Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2010

• Not keen on "contains", perhaps "consists of" would be better.

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, and then to avoid repetition, perhaps instead of "the group consisted of", you could have "the group was made up of" or similar.

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "twenty-three million" 23 million.

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The now four-piece Spice Girls" Perhaps "Now a four-piece, Spice Girls ..."

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "a new album, and in November, a Greatest Hits album was" I would avoid the repeat of album, perhaps just "in November, Greatest Hits was ..."

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Spiceworld and Forever, you have a capital C for Cassette.

oops! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to allmusic (to ref the US positions) doesn't take me to the right page, I think this is the one you really, really want.

both links go to the same page, and when i click on the link in the article it does go to the right page... Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And I don't see "Headlines" referenced in that source at all.

it's in the book, but not on allmusics or billboards site, odd. will swap for the book. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all note under promo songs section are referenced (e.g. catalogue number, cancelled from album, rewrite of 5-4-3-2-1...)

the only places i can find for the cat number are discogs and online retailers? can't find a reliable source for cancelled single so will remove that. Mister sparky (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Spice Girls in America: A Tour Story" you suddenly link "United States", no need.

oh yea! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Big blank for the director of the video for ""(How Does it Feel to be) On Top of the World)" (as part of England United)"

added note. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Aren't those ISO accessdates in the wrong order?

all dates in the references are in the international format as they are a british band. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But ISO dates list the year first, then the month then the day, so as to be ambiguous (e.g. so we don't confuse day and month). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thats the american format. all other FL discogs i have worked on have the dates in the british format. Mister sparky (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the ISO standard, which is international. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See ISO 8601 which reiterates my point. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changed them now anyways. re cat numbers, is discogs considered reliable for them? Mister sparky (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "for quality vocal performances in the rock music genre" a direct quote from the Grammys? If so, quote marks needed and a ref too.

No, it is not a direct quote. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why you have artist(s)? Can't see more than one artist winning.

Corrected. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Any thoughts on the above discussion about the flag templates? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the flags. It's a sortable table, and as long as we comply with WP:ACCESS (i.e. we have the flag and the name) I'm happy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it is not wikilinked, could you shortly explain in the text what a "geotope" is?
  • I wikilinked it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect! bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe there is an article missing in: " Ten of the bird sanctuaries and Moffen Nature Reserve...". Also not sure about the meaning of the "while" in the same sentence.
  • Think I fixed it. If you feel it is still not right, please be bold and correct it yourself, as it reads okay for me now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a "the". Please revert if it is wrong. I am not a native English writer. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sixteen species are on the IUCN Red List" refers to all species, or animals only or seabirds only?
  • Specified. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "geotop" or "geotope"?
  • "Geotop" is Norwegian, so I've fixed that. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Did you consider marking the Ramsar sites in the table with color and/or label (like in the railway tables)?
  • I did; the reason I chose this solution is that it makes it possible to sort to find the Ramsar sites, while at the same time making it possible to sort to get bird sanctuaries. I can always add color if you feel it is necessary as well, but that would "wreck" the sorting. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why it would break sorting. If you have "Bird Sanctuary" (for the non-Ramsar sites) and "Bird Sanctuary†" (for the Ramsar sites) it would still separate the two when sorting, no? If necessary one could add hidden sort keys to make it sort properly. Anyway, color is up to personal preference and I don't feel strongly about this point. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are the land/marine columns with a lower precision than the size columns?
  • Because they are using two different sources. The source that specifies the marine/land values is only accurate to the km², while the sources for the total area is accurate to the decare. For the scale the article is covering, I felt these were appropriate sizes, particularly since some of the sanctuaries are less than a square kilometer. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds reasonable. As a related question: why are there hyphens in some of the land/marine sizes? Lack of sources? bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorting needs to be fixed.
  • Working on it, but I don't know why it is malfunctioning. No-one has answered at an inquiry at Help talk:Sorting, so if you know anything about the issue, please take a look. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have a look at it, though table sorting on wikipedia often confuses me. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried all kinds of options but it still does not sort properly. Sorry. Apart from finding sources in order to replace the hyphens, I can only think of splitting off the bird sanctuaries in a separate table (without land/marine columns). Or make the critical columns unsortable. bamse (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've split it into two tables. This solves several issues, although it is not optimal. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The picture possibly shows only part of the national park and should therefore get another caption. Something like "X in the Forlandet National Park"
  • Specified more accurately. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "an Arctic, wilderness archipelago" not sure we need that comma.
• "Five of the bird sanctuaries are Ramsar sites. Fourteen of the bird sanctuaries are islands" merge?
• "tentative list for nomination" it's a list or it isn't, not tentative, perhaps proposed?
  • This is the wording used by UNESCO. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "for conservation lays with " lies with?
• "Svalbard reindeer" if this is a unique species, then link to the specific species. It may be a redlink but it's more accurate than linking to a generic Reindeer.
  • Articles exist in Norwegian and German, so it is a plausible article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "the icon of Svalbard" sorry to be a pain but do you have a ref for this?
  • Yes, that probably needs a better ref. As I have no appropriate books at my side and I can't find anything suitable online. I've removed it for the meantime, but I'll readd it if I can find a ref (for instance the next time I'm into a library). Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• fifteen to twenty->15 to 20.
• thirty types->30 types.
• "Particularly Bjørnøya" -> "In particular, Bj..."
• "re important breeding ground for seabirds" grounds
• kilometers or kilometres?
• File:Svalbard protected areas map with names.svg - another map which most certainly contravenes WP:ACCESS. If you're colour blind then how do you interpret this?
  • I've added a legend; if there is more that is needed, then tell me. I've run it through a few online color-blindness tests and the colors are distinguishable. Isn't .svg just great :)
• What's the difference between 0 and – in the marine area columns?
  • —: no data; 0 = zero. Should this be explained further in the text? Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a general issue with the fact that this is English Wikipedia and virtually all of your references are not in English.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reg. sources; on this recently promoted FL List of National Treasures of Japan (temples), and all of the others Japanese treasures FL, they almost solely rely on non-English refs, and that wasn't seen as an issue. I think there is a general acceptance that non-English sources are valid. Sandman888 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:RSUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." And I'm quite certain that no English source can be found for the Norwegian ones used. So there is no "general issue" as I see it, there is no issue at all. Sandman888 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and the same guideline also says "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote", I'm trying to avoid this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are trying to avoid that other editors request it? As I see it, if no-one request it (and the stuff that is cited is hardly controversial), then it doesn't matter. Sandman888 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I'm trying to avoid the fact that we have virtually zero chance of proving that the information cited here is correct without requesting a translation. That's why I cited WP:RSUE. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:RSUE is fairly clear on the matter: Where English sources exist that are of equal or better quality, English sources are preferred. In most of the areas I work, English sources (reliable or not) are seldom available, and often the short summaries I send to FLC has more English sources than typical articles. Compiling lists from topics from a non-English-speaking country normally requires that at least some of the information be sourced from non-English sources, because the information at the necessary detail is not available in English. In this article, most of the information is from the directorate's (online) English brochure on Svalbard's protected areas. The only things from a Norwegian source is "although vegetation only covers 10% of the island group." (from Torkildesen) and the size of bird sanctuaries (from the directorate's database). The sanctuaries existence, date and location can be verified from the brochure, as can the size of the other areas (with one less significant figure). So although a lot of the number of sources are in Norwegian, very little of the content is actually being sourced from Norwegian. And for web sites, there is always Google Translate and similar services. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time for the review. Unless otherwise noted, I have amended per your comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First caption: should be "King's Highways", not "King's highways" (I think)
• Nowhere in the article is there a link to Kawartha Lakes
• Note 2: Why is "Road" capitalized in the second sentence?
• Reference is needed for "mostly rural municipality"
• Last paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing; were the roads in Victoria county but not maintained by the county?
• "with an shield shaped sign topped" → "with a shield-shaped sign topped"
• In the second paragraph of King's Highways, you're missing a space before "Highway 7, which is"
• "they are generally one lane" how about "usually" or something similar in place of "generally" to get rid of the repetition in the paragraph's first two sentences
• "city roads in Kawartha Lakes.[8] Kawartha Lakes city roads" sounds a bit odd
• First sentence of History: "city of Kawartha Lakes" → "City of Kawartha Lakes"
• "following the prior provincial designations" does this mean that the new designations were given after the old ones? If so, this part is redundant
• "The exception is" → "The exception's are"
• "Highway 48 near Victoria Road, to Highway 503 in Uphill" drop the comma
• "list of provincially-maintained highways" no hyphens after -ly
• Please give a reference for "Also known as Main Street"
• You can get rid of the "City Roads" title-thing above the city roads table
• Can you change "Towns are ordered" into "Communities are ordered"?
• In the city roads table: if a community is linked once, it should be linked at every mention in the table because it's sortable
• Why are Corsons and Bexley redlinked if other communities aren't?
• "by both the city of Kawartha Lakes" capitalize "city" again
• The comments for Kawartha Lakes Road 6 should begin with a capital
• Kawartha Lakes Road 17: in the comments, the note should go after the semi-colon
• In Road 18's comments, you can take out the "City Road 18" at the beginning
• Road 36 is missing a semi-colon in its comments
• Reference 1 should have a page number (i.e., what page is the map on?)
• Is the Thompson reference (currently 3) a book? Of so, the title should be italicized
• What is reference number 6? A press release (if it is, you can use {{Cite press release}}?
• In reference 9: there's no "pp." before the page numbers, and there's an extra space after the title
• In reference 13, I think "department" should be capitalized. Mm40 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of the issues you've brought to light, but have a few replies to some:

First off, wrt the last paragraph of the lead, the idea is that the highways that were transfered to Victoria County in 1998 were mostly NOT renumbered, but just changed from Highway X to Victoria County Road X. The exception being Highway 35A (became part of County Road 8) and Highway 36B (became the western extension of County Road 17). The maintenance switched as well. In 2001, they were renamed Kawartha Lakes Road X. In all cases, names changed, numbers didn't, with those exceptions. Hope this clears up what is honestly a really confusing reorganization of ownership and maintenance.

Second, King's Highway was a term used in law up until recently to refer to these highways. They are provincial highways now, but the former term is certainly far more familiar to the average person.

Third, I've removed the Highway 35 note, as I can't find a source.

Fourth, linking every community every time was a major issue for other in the last nominations, as it is a serious case of overlinking. It is limited now to the first mention of them in the order the table loads initially.

Fifth, the errors in reference 9 seem to be from the template itself. I've fixed the issues.

Besides what I noted, all the other changes have been made. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "existed prior to 1998, but no longer exist" why not "have not existed since 1998"?
• "...Victoria County. These were transferred to Victoria County in 1998. All Victoria County Roads, including the former provincial highways, were renamed when Victoria County ..." Victoria County x 4. Very repetitive reading.
• I have to say that even I find that map inaccessible. As for those who are colour blind, I'm sure they'll find it even more difficult...
• "[3][1]" can you list these numerically?
• "reassurance markers.[4]Highway 7" space missing.
• I thought WP:MOS#Images said to avoid "squashing text" between images.
• I also think the MOS frowns upon the use of # as number - see MOS:HASH
• Terminus cols in the first table don't sort but they do in the second. Any reason?
• I'm not sure how Western/Southern Terminus sorts. Sorting arrow up, I get "Highway 35, Highway 7" then four Highway 7s, then two Highway 7As, then 7 Highway 35s...
• Bullet point on the external link.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes made. I'm viewing wikipedia at small resolution on my laptop monitor, and the only place I get overlap is the first line of the City roads section. I moved the pic down slightly to address this. The terminii don't sort in the first table because almost every one of them is a different class of road, and many are simply boundary lines that lie on concession roads (e.g. Hayes Line). These roads aren't numbered and sorting them would be rather fruitless. The second table is far larger and more in need of being sortable. As for the second point on them, KL Road 15 ends at the junction of Highway 35 and Highway 7, so both are listed. I wasn't sure where this fell in order, but made it first. Following that is the numerical order of highways then city roads.

As for the map, is there anything in particular that you find makes it unreadable? It doesn't have to be 100% legible within the article, that's why you can click on it for a full version. I'm guessing that you're referring to the green lines on a green background though? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I'm still getting squashed text between the lead map and the 7and35shields image, but that's not a major deal-breaker. As for the map, I guess I'm referring mainly to WP:ACCESS which talks about not denoting particular properties with colour alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most (and the actually) important information isn't conveyed by colour alone, but colours add additional information for the keen reader (eg. the background green changes to pink in urban areas. For a roadgeek, its informative. For an average reader, unimportant and probably unnoticed). The King's Highways are all labelled (and 115 has two lines to show it as a divided expressway), the city roads are just lines. The thickness of the lines also indicated the type of road. I can see some concern over the lakes vs the land, but I think these sort of problems are endemic to maps in general - They are a visual aid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right, and maybe we should use some alt-text in these cases to explicitly describe what the maps are trying to show. I know it's no longer part of the MOS but I'm concerned that we allow these images through featured reviews when a considerable number of people probably can't get the most out of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I've shortened the caption on the map. Hopefully that will remove the pinch (unless you're viewing at 800x600). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd love to make it so even fully blind readers can get a rough idea as to the shape of the region and the location of the major routes. I'll rewrite the alt to be less descriptive of the legend, and more descriptive of the map. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm not the best with alts, but I think the change is for the better. It's very hard to describe a map with words. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 2nd and 3rd listed "ways" of striking out the same (a dropped 3rd strike)? Shouldn't that sentence be 3 ways, with the middle two just combined into "if the pitcher throws an uncaught third strike"?

• I pulled that from the rulebook; the cite shows four methods, so that's what I put in, even if we call them the same thing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a fan of "Who holds the single-season strikeout record is unclear." Perhaps just "There are several players with a claim to the single-season strikeout record."?

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You can go ahead and mark Blyleven a Hall of Famer. :) Just kidding.

• Would love to. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Couple issues with the Carlton image.

• 1. I'd remove the "truck" note in the alt text, that's not clear in the image at all.
• 2. The "lefty" fact in the caption is uncited.
• 3. Is it even true? Isn't he actually tied with RJ (who had 5 titles with the D-Backs)?

• The image captions for Peavy, Santana, and Verlander also need cites. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the Carlton image; I can't count. The references do verify that he is left-handed and won five, so that should do. All others cited. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The references do confirm it, but it's not stated anywhere in the article that he's left-handed or that (for example) Dazzy Vance wasn't lefty. I know it's true, but currently that caption isn't cited. I'd say just re-use the Carlton B-Ref page cite you use in the lead. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You got it. General reference also covers it too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "which is not put in play" what does this mean (to a non-expert for instance)?
• "are rare in practice, they have " I think "in practice" is superfluous, this is a practical list, after all, not theoretical.
• "lowest number of strikeouts accumulated to lead a league" can you clarify what "to lead a league" means in this context?
• 1939- two winners, three teams. worth a note. In fact, any player playing for more than one team deserves a note, and perhaps even a break-down of strikeouts for each relevant team.
• Our own article on triple crown (which we call Triple Crown) seems to be a sort-of dab page, talking about pitching and batting. Not ideal really...
• Per the comment above, would be worth a note next to "K" to say what you've said here.
• Refs 2 and 167 have different date formats from the others.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Linked in play. Removed in practice. I'm aware of the deficiencies of the MLBTC article, as this is part of a topic drive to improve it. It's actually my next task. Added footnote for strikeout. I ran a script on the article to correct the dates; let me know if something gets missed. I'm not really sure how you'd like me to clarify the league leader; it's already established above which leagues are included in this article through the use of a footnote. I could duplicate that note if you'd like. The players playing for more than one team hasn't been included in any of the other articles in this series; I've got no problem doing it, but I fear that the lead may be long enough/too long already. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiple teams for a player seem particularly relevant when you have two players and three teams, no? Who played for whom here? As for the other niggles, no major drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it was pretty clear. I did the best I could; it figures it was the last list in the series when I finally run into that problem. I'm honestly not sure of the best method to handle it, save writing another paragraph in the lead for the multi-team, single year winners. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that a rowspan will kill the sorting, but in my browser, it's still ambiguous as to which player played for the Phillies. I think a note would solve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You got it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, cool, and I get a 1/1024 bronze star for fixing your link! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a note, as KV said we're fixing up articles for Major League Baseball Triple Crown, however it's not a mistake that they are listed together as both the pitching (K/ERA/W) and hitting (AVG/HR/RBI) are simply called the "Triple Crown". Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I suggested it was a mistake, I just think with five minutes work, you guys could separate the articles appropriately. Challenge. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd rather see List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (batting) and List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (pitching)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The more complete set of articles (and thus less ambiguity) the better. If there's a chance these articles could stand alone from one another, then by all means, yes! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Double period by Lefty Grove in second paragraph.
• Reference 23 has a publisher with three Ls in "Baseballl".
• Ref 28 should have p. for its single-page number, not pp.
• "tied in the American League with 113 strikeouts each. Their total of 113 is the lowest...". Two issues here. First, this occured in a different year than the NL tie before this, which isn't made clear; when reading this, I initially thought they occured in the same year. Second, the opening of the latter sentence repeats the statistic in the former, perhaps unneccessarily.
• For the Charles Radbourne photo, there is no proof that it was published before 1923, though it was created before then. Even if this is one the newly revamped Baseball Hall of Fame site, I doubt it will say when/if the image was published. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed all but the first, which I could not locate. — KV5 • Talk • 21:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• "Both the American (AL) and National League (NL)" - since you use "both", this becomes a compound subject. Should be Both the American and National Leagues
• "and four series," - rm comma
• "In baseball statistics" - comma after
• "tie-breaker" - you might want to {{nowrap}} these, as one is broken over two lines on my browser, which may make it difficult for some readers to decipher the meaning.
• "batting average and runs batted in titles" - I would extend the link over titles so that it's clear you are going to those lists instead of the statistical article
• "performance-based criteria" - comma after; "of the tied teams" - comma after
• "were put in place instead"
• "thus far in MLB history" - replace with as of 2010
• "all finished the season"
• "then-Brooklyn Dodgers" - I don't know about that "then-Brooklyn" thing. I know they aren't there any more, but I don't really think it's necessary, especially since you explain later in detail that the team moved. Also, comma after.
• "Most recently" - comma after
• "6–5" - set off with commas before and after (interjection)
• "lowest scoring game" - lowest-scoring is a compound adjective; comma after
• "highest scoring" - highest-scoring
• "the Dodgers, 4–1"
• "Whitey Lockman then doubled" - I might suggest hit a double instead of "doubled" after removing "then" to avoid consecutive links
• Remove periods/full stops from key, as they are not complete sentences.
• No indicator of extra inning games in the table?

• No, both because one came in a series and because it didn't strike me as significant enough for the table. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I only ask because you mention them in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And present interesting information about the list. The Shot Heard 'Round the World isn't notated, but it's an interesting note about one of the games. I can notate without color if you want. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I wasn't asking for color; I meant just a small number of innings played like in the game logs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Otherwise all done. Thanks!

• Not overly keen on "Afterward" as a col heading. Perhaps just Notes?

• That's already used for references. How's "Playoff results" sound? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And then make Note(s) into Ref(s) because that's what they are.

• Another user asked. Does this look ok? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And then make sure the refs are in numerical order. (specifically [17][18][11] and [19][8])

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And then I'll be a happy bunny.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [7] Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Václav Havel identified as 'Czechoslovakian', when Czechoslovakia hadn't existed for years by the time he won?
  • It was the place of his birth. I couldn't (easily) find a guideline that said what nationality someone should be attributed with if the country he/she was born in no longer exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has the flag and link to Lebanon, but is from Liberia
  • Tsk, flags, hate 'em. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, just a couple more quibbles to fix or tell me I'm wrong on, and then I'll support.

• "The first multiple recipients" I'd usually associate this phrase with someone winning twice, not two winners in the same year. Perhaps the "joint" you use in the next sentence is a better phrasing?

• Okay, there could be grounds for confusion so I've used "joint" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "the majority of awards has been to politicians" Would "have" work better here?

• Yeah, interesting grammar thing that one. I'll go for have, I think I was trying to be too clever. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Referencing. Why do you not give publishers for the newspapers, and locations for the more obscure ones? Ref 24- the Australian, lists Bret Harris as a co-author, yet he is not mentioned in the template, as well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that adding a publisher of a reputable newspaper adds anything to this article and any "obscure" references I've chosen are wikilinked because, once again, I don't see that the location of publication of a source has any real direct bearing on this list. Co-author added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a chance to get back at the vigorous reviews from TRM :P

• I find the lead somewhat short. Could there be mention of, for instance, nationalities of winners (particularly the US dominance), the background of winners (there seems to be a lot of politicians, but I also spot some entertainers and diplomats), and a mention of why there is no award many years.
  • The IRC don't say themselves why there are no awards every year. I guess it's down to just waiting for someone particularly worthy to pop out of the background. As for dominance, etc, I'll certainly look into including a couple of sentences with this in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the lead should mention the first laureate and the first double laureates, but is there a reason it mentions all instances of double winners, and none but the first single? Are the double somehow regarded as more important?
  • Just "more unique" (I know, you can't be more unique than just unique)... I'll look at noting other "more notable" recipients. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead gives a quoted rationale for the awards for the mentioned winners. Are such quotes available for all, and could thus be incorporated into the table? For instance, Soros is perhaps most known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England", although I doubt that is what he won the award for.
  • No, the IRC haven't published the rationale for any winner but the speeches that precede the acceptances usually contain some of the rationales. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• At least from my European view, the list of winners seems extremely pro-US and right-winged. About half the winners are Americans, and the rest seem to be very pro-US. Is there consensus amongst commentators that the prize is such, or is this only "coincidental". Is there any controversy surrounding the award? Since the article not only covers a list of winners but also the award itself, I feel it is important to have some depth and balance in the article.
  • No controversy that I've found in my extensive digging around, it seems to be country-neutral (although yes, I concede many US and right-wing recipients are noted). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there anything notable surrounding the award ceremony? (I'm thinking down the line that the Nobel Peace Prize has a concert) Is it always awarded in NYC?
  • Nothing more than it's a formal dinner which is attended by folks who pay a premimum for charity to attend. Again, the IRC haven't published where the very early awards were made, recently, however, it has been New York. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Who is it that formally takes the decision? Is it a separate committee, or is the IRC board?
  • Sorry to sound dull, but once again the IRC don't go into details, it's awarded "by the IRC". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is 'Czechoslovakian' used for a 2003-award to a person from the Czech Republic? Should it not be simply 'Czech'?
  • See above, when he was born, it was Czechoslovakia. I'm trying to tread that fine line between getting a birth nationality correct vs a modern, politically correct nationality... what do you suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned below, the list is of nationalities, not countries. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Czechoslovakia was a union of sorts between two ethnic groups, the Czechs and the Slovaks, which had two different (albeit similar) languages. The few Czechs I know would be insulted or at best accuse me of ignorance if I called them "Czechoslovaks". Even during the Czechoslovakian Era, the two would have been distinguished as two ethnicities, although not necessarily nationalities. To use an different example: if a person from Eire was born in Dublin in 1915, should they be called Irish but British? Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I find it "easier" to read the names of countries instead of their demonym, for istance 'United States' instead of 'American'. It seems to be most common in the featured lists I checked (at random, more or less), but I cannot find anything in the MOS, so feel free to do what you like.
  • Yes, but interestingly enough for me, a lot of lists have "nationality" with a list of countries. "United States" is not a nationality. I did go to some extra work to make sure this was correct (apart from the stupid flag errors), if you really think I should list "nationalities" which aren't, in fact, nationalities, but nations, then I'll need to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Where there are two winners, are they in a random order, or is this the order they were officially presented?
  • They're listed (I think) in the order in which the IRC list them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some references wikilink the work/publisher, others don't.
  • I linked those who perhaps are less prominent than others. If you have a guide to what you'd prefer to see linked, unlinked (or perhaps just all or nothing) then I'd be glad to hear it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How about using a more cropped version of Bush, given the small size of the image?
  • Well, it's a licensed and half-decent image, could you suggest a better alternative, or would you just advocate cropping the one I'm currently using down to a pure mugshot? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the file page for the Bush portrait, there are two cropped versions of that image. The images are small, and some are difficult for me to see, so more head and less body-and-flag would be nice for some of them. I'll pursue this no further, as I am confident your discretion is as good as mine on this issue. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I can see, image copyright, disambiguation links and external links all check out good.
  • Thanks for checking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note A is fine, but I don't understand what is meant with notes B through D. Are they "upgraded" awards? If so, can this be mentioned in the lead.
  • These are additional notes to the award, as included by the IRC. They didn't go into additional detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall nice, simple, yet elegant list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. I will look at expanding the lead a little further in the next day or so, the other comments I think I've either addressed, refuted (how rude) or asked for more debate. I appreciate the time you've spent looking at the list and your kind words. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the Czech thing, I'm happy with your answers, but not quite so impressed with the IRC's website. Just make a comment when you've amended up the lead and I'll check back again. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the Czech thing, the Bush thing and tried to add a tiny bit more into the lead without moving too far into original research. Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing a column with rationale makes the list incomplete. This is what I really find missing. For Bush/Clinton a quick google gave this, which can be done for all:
  • http://www.theirc.org/news/irc-honors-former-presidents-bush-and-clinton-tsunami-katrina-relief-efforts-3690
    • No, it can't be done for all, by any means. That's precisely why I haven't included the rationale because there's no source or set of sources which provide this information. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you tried contacting the IRC? Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't want this to sound odd, but I think the IRC have better things to worry about than updating their website on the request of a Wikipedian. Even reading the link you gave doesn't give an official citation. And many of the earlier references for previous recipients are extremely vague, hence the overall infobox saying that it's awarded for... "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom". A little bit like our recent MusiCares Person of the Year which says is given for "artistic achievement in the music industry and dedication to philanthropy". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not talking about their webpage but about the rationales. And you'll never know if you don't try. Anyway, just because you can't find information for all doesn't imply that nobody shd have it. You can just leave a note for those where you can't find it.Sandman888 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • But the rationales would still have to be published, even if they did have them. THe bottom line is that the award is made for "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Maybe they do have them accessible somewhere. And you should still include the rationales that are accessible. Sandman888 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nowhere accessible I could find. And no, it seems of little point to include the paraphased rationales of 10% of the list, particularly as, like the MusicCares list, there's a overarching principle for the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (Outdented) That may be so, but the MusiCares is a much more specific award. "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom" that cd include just about anything, and many people will be confused, and rightly so, as to why some of the winners won. By including rationale, where possible, you'll at least minimize that confusion.Sandman888 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how people can be confused by that reasoning? These people worked in the field of refugees and human freedom. The musicians were awarded "for dedication to philanthropy". What's the difference? Equally confusing, or not (in my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the list includes well known public figures, not known for the contributions to refugees and human freedom. A rationale for 10% is better than for 0%. But I'll see what the rest of the reviewers say on this before pressing it further. Sandman888 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This list includes well known public figures too. It depends on your perspective. Besides, looking at the other links from the IRC page like the one you included, it'd be synthetic of me to "create" a rationale where, in nearly all cases, a clear and concise one is not provided. It's not quite like the Nobel Prize citations which are clear and concise and published, this is more about the overarching principle of contributions to refguees and human freedom. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Larger picture(s) on the right wd look better. On 27" its all very small.
  • I'm sure that's true but we cater for the smallest resolution, not the greatest. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've increased the images to 75px. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sure there exist information on who exactly gives the award.
  • The IRC gives the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean whether it's a permanent or ad-hoc committee or something else. Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's presented by the IRC, which was founded in 1933. It's a permanent group. As for who within the group selects it, that information is not provided by the IRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps country of birth wd be a better (more sensitive) way of describing the countries associated with the winners.Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, nationality works fine for me and the other reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be other reviewers who prefer countries instead. Sandman888 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, just a query over Czechoslovakian vs Czech. Which has now been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re-read the comment reg. demonyms. Sandman888 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No need to, it was "resolved". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DASH for number ranges in the references.
• Don't mix date formats in the references.
• Don't start the list with "This is a list of..."
• Be consistent with capitalisation e.g. episode vs Episode in the refs.

I promise to do a more thorough review in the next few days. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for the comments thus far! I will fix these today. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have resolved the issues. The list no longer begins "this list...", all references now use en dashes for the page ranges as per the MoS, the dates are all consistent Day Month Year in the references, and all instances of episode are now lower case. I hope this fixes things thus far, and I look forward to what you have to say upon more extensive review. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments okay, some more extensive remarks, hopefully useful...

• "large amount of characters" "large number" since characters can only be whole.

Fixed, stupid grammar mistake; I should have known better.

• Don't think we really need to wikilink reporter.

Removed

• You link biological weapon on its second use, rather than its first.

Fixed, first now linked instead of the second

• "acquaintance whom Sullivan owes a large sum of money to" "acquaintance to whom Sullivan owes a large sum of money."

Done

• "a large amount of license" perhaps "considerable license" instead of "a large amount of"

I liked your suggestion of "considerable license"; changed to that.

• "and also did the" never like "did" or "done" etc, perhaps "also performed the"?

Changed to "performed"

• "much of these concepts" many of these...

Fixed

• "kept intentional simple" intentionally.

Fixed

• "characters' personalities defined" "to be defined"

This is the only point of contention I have with your comments. I think a being verb here is unnecessary for the meaning of the sentence, and thus makes the sentence sound worse without changing the meaning.

I think either is alright so no further contention from me on this point. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "much of the character reactions" many

Fixed

• "character driven rather than story driven" I would hyphenate both of these.

Hyphenated accordingly

• You link protaganist not on its first use.

When I first linked it, it was the first use; fixed now

• There's a certain amount of overlinking. I'm not too fussed because I'm guessing you're doing it on a section-by-section basis, but I'm not sure if you really need to this.

I would like some clarification on this. Do you believe that words are linked unnecessarily, or are there words linked more than once in the article? Things I find important I link in both the lead and the the first occurrence outside of the lead, if only to provide relevant links to readers who both read the lead, and those who skip to only the section they want to read. I don't believe it is addressed in any MoS pages, but I see it used elsewhere and believe it can be advantageous for the reader.

You're right on the second occasion. You relink words from section to section, as I guessed. No big problem for me, for exactly the reason you suggest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think we need to link journalist.

Removed wikilink

• "she and a cameraman Jeff" either commas round Jeff or lose the a.

I think that may have been a typo; in any event, changed to "her cameraman Jeff", which should not require commas.

• Frazer's caption doesn't need a full stop.

Removed the period

• "When Drake and Fisher follow him, he apprehends him..." confused!

The entire sentence was quite head-spinning. I have rewritten it entirely: "When Drake and Fisher follow, Lazarevic apprehends them and forces Drake to reveal the entrance to Shambhala."

• Not sure links to British, American or grenade are strictly necessary.

Removed the links to Great Britain and the United States, however, I believe there is a slim chance that someone may not know what a grenade is, especially younger readers. Since it is central to understanding the sentence, I find no harm in leaving it linked.

• "While he is gone, Lazarevic invaded the village and kidnapped Schäfer, whom he later kills." unreferenced.

Now referenced.

• Ref 3 needs a pp. So does ref 9. And 16. Please check others.

Checked through and fixed where necessary.

• At least one spaced hyphen in the references (ref 6), make them spaced en-dashes please.

Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed everything, with the exception of one comment that I noted I disagreed with you on, and one of the comments that I requested further clarification regarding. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to the couple of points you queried. I'll leave it a day or so then collapse them. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "..created by video game studio Naughty Dog.." Although ND is technically Sony's studio, they still are primarily video game developer. So: "..created by video game developer Naughty Dog.." or "..created by video game studio Naughty Dog.." if you really want to keep "studio". I know the links then follow each other, but linking video game and not game developer seems weird. Besides, video game is linked in next sentence.

• Changed to developer per suggestion.

• ".. features a large number of.."? It's not that large, to be honest. Can "features many character" suffice?

• I was thinking "a diverse set of...", but then figured that was probably too subjective. In any event, I went with "features many characters" as you suggested.

• "focuses on the exploits of treasure hunter Nathan Drake" - "exploits"? As in: Nathan is the character who does what he does for his or his friend benefits? I'm not particularly familiar with the series.

• The usage of "exploits" here was more in line with the definition "A heroic or extraordinary deed," rather than to use for one's benefit.

• I thought it might be. No further quarrel. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "..it as a biological weapon, and in Uncharted 2:.." Can you put a full stop somewhere there? That whole sentence is just too long.

• Full stop so inserted.

• "He seeks various valuable items, and was designed to be an average and likable character." Two completely different facts in the same sentence. Sounds a bit weird.

• Split up the thoughts.

• "He is supported by a number of characters" - truly "supported" or just accompanied?

• In some cases, truly supported, but in others, merely accompanied. Changed wording to "accompanied".

• "The first is Elena Fisher, areporter who" - space

• Oops. Typo fixed.

• ".. has a separate antagonist who dies.." - "different antagonist"

• Changed

• After "Each different installment of the series.." it would be best if individual storylines would be separated by some indication. Like saying "In first game, blah blah ... In second game, blah blah blah". Unless it was intended to be a continuous description. Because still reads very "chunky"

• Done

• "..he goes after El Dorado once Sullivan tells him he is on to a big find." - can it be just "tells him about it" or something. That mess of short words is very vague.

• This wording is intentionally vague. In the game, Sully does not tell him what the find is, merely that his next find will be significant. Roman shows up without knowing that the find is El Dorado until later.

• So something along the lines of ".. once Sullivan tells him of a significant find he discovered."? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I re-worded it, is "once Sullivan tells him that he has found something of great value" acceptable? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems good. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "who steals the idol to sell its cursing abilities as a biological weapon to the highest bidder." - can it be just "...to sell it as a bio..."? Is the fact that it's sold to "highest bidder" important enough to include?

• It does seem redundant, doesn't it? Removed the "highest bidder" part.

• "Drake causes Navarro to drown when he forces El Dorado into the ocean, attached to Navarro's leg." That's a very weird construct. Can it be simply said "Drake drowns Navarro by forcing El Dorado.."?

• Technically, Drake did not drown him, so I have removed him from the sentence completely, hopefully resulting in a clearer sentence.

• To be honest, lead seems excessively long. The image does not help either. I'm not sure what to do about it though. Image may be moved to next section, then again it's really nice.

• To me, the lead seems in line with an article of this length. Also, the image shows a number of characters in the series grouped together; a similar image is found at the top of nearly every FL character article I've found. For example: List of Naruto characters, List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, etc... OK, so there are only three character featured lists, but I think the image gives at least a brief overview of the subject: the characters of the games.

• Well, not everyone's on a 42" monitor :P My point was that the image is very wide and in other lists it's not quite so big. Also, other FL don't truly dictate the layout of any future FLs. So the image can be manipulated until best appreance. But, as I say, I don't know what can be done about it except shrinking or moving down to next section.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I believe I completely misinterpreted your comment! I have viewed this page on a little netbook, so I know what you mean. I will make it a bit smaller. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I think there is not much more to improve about it now.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I will go through remainder (hopefully) later.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments! I believe I have addressed them all, besides the last one, which I happen to disagree with you on. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "..development team drew a number of concept sketches depicting.." You could link to Concept art

• Done

• "..depicting cliff-hanging and awkward weapon handling.." - "unfinished"? cliff-hanging for me means something a bit different.

• Reworded to "hanging from cliffs" to avoid confusion with the common phrase

• That sentence also need a mention that this is about characters not weapons or anything. For example, "Other more fluid motions were not.." is kind of ambiguous until you read up to motion capture part. Everything makes sense on second read. But I'm not sure it should need second reads.

• Agreed; it should not require a second read. Reworded to make the motion capture bit the first part

• "In designing the characters, the production team sought to capture a certain tone.." -> "The production team sought to capture a certain tone in the character design, .." the less commas the better

• Done

• "..studied source material from the pulp adventure genre." "source material" seems a bit redundant, what else could they have studied? The latter sentences list examples anyway. "..studied the pulp adventure genre."

• Removed "source material"

• "characters' personalities" -> "character personalities", commonly accepted construct and reads easier, besides it's not used later on in, say, "character reactions".

• Done

• "characters' humanity" - ditto

• Also done

• "To accomplish this, many of the character reactions were accomplished through.." - Accomplish does not really read easy here, especially twice in a row. "To accomplish this, many of the character reactions were delivered through.."

• Major oversight on my part using a word twice in a row; switched with "conveyed"

• "through expressions and body language" - "facial expressions"?

• Yeah, explicitly say so now

• ad-lib redirects to Ad libitum

• Piped the link

• "The actors did a number of read-throughs and .." - you can link read-through. Though it doesn't seem like the correct term. I'm not too familiar with slang though.

• I have linked it, but I do believe it is correct. That is, they sat around and read the script before actually ever performing any of it.

• "Naughty Dog conciously worked to avoid.." -> "consciously" and "Naughty Dog consciously avoided.." - redundancy

• Fixed, I believe

• "..stereotypes, both with the super-powered heroes, and with the overly sexualized female characters."

• Firstly, why are there "with"s? - "..avoid stereotypes, both blah, and blah."
• Secondly, these aren't the only stereotypes of action games. So "both" is sorta wrong. So, "..avoid stereotypes, such as blah, and blah"

• Fixed both

• "Evan Wells, Naughty Dog co-president stated.." -> comma "..co-president, stated.." You do use comma like that in other places. Also ", Naughty Dogs' co-president," or ", co-president of Naughty Dog,", it needs possessive case here. Otherwise it's just co-president Evan Wells who is a naughty dog XD

• I can't speak to his personal naughtiness, but I have fixed this

• "..Nathan Drake's, the main protagonist of the series, personality." That's a bit late to mention he's the protagonist (and next section titles/intro pretty much saying this too). Surely this can be moved to the lead into "Nathan Drake is the primary playable character in the series."

• Moved protagonists mention to an earlier spot

I'm a bit picky, I know. But I oppose FL for now, so I'll point out things to fix so I can support it. Further comments soon.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  02:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picky is good. I don't just want a star on the page, I want a page deserving of the star. I look forward to your picking apart of the rest of the article, sincerely I do. For now, I have addressed most of the above statements. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "But Hennig doesn't believe that technology was the only key to capturing emotion; rather, she said, it was the production of the game as if it were a traditional movie or stage play." [10] - how about this quote in development?

• Good quote. I paraphrased it and added it to the third paragraph of the creation section.

• "Nolan North voices Drake, and has a considerable" - I don't think the comma is necessary

• Removed

• "..interjecting aspects of his personality into Drake's." -> "mixing/adding his personality into Drake's." - unnecessary excessive expressivness

• Reworded

• "Drake is a playable character in the series' two video games" - "two video games of the series", possessives always sound weird with "s"s.

• Fixed

• "Drake is depicted as a professional treasure hunter with a shady background involving various people from the underground illegal goods market.[12]" - the source talks in present tense. It does not explicitly state he has "shady background". I think this is a bit on OR side for one of the main facts of the character. Just "..treasure hunter involved with various people...".

• I have added a source that says, "With a shady reputation and an even shadier past".

• "He is a very intelligent man, self-educated in history and various languages, and a supposed descendant of Sir Francis Drake.[13]" The ref does not talk about his intelligence, self-education in history/languages. The ref only applies to descendent part and even then it is concluded via sorta OR.

• Replaced the source with another that says all of that

• "In Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Drake uses" -- too many Drakes, "he uses"; also you already linked the game in 1st para

• Replaced a number of "Drake"s with "he"s. Also, it believe it is accepted practice to link pages twice when the first link occurs in the lead and the other occurs in the body of the text. Personally, I believe this ensures that the article will be more comprehendible to readers, as some start by reading the lead, while others jump right into the article.

I'm not talking about lead, rather Nathan section only.

1st para, 4th sent. "Drake is a playable character in the two video games of the series: Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, and the lead character .."

2nd para, 4th sent. "In Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, he uses the diary of Francis Drake to track the mythical El Dorado to ..."

2nd para 7th sent. "In Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, he is hired to steal an oil lamp from a museum that might point.."

In addition, later sections do not seem to adhere to the same linking policy. Fisher links fortune, skips thieves. Sully links thieves, skips fortune. Noone else links. If the reader does jump over lead, they'll jump to Nathan, so I agree Nathan section can be re-linked. Others — I'm not so sure. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For sure, for sure. I have de-linked now, sorry for the misunderstanding.

• "He, along with his partner Victor Sullivan, discover" - "He and his partner Victor Sullivan discover" less commas

• Fixed

• "statue that places a curse upon those who" - "statue that curses those who" - simpler unless the curse itself is significant on its own

• Done

• "from using the statues zombification properties as a weapon" - as much I'm into fancruft and fancy game terms... "from using the statue's powers of turning undead/creating zombies as a weapon" Also link zombie should you use it.

• Done

• "In Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Drake" - already linked in 1st para

• Explained above

• Reply above.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Drake tracks him to a monastery, where the entrance to Shambhala is discovered." - passive voice. I'm not sure who discovers it to suggest better - was it Drake, Zoran?

• Changed to active voice

• "Lazarevic discovers and consumes.." - "discover" again, it was just used

• Switched with "locates"

• "Naughty Dog" you link these in Drake and Fisher sections. I think the two lead and development links is enough already.

• De-linked

• ".. did not want him to appear too generic" - you cannot be "more average", "less equal", or "too generic"

• I suppose not, lol. Fixed.

• "Drake's appearance is generic, usually appearing in a solid color shirt and jeans.[19]" - I can't find that in the reference.

• Added a reference to support this.

• "a solid color shirt and jeans." jeans are as much the subject of further research as color or shirt. I don't think it needs to be linked.

• De-linked

• "This was to impost an everyman persona upon the character." - no ref attached, the next one is about reporter acquaintance.

• Forgot the red; attached now.

• The whole love interest info in unreferenced. Only mention of acquaintance with Fisher. I'd really love to see a ref or two on that he really is romantically attached. I know it's just plot, but still. It is given much weight in the text.

• Referenced where it was not already.

• I think some facts need more referencing to signify their notability better. I know that very vague, I'll point stuff out when I go through refs.
• Finally, I'm a bit weary calling other characters protagonists. A protagonist is by definition the one main hero. I haven't played the games, but it seems others don't get much user playable screen time.

• What term should I use instead; would something like "main characters" be acceptable, or perhaps "heroes"?

• Heroes might be a bit stretchy, but "main characters", "supporting characters", or just "Drake's friend/hero/love/arch-enemy" all seem fine — really depends on content. I only didn't like the "protagonist" in particular. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to change to "main characters" - my main question is if this is an acceptable heading for the first section as well. Thoughts? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems fine. I don't think there's a better alternative. "Recurring characters", perhaps, but that's just saying the same thing, really.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to this set as well. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect a full set and win a FL! ^^ —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "{{main article|Nathan Drake (character)}}" -> "{{main|Nathan Drake (character)|l1=Nathan Drake}}" - not sure on WP policy on {{main}} template usage, but seems appropriate to give non-dabed name. Also {{main}} is the main (no pun) template.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't even know that you could pipe with that template. Fancy. Fixed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Westerfeld hold the" holds.
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "the long list of nominees is reduced to a short-list of finalists" interested as to why long list isn't hyphenated while short-list is.
  • Fixed. Ive never considered that, strange. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• " Entries with a blue background have won the award; those with a white background are the nominees on the short-list." this is mostly covered in the key, but perhaps the key could use a white square and "Nominees on the shortlist"?
  • Added white box, add to hide an asterix inside the box to make them the same size though. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps my browser (again) but Broderick's image is slightly narrower than all the others, any idea why that be?
  • Well the image is only 193px itself, ive told it to go to 200px like the others but it seems to refuse to expand. I could scale them all done to 190px or if you have any ideas on how to make it conform? Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps just use the classic thumb (without forcing) or upright on all of them? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without forcing them makes them 220px wide, which doesnt fit. After doing some learning over at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial i couldnt figure anything out so i reduced them all to 190px. Salavat (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "with the most recent being in 2009" ugh, maybe "most recently in 2009."
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]