Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2011

• Are original artists for the track on which the remix is based available for this list?

• I could probably hunt them down, but the award is not awarded to the original song. If I was to add the original artists, where would I place them? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Trentemoller has a diacritic on the o in our article.

• Fixed Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cat says established 2002, first award on this list was given 1998.

• Oops, forgot to change it when I merged the two. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First para is silly short. Merge intelligently (per WP:LEAD, an article of this size doesn't need three paras).
  • Paras combined
• " An alumni directory compiled in 1937 reveals that older alumni have included members of the clergy, businessmen, physicians, educators, attorneys, musicians, and journalists" while this may be true, this is probably true of any establishment founded for a few years. When was Benet Academy founded? Worth putting that in the lead.
• Okay, you add that info in the third para, but you can't talk about what happened in 1937 without putting it into context. I went to a college founded in 1284, if I started talking about what happened in 1937 without mentioning that the college had been around for 650-odd years, it would seem strange.
  • I mentioned the year the school was founded in the second sentence
• US News and World Report is usually called "U.S. News & World Report ".
  • Fixed
• The lead, as a whole, provides a reasonable overview of the history of the Academy, but this list is about the alumni. You should be focussing on them, not the history of the institution.
  • Ok, I shortened the history paragraph.
• What does a dash in the "graduation" col mean? Needs clear explanation. I guess "Studied as a freshman" means they dropped out? It's not 100% clear to me (as a Brit...)
  • I added the em dashes per Mrwojo's comments above. The em dash indicates that they studied at the school but never graduated there. I added both the word "only" before "during the ___ school year" and the high schools they graduated from.
• Ref 1 should be pp. not p. (multiple pages).
  • Fixed.
• Refs, is it "Daily Herald" or "The Daily Herald" or are they different?
  • Daily Herald, without "the". I removed that one instance.
• Is "Herald-News" one or both of the above?
  • Neither. See [3]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them above. Edge3 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "Only alumni who have articles on Wikipedia are listed here." really necessary? It's like saying "only notable people are listed here." I believe it's already a given that everyone listed there should be notable.
• Ref 7 and 13 has double periods (..) after their publisher.
• "The all-girls Sacred Heart Academy operated nearby, founded in 1926." has a misplaced prepositional phrase. It should be "The all-girls Sacred Heart Academy, founded in 1926, operated nearby." See this.

Moray An Par (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I enlarged it.

• What is "the class of 2013"?

  Clarified

  I see what it means, but shouldn't it be "came"->"come" in that sentence? bamse (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

• A question on notability (I am from Europe so please bear with me). At least in my country there is no emphasis on high school alumni (maybe on university alumni, but not much on those either). I guess that's different in the US, no?

  For the sake of not over-generalizing, I will limit the scope of most of my comments to Benet. I don't know that much about alumni relations in other schools, but for private schools like Benet, cultivating alumni relations is very important. By providing an atmosphere in which former students can remain connected to the school and to each other, Benet has established a quite expansive network of connections that can be useful for career-planning or for fundrasing. Alumni, especially the more successful ones, often prove to be the most fruitful targets of fundraising at Benet. And in compiling a list of Benet alumni who have later on become successful in life, the school is giving everyone a sense of pride in the fact that they are a part of a community that has produced so much talent.

  Outside of school development purposes, local newspapers like to keep track of Benet alumni as well (or any former resident, for that matter). Dan LeFevour, for example, got a lot of local media attention because he was a former resident of the area who went on to become a professional football player. Local newspapers love stories about former residents who become famous later on in life, and when they write those stories, the newspapers provide a bio that often includes the names of the schools they attended. As such, Dan LeFevour's affiliation with Benet was widely publicized in the region, in the same way that other alumni's affiliations with Benet were publicized when they became famous. The fact that Benet students have done well academically, and the fact that it already has so many famous alumni, certainly boosts its public image.

  Does that answer your question? I hesitate to expand my commentary to other high schools in the US, because I simply don't feel that I could make broad statements about US high schools in general.

  Thanks a lot. It more than answers my questions.

• "clergy, businessmen, physicians, educators, attorneys, musicians, and journalists" seem like very normal professions to me. Why mention it?

  US society focused much more on agriculture in 1937 than we do today, much like the rest of the developed world. The fact that alumni have gone on to non-agricultural industries, in my opinion, underscores the kind of vocational preparation that the school offered.

  Makes a lot of sense.

• What is a remedial course?

  Explained

• In the table, center alignment of the "Graduated" column would look better in my opinion.

  I don't know how to do that, but I'll look into it.

Short break, will continue review later. bamse (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) continued...[reply]

• What are the inclusion criteria? Having a wikipedia article on the respective person?

  Yes that is the inclusion criteria. In fact, I previously had the sentence "Only alumni who have articles on Wikipedia are listed here" in the article, but I removed it per the advice of Moray An Par above. Basically, his/her concern was that the sentence conveyed an idea that was too obvious or redundant, especially if it is convention on Wikipedia that a person can be listed on a Wikipedia list if and only if he or she has a Wikipedia article. What are your thoughts?

  I am fine with the current situation. Personally I don't mind red-linked entries in tables either if there is a chance that an article will be created.

• Wikilink "2010 election" in Jim Ryan's entry.

  Linked

• Wikilink publishers (if possible) in references.

  I linked all of the ones I could find.

  Not sure whether they are identical, but at least they share the same name (please check): The San Diego Union-Tribune, Naperville Sun, Chicago (Magazine), Herald News. There are some Daily Heralds (refs 21, 24) which could possibly be wikilinked. bamse (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I added extra links for the Daily Herald, San Diego Union-Tribune, Naperville Sun, and Chicago Magazine. The article for Herald News is for a different publication in New Jersey.

• That's all the images we have of Benet alumni?

  One more added; do you want more? Adding more pictures would cause the photos to spill over into the References section on my browser.

bamse (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On my browser, there is still space for two more images or so, but (from experience) I understand that it is virtually impossible to arrange images and tables in such a way that it looks good on all browsers and screen resolutions. I was just wondering that if we have images of most alumni, we could have an extra "image" column in the table instead of placing images outside the table. bamse (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Photos are also available for Lee, McCareins, Salpeter, and Schaus. IMO that's not enough to warrant an extra "Image" column.

  Alright.

I responded to some of your comments above. Please excuse my inability to fully respond. I'm busy at the moment and will respond to the rest of your comments later today. Edge3 (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments patiently. Only open question is the center alignment of the year column. I am not good at table syntax, but if you asked at wikipedia help pages or Help talk:Table you'd probably be helped quickly. bamse (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out through the IRC help channel. Edge3 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence reads awkwardly to me; I would have said that the first comma should be removed, but perhaps others perceive it differently.
  • Both seem grammatically sound; removed for argument's sake.
• 'First World War' is not linked, while 'Second World War' is in the key prose. I would say it is a border-line case of whether it is overlinking (either way is fine for me), but internal consistency would be nice.
  • Delinked
• The description of what is sourced where under general should not be in italics.
  • Removed

Overall a very well-composed list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. —WFC— 16:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mariappa's caption says he "started his career" at Watford, referenced by [1]. I couldn't really find that in the reference.
  • Debateable. Recasted nonetheless.
• What's the logic behind the ordering of the images? Mostly I'd expect them to be alphabetical (although only because that's what other lists have done, and it matches the original sort of the table).
  • My only real aim was to spread out the Watford kits. Alphabetical order now achieves this, thanks to the inclusion of your favourite Hungarian ex-Hornet.
• I think Watford F.C. is a supercat of Watford F.C. players, is it really needed?
  • Its inclusion in both has more to do with the categories themselves. Being a "top-level" article (along with the managers, seasons, stadia, club etc) you would probably expect to come across this in the club's category. On the other hand, it's hard to justify not putting it in Category:Watford F.C. players. Most similar lists use a similar convention, notably those of Gillingham and Ipswich Town. You're right to raise this, but I think the redundancy is a (small) net benefit.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers for the comments —WFC— 23:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "held over 23 days in September" always 23 days? Always in September only?
• "the newspaper Informaciones, " no link? And presumably it's a Spanish newspaper?
• "Spain and countries with a close proximity in Europe such as the Netherlands" when was Spain close to Holland? It's probably closer to Morocco.
• "into day-long segments, called stages. " no need for comma.
• "There are other jerseys as well: " - perhaps "Other jerseys are awarded, including: "
• "French cyclists are second with 9 victories " - nine.
• "also been set up by newspapers" maybe established rather than set up?
• "The first race was won by Gustaaf Deloor, he won again the following year" not ", he won" perhaps "who".
• "four year suspension" four year needs a hyphen.
• "Frenchmen Jacques Anquetil" man.
• "by the smallest margin," ever?
• "following year Pedro Delgado won his second Vuelta." no need to repeat Pedro.
• dashes in the table should sort as zero.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've addressed everything here, thanks to Edge as well for clearing up the issue over the month of the race and for your other edits, much appreciated. Thanks for your comments TRM. NapHit (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this, and fixed some inaccuracies in the lead. Did not get to checking the table, but sources look good. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC) More detailed analysis, checking the table with the general source ([6] etc)[reply]

• The current total distance in the article does not agree with the source. Some examples:
  • 1958: The source says the race was 3242 km.
  • 1960: The source says the race was 3567 km.
  • 1961: The source says the race was 2857 km.
  • 1962: The source says the race was 2813 km.
  • 1964: The source says the race was 2860 km.
  • 1965: The source says the race was 3410 km.
  • 1966: The source says the race was 2950 km.
  • 1968: The source says the race was 3014 km.

I suggest that you change all total distances in the article to the distances in the source. Or, if you have reason to believe that the Vuelta website is in error (which is certainly possible), show the source that you used.

• 1935: The total time for Deloor does not agree with the source
• 1936: Gustaaf Deloor won 3 stages, not 2
• 1946: Not given in the source, but [7] (not reliable enough to use as a source in a FL) suggests Dalmacio Langarica was part of the "Galindo" team. This source also indicates that before 1955, except in in 1946 and 1948, the race was run with individuals.

As you say the source is not reliable enough although very well detailed so unless others deem the source reliable I'll have to leave that out. Plus there is no mention of the team on the vuelta website. NapHit (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1948: Bernardo Ruiz was part of the "AGRIS RADIO" team

according to [8] he was part of another team. NapHit (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I looked at the wrong 'Ruiz'.

I checked the races until 1969, and hope to be able to check the rest later.

• Other detail: the cyclingnews website should have work=Cycling News|publisher=Future Publishing Limited. Similarly, the publisher for the Vuelta website is Unipublic. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done all these NapHit (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the other years, they seem fine.

• I would have said the semicolon on the first line should be a comma.

There isn't a semi-colon on the first line assuming your talking about the lead? NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I think of it, using lines is not accurate since it will depend on screen width and size rendering. The place I am thinking of is "three "Grand Tours"; along ". Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done NapHit (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the 1941 edition the only which also took place in countries "with close proximity"? Particularly if this is a recurring phenomena, which countries are these?

Someone had changed the sentence from what it originally meant, rectified that issue. Regarding the countries, the only one I can find a reference for is the Netherlands which is not close enough to Spain to warrant being put in the lead. See TRM's comment above. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph of the lead is without references.

Added a ref NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the history section there are some very short sentences, such as "He won his second Vuelta in 1983." that perhaps could be merged with adjacent sentences.

I'm not sure the prose would read better if I did this, as I would end up saying "so and so won this year, the following year" over and over again which is not good practice, so I think its fine. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The history section seems completely referenced except for the last statement of the third paragraph.

done NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To me it seems odd to have rows for years without a competition.

Each to their own I suppose, I personally think it would be odd not to include them, as it conveys to the reader clearly what years the event did not take place. It would look odd in my opinion if the table jumped from 1951 to 1955 without explanation. NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking years countries in the table and elsewhere is overlinking.

The countries are only linked in the table as far as I'm aware apart from Spain obviously. I was of the impression that sortable tables were allowed to overlink and this has not come up in any candidacy for a while. Unless policy has changed I'm not sure if there is an issue. NapHit (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between overlinking and repeatlinking. Tables have an exception from the MOS guideline of only the first occurrence being linked, i.e. tables can have the same link repeated in multiple rows. However, tables do not have an exception from the guideline of overlinking, which involves linking to terms deemed to general to serve a purpose, for which countries are specifically mentioned. More about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the MOS page you brought this quote from the repeatlink section would seem to contradict what your stating; "where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links." NapHit (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the table can repeat links from other places in the article, and can repeat links within itself. Nowhere does it say that tables are allowed to have links which normally should not be linked. The repeatlink section does not give any exceptions from the overlink section. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this is the case then nearly every list promoted would fail this requirement as most lists link countries in the table. I would be interested to see what other reviewers think because I don't think this is an issue at all. I have been at FLC for three years now and this is the first time this has come up so I'm not sure if your interpreting the MOS wrong or everyone else is or they are not clear enough, but in my eyes there is not a problem. NapHit (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the above, I've fixed this now. The countries now link to the relevant national cycling federation article for that country except for Kazakhstan which does not have an article. Hope that meets your demands. NapHit (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The "stage wins" column sorts oddly for me. In an increasing sort, it sorts zero, emdashes, larger numbers.

fixed this NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, when sorting by "cyclist", 'not contested' is sorted in the middle under NOT..

I tried to fix this, unfortunately as there is a cyclist whose last name starts with Z I can't get the not contested bit to sort after him so I'm afraid there is not much I can do unless there is a way around that issue. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think my last edit solved this.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did thanks Edge NapHit (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What order is used to display the multiple winners with the same number of wins? It does not seem to be sorter either by year or surname.

It's sorted by the year of their first win NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then Fuente is in the wrong order. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed NapHit (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image licenses look good.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty sure the apostrophe shouldn't be there in "Vuelta's" (multiple places).
  • Still see a couple in the history section: one in the first paragraph, one in the fourth. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

should have corrected them all now NapHit (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one in the fourth paragraph is still there. This is the only one I see left. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

changed it, fairly sure that was the last one. NapHit (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comma after "The current champion is Vincenzo Nibali of the Liquigas-Doimo team"?
• History: Feels like the comma after "The Vuelta was not held in 1949" should be a period.
• Comma before "led to dwindling international interest in the race" should be removed.
• Is it "Grand tours" or "Grand Tours"? I see both in close proximity to each other.
• No need to link the Tour de France twice in this section.
• Comma after "Roberto Heras won his first Vuelta in 2000" feels like it should be a semi-colon.
• Team should be decapitalized in the headings of the main table.
• The Cycling News website has the publisher given four different ways. Pick one and stick with it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Giants all your concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about the usefulness of having sortable tables with one entry. I know consistency is good, but this still seems a little odd to me.

• Point; made all single-entry tables unsortable, as well as one where the sorting wouldn't do anything. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "When the Hugo awards were begun in 1953, what awards were given were entirely decided by the committee that organized the Worldcon that they were presented at." not wishing to be rude but I think this is one of the most awkward sentences I've ever read in my life....

• Do I win an award? Fixed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "by the overall World Science..." what's the purpose of "overall" here?

• None, removed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Despite this, however," no need for however here.

• Actually, despite this, however, it has been removed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "to add additional categories" reads poorly with the repeat of "add..."

• (insert repetition joke) fixed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The next non-standard Hugo award .." since you changed the title of the list, I guess you need to re-phrase this!

• Guess so! --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied inline. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not convinced how accessible the map is given that it uses just colour to convey information.

• I'm not very educated about the accessibility guidelines; do you have a proposal to make it more accessible?

• The general rule is to not use colour alone to convey information. However, since this is an image, I guess the best way to deal with the access issues is to have fully comprehensive alt text which describes to screen readers what the image is trying to convey. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Added alt text to the first image - does it work?

• "There are twelve U.S. states that have an official state horse, ..." would prefer "Twelve U.S. states has an official state..."

• Done.

• Is there a general article n US state symbols somewhere you can link to in the lead so non-experts know what this is all about?

• There's Lists of United States state insignia, but I'm not really sure that provides any better information... I can link to it if you want, though.

• I just thought there'd be a good call for a link to something that is meaningful to non-experts, e.g. in the UK we don't have a concept of "state horses". You know what I mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a couple of sentences to the article on what state symbols actually are, along with the link that I posted above. Does this help?

• "There has been a proposed state horse that was not selected in one state, Oregon, " reads very strangely to me. Perhaps turn it around and say that Oregon proposed a state horse, but it was not selected.

• Done, I think, but take a look.

• I see no useful reason for the "description" column to be sortable.

• Done.

• What's a "founding stallion"?

• The stallion (male) from which all or most horses of the breed descend. Linked to foundation bloodstock.

• Be consistent with the use of periods in the description column.

• They should all have periods now.

• Would prefer to see column widths the same from table to table with similar headings.

• Could you tell me how to do this?

• You would need to force column widths.... it's no major trauma for me, but I'd prefer it. There are many lists which do this already, I'd need to go back and find an example though! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dana, I know what to do, it'll just take some tinkering. I'll do it when I get home. Courcelles 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, done. You might need to play with the widths some more, but as long as the percentage calls add up to 100 and the two tables use the same percentage (like it does now) it'll work. The third table has separate column names, so leaving it narrow is, IMO, better. Courcelles 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Courcelles! The sizing looks fine on both of my computers (different size screens but both Firefox), but if anyone else thinks they're messed up I can play with the ratios. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• State symbols "date" column doesn't sort correctly in Safari.

• Could you tell me how to correct this?

• I think it's because Safari interprets the whole column as text rather than just numbers. In any case, I used the {{sort}} template in this edit and it seemed to do the job. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 2 has a spare period, "cheat" the template....

• Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! Replies interspersed above. The coding issues I'm going to need help on... :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, very much so. Have hopefully helped above a little.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Florida: "The Florida Cracker horse was first brought to what is now Florida in the 1500s by Spanish explorers, and they played a large part...". Tense conflict between singular ("was") and plural ("they"). There's a similar issue in the Idaho description.
• Maryland: "Maryland has an long history of breeding and racing Thoroughbreds". "an" → "a".
• Massachusetts: The state's name should be spelled out instead of having MA in the description.
• Not a big deal, but the dashes for blanks in the image column might look nicer if they were centered. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much for the review! I have taken care of all of the above. My only question was on the centering of the dashes - I think I fixed it, but I'm not sure if it was the most elegant solution. Feel free to instruct me as to if there is a better way, or just tweak yourself if that's easier than explaining to a code idiot like me :) Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it's my fault this exists in the first place, but could we change "team[H])" to "team)[H]"?

• I wouldn't, just because the "H" note only applies to what's in the parens, not the whole line including what's outside the parens. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gah, looks funky inside the paren. Can we arm-wrestle over this? I'm sure our readers can handle the one-character displacement, and aesthetically it's waaay superior... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it's in the key, at least I don't have to change all the lists. I tried a compromise. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I could be wrong but when you say "also a major league record", I'm not sure you've linked to mlb beforehand (or a similarly relevant link).

• MLB is linked in the first sentence. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, just wondered if it was therefore supposed to be Major League rather than major league (I know there have been discussions over other "major leagues")... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood... when we use "major league" as an adjective it's traditionally uncapped. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend you directly cite Bob Hall's 30% in the caption. As a non-expert I can't see it, even if it's in the baseball-reference.com link. Sorry!

• It is in the B-Ref link, but some "routine calculations" as outlined by WP:NOTOR are required. If you'd prefer I duplicate the link, I will. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer that, but also (even if it's just for my benefit) how you use the baseball-ref page to calculate that? I am a baseball newbie so it would be instructive for you to help me interpret that page! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The way I arrive at that is simply an average. If you look at Hall's statistics page, the "Standard Fielding" table shows the number of games played per position. Using only the Philadelphia games, I take an average of the games played for each position shown. In this case, it's 20 at 3B, 15 at SS, and 11 at 1B. 46 total games = 43% at third base, 32% at short, and 24% at first. Hope that helps. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hallahan's caption ditto. And perhaps go for "in a single season" rather than that awkward "in 1 season" (MOSNUM trauma for me).

• I'll change the wording in Hallahan, but the cite easily covers the 22 strikeouts - not sure how it's unseen. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it was the "1 season" I had the biggest problem with... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pitcher Earl Hamilton lost his only decision with Philadelphia." this is quite mystifying to a baseball newbie. Any chance you could make that clearer to a dunce like me?

• Would a link to the article on the decision work? I was trying not to be repetitive - "X won Y games, Z won A games", etc. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think so. To the rest of the non-baseballing world "los[ing] his decision" can mean a world of things. Again, it's down to me reviewing it as a newbie. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. — KV5 • Talk •

• Hansen caption has typo.

• Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 27 needs an en-dash.

• Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The number of the participating countries was greatest in Asian Games history." I fear that I made a mistake in my original review. I meant to say that the "the" before "participating" should be removed, not the one before "greatest". That would make the sentence "The number of participating countries was the greatest in Asian Games history." My apologies on that one.

Done

• Medal table: "a" should be added before "three-way tie in men's pommel horse...", along with another before "tie in men's ring for first place".

Done

• "tie for third in men's pole vault meant that two bronze medals were awarded." "a" should also be added before this. Actually, I think this would make a good sentence by itself, as the prior part is quite long.

Done

• Bullet point would be nice for the one note.

Done

• In reference 2, I don't think the parenthetical part is needed for the publisher. If the country itself should be made clear, you could title it India Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and then pipe the link.

Done

• Is gymnasticsresults.com (refs 17 and 18) a reliable source?

Yes it is, it's a most authentic website which reserves archives of gymnastics' results, for Asian Games they have data from Asian Gymnastics Union.

• Is the YouTube video from an official source related to the Asian Games people? If not, it's troublesome because we aren't allowed to link to potential copyright violations. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Video is neither of Indian govt nor of uploader as it is in Japanese and I don't think anyone would ever claim the ownership of this video. This uploader has great list of such videos,

if you want then check here. But as taking precaution I've removed this link.

• I'd be tempted to put note A after the closing parenthesis, not at the end of the sentence, because the note is particularly pertinent to the nomenclature of the games, not the dates.

Done

• Not keen on leading zeros in "accessdates" such as 01 April 2011. Humans don't need that leading zero to read it correctly.

Done

• Ref 13 has an issue with the accessdate formatting.

Done

• I thought we should use archiveurl= etc for the Wayback machine stuff?

Done

The Rambling Man (talk)

• References are inconsistent. For example: Ref 1 says Allmusic but Ref 2 says Allmusic.com. A few more instances throughout.
  • consistent now
• Ref 6 publisher is wrong. (Billboard → Prometheus Global Media)
  • I think you meant Rovi Corporation and not Billboard. Changed.
• Many online sources are italicized. Please fix them.
  • I think you are referring to "Encyclopaedia Britannica", which is a book, so I thought it should be italicized. Changed.
• Ref 35 RPM should be italicized (it is a magazine)
  • True, forgot to do that.
• Ref 14 vs Ref 36 inconsistent publisher and work.
  • done
• Ref 40 Zobbel. I don't think it's reliable.
  • Me too, but I'll ask at WP:RSN soon
• Ref 41 ChartStats. Is it reliable?
  • Don't know. Will ask.
• Ref 37 publisher missing
  • I think you mean the work. Fixed.

• I'm doubtful about the usage of "digital songs". Do you mean Promotional singles?

• Yes, they are promotional singles, but aren't all music download promotional singles?

Not really. Now the table looks neat.

• "released on Atlantic Records..." → released "by" Atlantic Records?
• Expand US -> United States on the first occurrence.
• Provide the abbreviation for Recording Industry Association of America in brackets (" including eight-times Multi-Platinum from the Recording Industry Association of America....") Similarly, CRIA too.
• Usage of times; and "times" → inconsistent
• from "the" RIAA and "the" CRIA (inconsistent too)
• "One example is the live album How the West Was Won..." → can you tweak this sentence a bit?
• You have not mentioned anything about the singles.
• The notes A, C and D need references

• A: It was discussed here; I took the first one to prove that it is a studio album. I have no problems to remove the note, but the reader should understand, that some sources claim that it is a compilation album.
• C: I removed this.
• D: Is already in the lead.

• "—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart, albums not released in a particular territory, or chart information is not available. → isn't this a bit too long?

Novice7 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review. I believe I fixed most of these items.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "music downloads", as I could not find any sources, that these songs were only released as a musical download. I simply merged it with "Singles".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it, as the source backs up the information, that their catalog, including Mothership, was released as a musical download. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "which produces seven digital downloads and were released...". Should be "produces" be "produced"? Also, "were" should be "was", unless this is describing both albums in the sentence.

• forgot to change, after I had added a sentence. done

• "in the iTunes store including." Cuts out rather abruptly, I'd say.

• done

• "was one these songs released in digital stores." Missing word.

• done

• Note below several tables: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Conflict between singular and plural here; either change "releases" or "was". This isn't the first time I've seen this at a discography, and I hope it's the last.

• oopsie. done

• Note C: "This songs were released as a music download...". Change first word to "These". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• done. Thank you for your comments.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "eight digital songs" I've never heard them referred to like this, are they "download-only" songs?

• yes, download-only songs, MP3 downloads; reworded.

• Also not clear what a "charted song" is when other singles etc have "charted".

• A charted song is a song which charted in any charts, but was not released as a single. Singles are released songs, but not vice versa. It is not usual that songs get charted.

• I'm confused. What format did these "items" chart as? Singles? Albums? EPs? How did they chart if they weren't released? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how; on Billboard (magazine) it says, that Billboard 100 ranks top 100 songs based on "physical sales, digital sales and radio airplay", so either they were charted digital or per radio airplay. They haven't got any format I deplore.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "including 8× Multi-Platinum " -> "including eight times multi-platinum"

• Not sure why you suggest this; I think it should be consistent with all others. But I reworded it.

• It was a general comment to make sure that the prose was excellent rather than full of grammatically incorrect figures. There are still other instances of this in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for following instances of that phrase.

• done

• When was LZ IV released (for the benefit of the lead)?

• done

• "the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2 and the " not the same title as you used for the album in the table.

• done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd still like to know what a "charted song" is compared with singles, EPs etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I reworded it to "Other charted song"; they are simply songs which are not singles but were still charted. They were charted per airplay, because music download was invented in 1993. I think you know what a single is, so I can not explain it further. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KV5

• The table doesn't meet ACCESS requirements - table captions, scopes, row headers, and col headers needed.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 05:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The numbers are not the appropriate row-headers. This is a list of footballers, not a list of numbers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it? –J10S ^Talk 21:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Markup is still not showing properly. I suggest checking out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial or, failing that, asking User:RexxS for a hand. — KV5 • Talk • 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the only way it will be displayed properly is if I removed the number column. Or not. I got it. Thanks for the link to the tutorial. Though the markup is showing up properly, it is not allowing me to display the yellow color on the "Name" row to indicate that the player is still eligible for the national team, which has forced me to move the color into the "National team career" column, which conflicts with one of your comments below. I've looked up the classes to see if there is one that will allow me to do this, but I haven't found one. Okay, so I found a way to do it, but it means removing the ! scope="row"

• See my comment about the hatnote that I left at the List of Fulham F.C. players FLC. Just prefer a tidier hatnote without the markup exposed.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What defines and references "still active for the national team"?

It means they have not retired from international football and are subsequently still eligible to play for the national team. I guess I can add a note. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would advocate spelling out UEFA before using it, particularly for our readers who may not be completely familiar with the organisation.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't like the easter egg from "international" to "FIFA".

What would you suggest? FIFA governs international football. I'll just link it to International football. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't need to link basic terms like "Europe".

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have a page number for ref 3?

No, but in the intro, it states that 798 players have represented the national team since its first match. Book was published in 2004 and several more players have gone on to make their debuts for the national team. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm in the refs, can you replace spaced hyphens with en-dashes per WP:DASH please?

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• French language references should use the language=French parameter.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• France is overlinked.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As is association football.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure you need the bullet point in the italic note in the Players section.

Removed. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Players are listed by amount of caps,.." you should add "initially" here because the list is sortable.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Curiously, if you sort the list by caps, when caps are equal, it seems to be the players with fewer goals that are listed first (e.g. Amoros and Djorkaeff). This effectively means you can't get back to the way the table was listed when you open the page... However, I've noticed this sort order depends on what you've ordered previously...!

Yes, you can't back to the way the table was listed when you open the page. I am not fully familiar with tables on wiki and have tried to find out how to prevent this. I'll get in touch with User:RexxS, who seems to be a table aficionado, when I get the chance. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "represented France at four major international tournaments." where is this referenced? Can't see anything on the FFF page.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "was declared the fourth best French player of all time by magazine France Football." reference please.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "was integral to the French " is this a quote? In any case, it needs reference otherwise it's just your point of view.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tigana's caption needs reference too. I can't see where it says he won Euro 84.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't need Category:French footballers nor Category:France national football team as cats since you have Category:France international footballers which is more refined and includes both of the former.

Removed. –J10S ^Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Whenever there's a sentence that goes "xxx player who...", there should likely be a comma before the "who". It seems minor, but punctuation is important in professional writing, which is strived for here. There are a few instances like this in the second and third paragraphs.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bossis was passed just six years later by former international teammate Manuel Amoros. Amoros...". Instead of having sentence to sentence repetition like this, why not combine them in the form of "Amoros, who..."? That wouldn't be too long of a sentence put together.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is reference 3 meant to be a cite to the entire book, or certain pages within it? If the latter, page numbers would be nice.

I guess you can say its the former, since the book discusses every player that appeared for the national team since its first match. –J10S ^Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher of reference 19 should be italicized since The Independent is a printed publication.

Done. –J10S ^Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. –J10S ^Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Latin recording artists, in the United States" is the comma needed here?
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Award-winning albums have been performed by Spanish artists..." seems a little odd way of putting it, perhaps "Spanish artists have won the award more times than any other nationality"?
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Spanish singer-songwriter Alejandro Sanz " introduce him as Span. s-s the first time you talk about him and then just refer to him as Sanz the second time you mention him.
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Performing artist(s)" no need for the (s).
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark Anthony is a dab link.
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 8 could use an en-dash rather than two hyphens.
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't like leading zeros in the dates, e.g. September 08, 2010. Humans don't need that leading zero to read the date, in fact most of us don't want it at all.
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The image captions are a bit awkward. The first could be better written as a full sentence. The others (XYZ winner in [year]) is gramatically awkward. How about "XYZ won the award in [year] for [album]" or "[year] winner XYZ"?

FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking Spanish seems a bit over the top, but no biggie.

FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "recordings of the pop genre by a male performer" → recordings of the pop genre by male performers

FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Caption - should be Denis Law not Dennis.
• "scored three sets of hat-tricks" don't think you need "sets of".
• "in a match has been four" really it's "in a match is four".

• Above three are fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "although some sources" the two sources reffing this are the SFA and RSSSF, can you explain why this shouldn't be classed as correct?

• The RSSSF is the one that states that some sources specifically, while the SFA website is one of those sources. RSSSF has him listed as four goals, not five. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Robert Smyth McColl, Denis Law and Hughie Gallacher " no need to repeat Denis or Hughie here.
• "with three sets of hat-tricks each" again, no need for "sets of".
• "in a Friendly against Wales" no need for capital F here.
• United States national football team is a dab link.

• Above four are fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would prefer to see both tables have consistent column widths.
• I've run a script on the references to ensure they meet WP:DASH (i.e. replacing spaced hyphens with en-dashes per this edit).

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments, will sort out the column width issue shortly. Credit has to go to Jmorrison230582 who did a series of copy edits on the article which fixed all but one of those issues before I could. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Have now formatted the tables so that they both match. Miyagawa (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]