In his obituary, The Times called him..." for one comman rather than two
• You say where some Oxford and London colleges are, is it worth clarifying that Princeton is in New Jersey? And St Catherine's is not clearly located.
  • NJ added. Reworded the rest of the sentence to put Catz near Oxford without repeating the O-word
• "University of California Berkeley" missing a comma after California.
  • Added.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's my work to date, more to come. Bencherlite^Talk 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And here's the rest. What do you think now, sir? Bencherlite^Talk 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "his successor Nathaniel Bliss both held the post of Astronomer Royal in addition to the professorship" - The word both seems unnecessary.
  • Well, it's both Bliss and Halley, not both AR + chair; reworded anyway.
• "after alleging assaulting another student" - The word allegedly would make more sense to me here.
  • Typo, fixed
• "'neither numerous or great importance.'" - In the cited source, it says "neither numerous nor of great importance."
  • Well-spotted, thanks
• "one of the few exceptions to his claim that nothing he had done ... had made ... 'the least difference to the amenity of the world'." - In whose opinion?
  • The clue's in the phrase "his claim"... reworded to "his own claim" to make it even clearer
    • Whose claim it is was perfectly clear even without the added own (which I'd prefer to see removed again). What I wish to know is who thinks that the Hardy–Weinberg principle is an exception. Goodraise 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, we were at cross-purposes. It was a biographer's claim, Béla Bollobás, so reworded and clarified. Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hitchin taught in the United States at Princeton University in New Jersey and at New York University, returning to Wolfson College for further research before becoming a fellow and tutor at St Catherine's College." - He returned to Wolfson while teaching at Princeton and NYU?
  • No, but reworded to resolve the slight ambiguity
• File:James Joseph Sylvester.jpg states that the image is in the public domain because its author has died more than 70 years ago, but it doesn't say who the author is.
  • Uploaded a replacement to Commons, File:James Joseph Sylvester by Alfred Edward Emslie.jpg, which does.
• References 33 and 34 give the cited website's domain name (shawprize.org) instead of its publishing entity (The Shaw Prize Foundation) or the website's name (The Shaw Prize).
  • Well, in my defence, that's how they are cited on the FL Shaw Prize... switched to "The Shaw Prize Foundation"
• The notes section could use some citations. (In case you're wondering, here's an example of how to do it.)
  • Cumbersome, isn't it? Added
• Most alt texts are somewhat dry and colorless, not really aiding the reader in visualizing the depicted persons. This is not a deal breaker though.
  • Good, I'll leave it then, unless you have any specific ideas for describing a succession of middle-aged/elderly white academics in any better way than I have done....

Goodraise 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review, and for that handy demonstration of how to give a footnote for a reference, which I hadn't seen before. No doubt I'll speed up with it with some more practice! Bencherlite^Talk 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but I'd like to try and get this to a regular support if I can. So, once again, if you have any specific ideas for improvement, I'll see what I can do to try and improve the alt texts. I'm afraid that saying they are "somewhat dry and colorless" doesn't really help me, frankly, particularly given the limited material I have to work with here. Bencherlite^Talk 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you're looking for help, you may find WP:ALT worth reading, the sections on portraits and neutrality in particular. Goodraise 01:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Funnily enough, I know about WP:ALT, having written the odd FL and FA since the world went alt-crazy. What I was hoping for from you were some specific comments for how the alt text falls short of what you think that it could be, not a "vague wave" (as it were) at a style guideline. Given the OR / not-obvious-to-a-non-expert descriptions at WP:ALT#Portraits, though, I think my alt texts are fine as they are, . (Where's the "low bun" in the second portrait? It's pure guesswork that it's there at the back of her head. "Slender" - really? Hard to say either way. "Her deep-set eyes gaze solemnly over the viewer's shoulder." Oh please, are we writing Mills and Boon now? In the first: "Edwardian-style" - says who? "In her forties" - looks younger to me. You get the point.) As I've asked twice now and you haven't given me any specific examples of how to improve the alts, which is a shame, I'll think I'll leave this point and settle for your support being lukewarm. Bencherlite^Talk 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know about WP:ALT. I meant what I said, nothing more.
  My initial (now capped) comment was not a vague wave at a guideline (I didn't even mention or link WP:ALT from there). As for giving specific examples, what for? You seem to be perfectly aware as to how your alt texts go against the guideline and seem to have made them so intentionally. You may think that your alt texts are superior and maybe they are, but that doesn't matter to me. My votes are based on whether I think an article conforms with the criteria (including linked guidelines) rather than with what I think is best. Goodraise 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No feelings hurt by your reference to WP:ALT, don't worry. However, as for your questionable assertions, without any evidence, that I've "intentionally" written alt texts to violate a guideline and that I'm "perfectly aware" of how they fall short, I would have thought that the fact I twice asked for how they could be improved (and you ignored my question first time, and gave a "vague wave" the second time) was actually fairly good proof that I was genuinely trying to improve the alt texts and was welcoming—nay, asking for—suggestions on how this could be done. If I didn't want to make you happier with the alt text, I would have left your "weak support" comment alone and not tried to get an upgrade. As you can see, I have my doubts as to the alt-text concept and how to use it, but that doesn't mean that I'm deliberately trying to write a list that doesn't comply with the guideline. Interesting that you hadn't actually said before your last comment that the current alt text violates the guideline; your initial comment was that it could do with "some improvement", examples of which you steadfastly refuse to give. Go ahead; "I'm listening..." Bencherlite^Talk 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've wondered this since I reviewed Bodley's Librarian, given the limited number of entries and relatively few things gained from the sortability of the table, is there any particular reason the data is formatted in a table and not as a text list like List of Major League Baseball awards? I would never ever ever oppose over something like this, just a theoretical question. I would think it would both remove the large whitespace for the fields with less text and avoid squishing the notes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you think the inclusion of "professor from" or "professor" as a parenthetical note in the prose (John Smith (professor 1988-2010)) is necessary? I get that you want to avoid it looking like their birth and death dates or something like that, but every list I've worked on generally assumed the parentheticals were referring to that list and only had notes if it was absolutely necessary. List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks, for example, simply lists their draft years in () except when discussing the MVP winners (to make it clear those are draft years, not their MVP-winning years). Couldn't most of these instances read "The life and work of James Sylvester (1883-1894)", eg? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you clarify what exactly the duties of the position are following the removal of geometry lecturing requirements to suit Titchmarsh? The article mentions it, but I don't quite get what this means for the position. Is it now more of just a "Savilian Professor of Math" or what? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part though, excellent read. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

• As for the "text vs table" approach, I think the text approach works for List of Major League Baseball awards because it's a list of supporting lists (and, indeed, the lead article/list of an excellent Featured Topic of lists). Here, I've got a list of supporting articles, and so I wonder if having it as a text-only format (and losing such sortability as there is) would make it look too much like an article, leading to the "go to GA" review from less discerning reviewers, at the very least. I think for shorter lists of professors (e.g. Jesus Professor of Celtic), text might be the way, since a table would add very little.

• I agree that's the thing to do with shorter lists, I guess I just consider this a reasonably short list. And, while there is some sortability, it's not like coaches lists or whatever which are dominated by stats and thus gain a lot from the table format. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in two minds about the year ranges. I can see that in many instances, it's clearly not a YOB-YOD range and so isn't ambiguous. But for "John Wallis (professor 1649–1703)", it could be either and overall I think it's best to be clear and say "professor X-Y" for all, lest someone think that whenever it's not said, it's the more usual birth-death range. For the draft lists, there's no range so no similar ambiguity arises. I'm finding out far more than I ever knew before about baseball, by the way, through reading your comparisons - my previous baseball experience was a rain-affected match somewhere in the NYC suburbs in September 1996... I forget who was playing, but boy did it rain that night...

• Heh, sorry about that. As you might see from my userpage baseball-content dominates my Wikipedia contributions, so will tend to dominate my range of experience to compare against. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As for present duties of the professor, as I understand it, the university statutes and regulations no longer specify what he has to teach; no doubt his contractual terms and conditions will say something, and then I assume any loose ends will be sorted out by agreement with the other professors in the mathematics institute. I've added a ref saying that he's one of the members of the Maths Institute's Geometry Group of researchers, so it'd be fair to say that geometry is still a part of the professors' work, despite Titchmarsh!

• Gotcha, thanks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I can improve further. Bencherlite^Talk 22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said, it's quite solid. I'll give it another look see, but probably cap/support quite soon. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Should an interim coach be counted as a head coach? What I'm getting at, is should the lead say "14 head coaches", as it does now, or, "13 head coaches and one interim head coach"?

• I like the last one, but you didn't include (so it would be 14, 15 with Tuberville). NThomas (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the source for Note 2?

• The general reference. Does it need an inline citation instead? NThomas (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave a more thorough review last time around, so most of my issues have been resolved. Hopefully, this list has better luck this time around.—NMajdan•talk 16:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look at it! NThomas (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "under first year head coach DeWitt Weaver" - I'm not sure, and it may differ in preference between US and UK English, but I'd use first-year here.
• "both won four conference championships each, ..." - Ouch! No need to use "both" and "each" together. I'd suggest "each won four conference championships, ..."
• I'm probably being stupid here.. but how come Tommy Tuberville isn't on the list?

• I guess I can answer this question since I was involved in the decision. We decided to exclude him and other first year coaches since the list only goes through the end of the 2009 season (as is indicated above the table). Tuberville has yet to coach a game and therefore has no stats. We are not including him for the same reason we don't include placeholder rows in other tables. At the end of the 2010 season, Tuberville will be added.—NMajdan•talk 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense! As I said, me being stupid then! Harrias (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, we don't want this to become a glossary of cricket terms, but I think a link to batsman would be useful for the non-cricketing expert readers.

• Done. Stupid mistake.

• Shouldn't twenty-seven just be 27 in that sentence?

• I was using numerals only for runs and wickets, but Dweller has changed that as you suggested. I don't have a problem either way.

• I'm wondering if fourth highest should be fourth-highest?

• Done.

• What's ICC?

• Mentioned. Another careless mistake.

• "chosen.. selected... chosen... selected" - a good attempt at mixing it up a bit but two consecutive sentences with this construction gives the repeat game away for me.

• Reworded. How is it now?

• '"century an year later" - a year.

• OK

• Any links for ICC World Cup One Day International, ICC World Test?

• Possible links would be List of World XI ODI cricketers and List of World XI Test cricketers, but these were teams which were selected to play a match. The ICC world teams are selected each year and are made up of the best players from all teams. So I don't think linking to those articles would be very accurate.

• "decided to recall" I get it but it may be difficult to understand that this action of a captain resulted in two batsmen being retired out.

• Clarified.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I think I have addressed the problems. Sorry about the late reply BTW; I couldn't log in for a few days. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• you say "leading run-scorer" for Tests, "fourth-highest run-scorer" for ODIs and "fourth highest scorer" for T20Is. They don't all need to be the same, but can you make "fourth-highest" and "fourth highest" consistent. I don't think "run-scorer" and "scorer" need to be the same as the context is reasonably obvious.
• so that Africa XI lines up with the rest, can you use {{noflag|[[Africa XI cricket team|Africa XI]]}}?

Otherwise, everything looks good. Harrias (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the state bird referenced anywhere?
• "as appearing in " do you mean it's been seen?
• " If the record is accepted, it will be the first recorded appearance of the species in the state." is repeated verbatim five times, this is not great for the prose.
• Same with "was/were reported in South Carolina"...
• Is there any reason that the (I) etc is bold?
• "Birds marked with asterisk (*) not identified to species" are we missing an "are" between asterisk and not? And an "a" between to and species?
• Should measurements (e.g. metres) be in USEng to be consistent?
• Is it "Carolina Bird Club" or "The Carolina Bird Club"? Refs/See also need to be consistent.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've bolded the (I) etc to make the species they mark stand out more as they mark birds with something unusual about them being in the state. Otherwise I think I've changed everything else. The first records section for the other two lists I've done only includes one or two records, but South Carolina has had five since their committee last met. Hopefully they will meet this year. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good stuff, will re-assess when you finish alt-text. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revisited the alt text and on a random sample I found three from six being grammatically incorrect. Could you check the rest please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I think I fixed it up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• All images need alt text.

Done

• Instead of saying "worst team in each conference", say something like last place teams in each conference. Seems less POV.

Done

• the Bahamas Shouldn't the be capitalized as it is in the wikilinked article?

Done

• I would prefer the numbers listing the number of NBA championships, MVPS, All-NBAs, etc in paragraph three to be spelled out, but WP:ORDINAL is a little contradictory with this, so I'll leave it to the editor.

Older version of the page used the number spelling for 1-9 and numerals for >10. However it looks strange and WP:ORDINAL mentioned that Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures. So I changed all to numerals because I think it would be weird to spell 11 and 14 and write "one Defensive Player of the Year award, eleven All-NBA Team selection and fourteen All-Star Game selection."

That's the contradiction I was referring to. Although it does say you can spell out numbers with two words or less, so you could spell eleven. But, as you point out, the way you have it follows the guideline.—NMajdan•talk

• athlete Carl Lewis, who has never Should be past tense.

Done

• Center (and maybe bold) the indicators in the first column of the key.

Done the centering, but I don't think the indicators should be bold. Most of the WP:NBA's FLs, where I get the key formats, do not use bold indicators.

Works for me.—NMajdan•talk

• What does a dash in the Position column indicate? Surely those players had a position in college.

It means that the main reference (basketball-reference.com) does not have the information for those players position, mostly because those players have never played in the NBA. I'll try to find another reference for those players' position.

Yeah, I think you need to find the position for these players somewhere else. Just because they never played in the NBA doesn't mean they didn't have a position. I'm sure you could find the media guide from the players' college. They usually have historical rosters and that might have the position.—NMajdan•talk

Well done with this list. I really enjoyed reading it.—NMajdan•talk 14:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I addressed all the comments, and thanks for the reviews. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nigeria-born Olajuwon became the second international player...". Needs "The" in the front. I believe.
• "Olajuwon's achievements includes...". Last word should be singular (include).
• "University of Houston's track and field athlete Carl Lewis...". Remove the 's from Houston?
• "by the Chicago Bulls with their 208th pick in the 10th round." "their" → "the". They didn't have 208 picks; all the teams combined did.
• Noticed one reference to the Los Angeles Times from 1991 that didn't have a link. If you're interested, here's a link that could be provided in the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done all, also added an "n" to the first point so now it reads "The Nigerian-born Olajuwon...". — Martin tamb (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Portland Trail Blazers is overlinked in the lead.
• Is there a ref for it being held at the Felt Forum?
• "named to the" perhaps this is USEng, but normally people are named "in" a list.
• "controversial drafting" this is a little odd since surely the controversy didn't arise until well after the draft?

Removed "controversial", less POV and the issue already emphasized in the "... one of the biggest draft busts".

• Chicago Bulls is overlinked in the lead.
• "(an) All-Star Game(s)" yuck, why not "one or more All-Star Games"?

Changed to "at least one All-Star Game", which I believes is the previous format on the other NBA Draft's articles.

• Image captions which are complete sentences need a period.
• Note 1 has "United States" three times in three sentences, reads clumsily. Any chance of an elegant rephrase?

I'm separating Note 1 into two different notes, because his nationality and his name are different issues anyway.

• Interesting question of completeness, but possibly discussed elsewhere. You have different inclusion criteria for rounds 1 and 2, and subsequent rounds. Perhaps this needs declaration up front as I was expecting the full list of 228 players.

I'm just following the tasks on WP:NBA which mentions that the draft articles should have at least the first two round. Previously in the article there is just a section called "Notable other picks" without any clear inclusion criteria, so I create an inclusion criteria and added the other players. I could add the whole 181 players from round 3–10, but as only 18 of them made it to the NBA, the full list would have a lot of red links. I just don't see the point to have the full list with plenty of red links in this article when it could easily obtained from the second and third general refs. But if it's really needed, I'll add the full list of the players.

I, too, don't think a full list of draftees is necessary. Most of them never played in the NBA and are probably non-notable anyway.—Chris!_c/t 23:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Third general ref needs an en-dash.
• Ref 29 is missing a publisher (inconsistent with other NYT refs)
• Not 100% relevant but it would be so much better if the NBA drafts template was the same width as all the other templates.

The template has been in that width for awhile, but I agree that it's better to have the same width as the other templates. I'll see what I can do with it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All other minor things fixed, thanks for the review. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an "upside-down" L, it's an L rotated through 180 degrees (alt text).
• " Florida became the 27th U.S. state in 1845. The last county was created in" maybe "in 1845 while its last county..."?
• Five paras in the lead seems a little over the top (see WP:LEAD)
• "showing the influence two hundred years of Spanish rule had on the area" - influence of 200 years of Spanish rule"?
• "The average land area is 805 sq mi (2,085 km2) The largest county" missing some punctuation.
• Still don't see why County has to be bold (perhaps fix the template as this goes against MOS).
• And why are the County cells a different colour?
• Why are the references in the table column headers on a different row? Is there a linebreak between the text and the heading?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all the suggestions except for the last three. The two related to the {{countyrow}} template, I have been unable to figure out how to change. I have made an inquiry to the creator of the template to see if he can make the change. As for the references being on a separate row in the column headers, this is done by the {{Countytabletop}} template. I removed the linebreaks as suggested, but the result was very undesirable – looking very disorganized. You're welcome to try the change yourself and see the effect it has on the county lists. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokey, the templates aren't your problem. Thanks for trying anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should spell out 'United States' in the first sentence (not just U.S.) and link to the country.
• Even more critical, there is not link to 'counties of the United States' or whatever the article is called. Perhaps also add a few lines on what a county actually is. Also, add a few lines if there is any differences in jurisdiction or other things from other states (if there are any, I don't know).
• Comma after 'Florida became the 27th U.S. state in 1845' to give the reader a natural break. Could stick in a second if you like.
• Why is exactly Miami-Dade and Osceola used as examples of who counties are names after?
• Stick in a sentence on the total area of Florida.
• The statement "To distinguish from counties in other states, one must use Florida’s FIPS code, 12" should be rephrased to passive, avoiding the "one".
• According to MOS:BOLD, the use of boldface the way it is here should not be done. Anyhow, never wikilink boldface. Emphasis is already established through a separate background color.
• I would have thought the 'formed from' counties should also have been linked.
• How about a short introductory text before the 'renamed' and 'proposed' to present the table, and give a short explanation for why/how counties were renamed, and the circumstances of proposals.
• Ref 7 should have page numbers.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed most of these. The first link on the page is already County (United States), is that not what you want? I used Miami-Dade and Osceola as an etymology example as I found it to be the most interesting case: two counties named after leaders of opposing sides of the Second Seminole War. As I explained to TRM above, the bold county names in the table is done by the template {{countyrow}}. I am unsure of how to remove this bolding; however, I made an inquiry to the creator of the template to see if he could do it. I did not add introductory text before the 'renamed' section, as every piece of information about the renamings that could be found is already in the table. However, I did include an introduction to the proposed counties section. I removed Ref 7, as this was added prior to my editing of the article, and I have no access to it. It is unnecessary for the verification of the list. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template was difficult to understand, but by replacing a ! with a pipe, the first row is no longer odd-colored, nor boldfaced. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, looks great. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is not clear, I am awaiting my support until either a short introductory text is placed above the "renamed counties" list, or a plausible reason to not include such a text is provided here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Florida's counties were originally subdivisions of the state government. Throughout its history however, county governments have grown increasingly important." The flow here is quite rocky. The first sentence says nothing about about the importance of the counties, so "Throughout its history however" seems out of place.

• Removed that sentence. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "FIPS Code"-->FIPS code, since "code" is not a proper noun. Same thing for "Proposal Date" in the proposed counties section.

• Fixed. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes in the table that are not complete sentences should have periods (full stops) at the end, such as "James McNair Baker (1821–1892), a Confederate senator and later a judge in the fourth judicial district."

• I assume you mean they should not have periods. I believe that was the only one. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two counties were previously proposed in Florida's state legislature" Redundant word.

• Fixed. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "but a clerk kept the bill from the governor, keeping it from creation." "kept ... keeping" repetition is clunky Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Many thanks for taking a look. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://floridanabob.hypermart.net/floridians.htm a reliable source?

• That is a textbook written by M. C. Bob Leobard, a professor of American History at Hillsborough Community College - which satisfies WP:RS as an academic source. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still a bit wary. I think http://www.alachua.fl.us/government/history/?era=2500 might be a higher-quality source. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed it out, thank you. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure you are consistent with the English variant you're applying to the whole page, as I noticed both "programme" and "program" in the lead section;
  • Fixed.
• Disambiguate The Herald;
  • Done.
• You first link "demonstration sport" on the second paragraph, but you have "demonstration event" showing first in the previous paragraph;
  • Fixed the first usage.
• "Teams from Canada have been successful in the event since it's return to the program" — event or sport? "it's return" → "its return";
  • Fixed.
• [Note 1] and [Note 2] would be more visible if they were placed just after  Great Britain (GBR) and  Sweden (SWE);
  • Done.
• In the "Notes" section, I'd place a bullet before each note, to make them more perceivable as describing distinct things;
  • Done.
• In the "See also" section, lowercase "Champions" to avoid redirects;
  • Done.
• Update the link to the IOC results database;
  • Done.
• Some inconsistency regarding the format of specific references:
  • The IOC references #1 and #13 don't display the website name as in #10;
    • Fixed.
  • Why isn't "BBC Sport" linked as well?
    • Link added.
  • Check here on how to format citations based on data from Sports-Reference.com.
    • Fixed.
• A suggestion (you can follow or not): add the World Curling Federation and IOC main pages in the "External links" section.

Parutakupiu (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Pages from both sites are used as references, so I don't know if it's necessary. Thanks for the review! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right Parutakupiu (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• One last issue: the first four sentences on the second paragraph all sound like a continuous repetition. Can't you rewrite them so that it says that curling was contested as a demonstration sport in 1932, 1988 and 1992?

Parutakupiu (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Opening sentences... it's much more than a sport contested at the Olympics. Perhaps give a brief historical description of the sport and then say it's been contested at the Winter Olympics since....
  • It does go into history in the next sentence. I tried something like that at first, but in the end the first sentence always became too long and/or cluttered, and it's usually good to start with something simple.
• " men's curling tournament was held at the 1924 Winter Olympics, then the sport was" perhaps "Olympics before the sport was removed..."?
  • Done.
• And instead of just "until 1998", maybe "until the 1998 games" appropriately linked.
  • Done.
• "For 82 years, the curling tournament at the 1924 Olympics .." I'd turn it around. I'd say that the "1924 tournament was considered a demonstration..." etc, "until, in 2006..."
  • Shortened sentence to "For 82 years, the 1924 tournament was considered a ..."
• "who were representing Great Britain." just "who represented"
  • Done.
• "and turned up evidence that the sport " don't like "turned up" at all. Maybe, "published"?
  • Switched to "found"
• The 98 winter games is quickly overlinked.
  • Fixed.
• "curling had a strong following in Canada.[6] Curling returned as a " quick repeat of curling, could use a rephrase.
  • Fixed.
• I think you could use a few words to describe the fact curling is a team sport.
  • I added "team" to "sport" in the first sentence.
• " In 2010, Anette Norberg, Eva Lund and Cathrine Lindahl of Sweden won the gold medal in the women's tournament, becoming the first curlers to win consecutive gold medal" - maybe you should say that "In 2006 and 2010"?
  • The way the sentence is phrased, it would be inaccurate because they didn't win a second gold in 2006.
• "According to the IOC, Carl August Kronlund of Sweden was the oldest Winter Olympics medalist, winning silver in 1924 at the age of 59. Robin Welsh of Great Britain was the oldest Winter Olympics gold medalist, winning in 1924 at the age of 54.[10]" can you merge these to avoid the repeat of "the oldest Winter Olympics... medalist, winning ... in ... at the age of .." in consecutive sentences?
  • I don't think that merging would be the best idea, it would make the sentence too awkward. I switched the second use of "at the age of" to "when he was".
• Medal winners table is normally sortable.
  • Do you mean the medal leaders table? Because none of main table lists in any of the current FLs are sortable.
• Why abbreviate when you don't go onto to use, e.g. ISOH, NWOOC?
  • Habit. Removed.
• Second gen ref doesn't make any relevant sense to me.
  • It's a link to the WCF database. When you pick a championship (ie. the Olympic tournament), it gives a quick list of links to complete results. Unfortunately, it wouldn't let me link directly to the Olympic portion.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC

• "Although it was removed from the official programme, curling was contested as a demonstration sport in 1932." seems to contradict "A men's curling tournament was held at the 1924 Winter Olympics, then the sport was removed from the programme until 1998." to me.
  • Not really, demonstration and official events are completely different things.
    • Well the sentence says it was removed "from the programme" after 1924. Does this mean the "programme" only includes official events? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added "official".
• Canada is overlinked.
  • No it's not, Canada is linked once and Canada [at the Winter Olympics] is linked once.
    • That's a little confusing. Easter-egg style... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it confusing? There are a bunch of easter egg links in there for other nations. It's the best way to insert relevent links without making it repetitive. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "IOC subsequently awarded the top three teams honorary" so, still unofficial then?
  • No, it was official. Considering that all of the members were dead, they couldn't just give them all medals, so there were posthumously recognized with honorary gold medals.
    • Okay, is it possible that "honorary" could be misconstrued as still unofficial (as I did)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose, what do you recommend?
        • Perhaps something like "posthumously awarded official medals" or similar? That way there's really no way for getting it confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The games ran from February 12 to February 28, 2010. A total of nine competition venues were used during the games, spread across Vancouver, Whistler, and the neighbouring areas of West Vancouver and Richmond." merge? "2010 during which nine venues were used, spread.."?
  • Done.
• "will host the snow events" past tense now please.
  • Done.
• "and will provide athlete housing" ditto.
  • Done.
• "of the scheduled start " past now, so we can just use "actual" start of events.
  • Done.
• "when he flew off the track" can we be more accurate here? This is a little tabloidy for me.
  • Fixed
• " He was going" - not great English, perhaps "he was travelling at ..."
  • Done.
• " the ice profile was changed" what does this mean?
  • Basically, that they filed the ice on the track down a bit to reduce the speed.
• "A forest of cranes tower over" beautiful. But not encyclopedic.
  • Fixed.
• Isn't there a commons template rather than awkward external link?
  • there used to, but a user went through a bunch of pages a while back, switiching the template to the link. I think the link is better for now, since there are no other ELs and there is already a wikibooks template there.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first table, shouldn't 'University Endowment Lands' actually link to University Endowment Lands, and not UBC?
  • Fixed link
• Similarly, in the prose above, it would be more accurate to state that UBC Thunderdome Arean is in the University Endowment Lands.
  • Well, UBC is on the endowment lands, so I think it's simpler to state it's on UBC.
    • UBC also has a campus in Kelowna. UBC is an institution, UEL is a geographic area, akin to Richmond and West Vancouver. As it reads now, the prose is inconsistent. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Olympic Villages' is a common noun at least when used in plural.
• Why are the locations linked in the first, but not the second, table?
  • Because they are all already linked in the above table.
    • For the matter of linking, every line in a table should be independent of each other, including independent of other tables. It could be that a reader chooses to consult the non-competitive table, because that is what they are interested in; the lack of linking also created internal inconsistency. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I was sure there was consensus to not use the {{commonscat-inline}} and {{commons-inline}} templates.
  • Fair enough. Switched.
• I would have though 'List of 2010 Winter Olympics venues' is more appropriate to the naming conventions of Wikipedia. Anyhow, consistency must be established.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I found both "games" and "Games" when the text refers to the Olympics. Capitalize the lowercase instances;
  • Done.
• "The games ran from February 12 to February 28, 2010 during which nine competition venues were used during the games, spread across Vancouver...";
  • Done.
• "... have been completed and provided athlete housing" — unnecessary now that the Games are over;
  • Done.
• "According to the CEO of VANOC, Joseph Furlong, the Committee..." — that last "Committee" is not directly clear (VANOC or IOC?). How about "According to its CEO, Joseph Furlong, VANOC..." or "According to CEO John Furlong, VANOC..."?
  • Done.
• "... as early as possible." — the original quote does not end with "possible" so place ellipses (...) at the end, and move the period after the closing quotation mark;
  • Would the ellipses really be necessary?
    • The major problem was the sentence in which that quotation was inserted not ending with a period, but you already fixed that. As for the ellipses, I was just following WP:ELLIPSES. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "... all three of the competition venues at Whistler..."
  • Done.
• "The last competition venues used during the Games were completed in February 2009..." — what do you mean? The venues used for the last events of the Olympics? Or the venues that were completed last?
  • Fixed, switched everything before "were completed" to "Final construction"
• "... tested prior to use for Olympic events." — "prior to use" is so formal, how about "... tested before hosting the Olympic events."?
  • Done.
• Since University of British Columbia Thunderbird Arena (which does not exist per se) is pipe-linked to the redirect "UBC Thunderbird Arena", might as well display it as such in the text, to agree with the naming in the competition venue table below;
  • Done.
• "... were pre-existing and have required minimal renovation to prepare in preparation for the Olympics.";
  • Done.
• "Of From the venues that were newly constructed venues in preparation for the Games,...";
  • Done.
• "... the Richmond Olympic Oval in Richmond and UBC Thunderbird Arena..." — add a comma after "and";
  • Done.
• The lead image (BC Place) can be increased to 300px as per MoS;
  • Done.
• Update the links from all the references concerning the venues (references #12–20 and #22–27) as they no longer point to the venue-specific page.
  • Fixed links.
• No external links? Then why a section for them?
  • Above I was told to switch the commons embedded link to the template, so I did that and left the two templates in the section.
• There is no alt text for the Richmond Olympic Oval image, and the alt text for the ski jumps image is wrong as it describes the place in a warmer period... without snow.
  • Don't forget this one. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't forget. I really really dislike that policy and I refuse to go along with it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parutakupiu (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Alt text issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comma should be put after "February 12 to February 28, 2010".
• "began in March 2006 and completed only eight months later." Missing "was" in there.
• Another "was" missing in "Final construction completed in February 2009".
• Two Whistler Sliding Track links with a grand total of one word in between.
• Give the New York Times italics in reference 9. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't particularly like the reference to "museum" twice in the first sentence of the lead.
• "Additional museums are in ..." presumably you just mean the remaining museums?
• "Currently" and "(as of 2010)", don't need both. I'd stick with starting the sentence with just "As of 2010,.."
• I'd quite fancy a link to the US Mint.
• "The National Museum, which is now known as the Arts and Industries Building,"
  • You've already mentioned the A&I Building, so perhaps this explanation of an alternative name should go with the first mention.
  • The first mention has "The Arts..." not "the Arts..." either way you should be consistent.
• "and have over 25 million people visit them " -> "and are visited by over 25 million people"?
• Picture column shouldn't be sortable.
• The empty picture cell would be best served to include an en-dash rather than leave it blank.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i fixed all of your comments except for two. For the first, the two "museums" in the first sentence, i simply can not think of another way of stating this. Should i split it up into two different sentences? The second, the explination of the past name of the Arts and Industries building, I think moving that up to the first mention of the buildign will muddle the sentence. Also, with the first mention I am merley stating special circumstances surrounding two different buildings, while the second time i am getting into the history of the museums as a whole. I feel explaing the past name is more appropiate to the historical section. I can still move it if you disagree, but it is just my thoughts.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing comments

• I know I haven't suggested an alternative, but six uses of "museum" in the opening paragraph still reads a little repetitively to me.

Ok think i fixed this. reduced the number of "museums" in the lead paragraph--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "entire Smithsonian collection and offices" at this point, what was the "collection"?

OK fixed this i think--Found5dollar (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "of the Smithsonian Joseph Henry"perhaps a comma before Joseph.

done--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "and another, The National Museum " (with The not part of the link) vs "the Arts and Industries Building" (with the not part of the link) - any reason for the odd capital T?

No reason, just typo. Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was opened in 1881 to provide the Smithsonian with its first proper facility for public display of its growing collections" It, its, its... again, a little repetitive for my taste.

Done--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "in their collections,[1] and and are " spot the rogue word?

found it and removed it.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we sure the images of the buildings comply with the US's freedom of panorama?

I looked into this and from what i understand. in the USA, pictures can be taken of any building so the majority of these pictures are fine.([12]). The only two that may pose a problem are the Hirshhorn and the National Air and Space museum since there are sculptures in the images. Since all these pictures were in Commons already i just assumed that they checked out ok. I will try poking around a bit more to find out for sure if they are ok to use. --Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i asked here and i have been told that it seems to be ok. I will wait longer and see if anyone else has any problems with any other images.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Washington Monument (1), The United States Capitol (7), the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial (8), and the United States Botanic Garden " (see above re:The or the).

Fixed.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "more than 161 museums" 162? Just that 161 is a bit precise for a statement like this. Perhaps "more than 160"?

ok. Went back to the source and changed it to what it says there.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5 seems to have a dead link (two days dead now, so not your fault).

Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is absolutely no mention of that this is in the United States while discussion either the institution or its geographic location. Unfortunately, this type of systemic bias frequents Wikipedia, particularly in US-centric topics.

Put this in the first sentence.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can a more specific "willed" be established: to the federal government for instance?

According to an excerpt of James Smithson's will (found here ) "In the case of the death of my said Nephew without leaving a child or children... I then bequeath the whole of my property subject to the Annuity of One Hundred pounds to John Fitall, & for the security & payment of which I mean Stock to remain in this Country, to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge among men." He was no more specific in the will then "The United States".--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The history in the lead tends to overfocus on the establishment and less on the growth.

I can not fix this right now, but i will add a paragraph or two tomorrow expanding on that.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added more.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How is the location referenced?

location is referenced on the page of each museum and is usualy evident in one of the two cites for either "type" or "year oppened". if it needs it's own cite i can do that easily. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added refs.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cooper–Hewitt should have an endash, not a hyphen. See WP:DASH

fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the dash where the image is lacking should be an em, not an en.

fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the additional museums almost an appendix. Perhaps it could be merged into the lead or something, or given a more prominent place. It does, after all, constitute an exception to the list, and should therefore be presented before the list itself.

moved section into the headdign of the "Museums" section. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A most enjoyable list. Brings back fond memories of the couple of days I spent wandering among the museums while visiting DC. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You use the phrase "home run" before you link it...

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hall hit 5 home runs" why not "five home runs"?

• Fixed, I'd just gotten used to the double-digit numbers. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "22 season" would hyphenate.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "mark of 60 stood for over thirty years until Roger Maris hit 61 " that thirty could be 30?

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " Finally Barry Bonds, who also has " - Not keen on "Finally..."

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to "Most recently". Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " lead a major league was 4, "
  • Four
• You have "player" and "runner-up"
  • Why not "winner"?
  • In both cases there appears to be multiple winners, so surely "runner(s)-up" for instance.

• Changed both. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Babe Ruth's caption:
  • En dash not hyphen.
  • Four not 4
  • Same for Pike & Hines caption.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Schmidt's caption - home runs 8 times - eight times.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What constitutes a "major league" in this context?

• A league with major-league-level records recognized by Major League Baseball, as sourced by the inclusion in the Major League sections of Baseball-Reference. The Texas League and the Grapefruit League are parts of MLB but not "major" (in the sense of highest level of professional sport, they are minor/training leagues) and Nippon Professional Baseball is the highest level of Japanese baseball but is not a part of MLB. And I fixed the 4. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a note with a reference or a link you can use to stop me asking the question again? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not directly. Take Al Spalding. He is listed at a similar FLC right now, List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions, as he led the National Association in several seasons. MLB.com doesn't always list this league, for example their no-hitter page only discusses the NL and AL. However Spalding has a player page that recognizes those seasons, and he is listed in his place with the third lowest career ERA. Would you accept this? Hardball Times is a pretty well-recognized source, they put out annual books, etc, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely a good start. I think my basic question is "how do you define what you consider to be a "major league" when most of us non-experts just associate that with "Major League" if you get my drift..." Anything based on RS which supports your choice is fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, no more complaints from me on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text

• You should not describe things that aren't actually shown in the image, like the writing on Barry Bonds' uniform.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Same goes for the writing on Babe Ruth's cap. (The characters are so small that I had to open the file's page in order to read them.)

• Ok, but it is there... Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "he is holding a baseball upward." - This is supposed to be a baseball bat, right?

• Yeah, fixed, many of these alt issues come because I largely just grabbed the image code from other FLCs and stuck on new captions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, the character on Jimmie Foxx's cap is really hard to read. If a detail is not prominent on the picture, it should not be prominent in the alt text.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "looks out having taken a left-handed baseball swing." - This is more of an interpretation than a description.

• In what way? He's a left-handed batter in the clear stance which follows a left-handed swing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That he is "a left-handed batter" and that he is standing "in the clear stance which follows a left-handed swing" are two pieces of information that I wouldn't have derived from that picture even if I had stared at it for hours. The alt text goes even a step further by stating that the man "ha[s just] taken a left-handed baseball swing". Could he not have stood there for half a minute, posing for photographers? Is there no other way he could have gotten into that stance? Goodraise 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Altered. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "A Hispanic man walking while shouting at someone out of the picture." - Misses a comma after walking. What follows after that comma is, again, too interpretative.

• Fixed, another copied alt issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "holding both hands up preparing to catch a ball." - Missing a comma after up. Suggest adding "as if" after the comma to avoid interpreting the image.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On his picture, Mike Schmidt is wearing a cap. Whether or not he has a "receding hairline" is not visible.

• Fixed. Yay alt copying! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The bat is behind him over his right shoulder." - From what I can tell, it's above his left shoulder.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "the back of his jersey reads 'McGwire'" - See above.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "His white uniform reads "Orioles" across the chest (obscured)." - See above. Adding "(obscured)" doesn't make the alt text any better.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Baseball card of a man in a white baseball uniform, black socks, and black shoes holding a baseball bat against his chest." - The picture is monochrome. What if the actual uniform was gray and dark-blue?

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Text on the bottom reads 'CONNOR, N.Y's.'" - This sentence leaves the reader who has to rely on the alt text with the false impression that there is no other writing on the bottom of the card than this.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I strongly suggest and ask that you read WP:ALT before fixing these issues.)

• Several alt texts suggest that the person shown is African American. That is something that cannot be seen on a picture. Goodraise 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General

• There are several links to disambiguation pages.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Links to the corresponding "year in baseball" or "Major League Baseball season" article" - This strikes me as very awkward. I think you should describe what is in the column, not where the text links to.

• Removed all-together. "Year" is self-evident. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In "Philadelphia Athletics (NL)", what is the "(NL)" denoting? Whatever it is, if it is worth noting, is it not worth noting in prose form?

• It is to separate the short-lived National League team (NL) from the very old and still existing Philadelphia Athletics (who have become the Oakland Athletics). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see, but why use this cryptic form over an explanation in prose form? Goodraise 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Better? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The American League was established in 1901, and Hall of Fame second baseman Nap Lajoie led that league with 14 home runs for the American League Philadelphia Athletics." - No comma. Suggest changing the sentence to "In 1901, the American League was established and led by Hall of Fame second baseman Nap Lajoie with 14 home runs for the American League Philadelphia Athletics."

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The most recent champions are Albert Pujols in the National League with Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira sharing the title in the American League." - Suggest changing to to "The most recent champions are Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira, sharing the title in the American League, and Albert Pujols in the National League."

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]