Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2011

• "Subsequent singles from the album include "Thinking of You" and "Waking Up in Vegas": the latter of which reached number nine on the Billboard Hot 100. In 2009, Perry was featured on two singles: the first being Colorado-based band 3OH!3's song "Starstrukk" in August, and "If We Ever Meet Again", the fourth single from Timbaland's Shock Value II in December. Both singles reached the top ten in Australia, Ireland, and the UK." This needs a massage- I'm not keen on those colons
  • Re-written.
• "Additionally, the singles "Teenage Dream", "Firework", and "E.T." (featuring rapper Kanye West) and "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)" became number-one singles all around the world. Additionally the five singles all reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, thus with this accomplishment Perry became the first woman and only the second artist (behind Michael Jackson and his album, Bad) to attain five number-one singles from an album.^[1]" Same here- doesn't read as well as it could.
  • Re-written.
• So the EPs didn't chart in any meaningful way?
  • Nope, all received very limited releases and were mainly "buzz releases" according to the label.
• I'm not keen on the multi-row cells for the years in the single list. Would a "single details" column not be possible?
  • No this is the standard established for FL discographies and all are to be as consistent to one another as possible.
• What is RadioScope? Is it definitely reliable?
  • Wikipedia:CHARTSCHART#Recommended_charts; its the official archive to the charts which also records a history of certifications for future generations to access.
• What is Ifpicr.cz? Is it definitely reliable?
  • Same as above.
• What is Video Static? Is it definitely reliable?
  • The owner of the site, and writer is "Steven J Gottlieb who is the former Senior Editor of music video trade magazine CVC Report (published from 1983 through 2004) and was an author at at CVC." He has substantial background history in music production and commonly speaks to labels and production companies. The website has a history for fact checking and is by far the best website for finding directors of music videos out there.
• I take it we only record singles in which Perry featured, as opposed to albums/songs?
  • Yes, had the same issue with Kesha discography when it was promoted consensus for discographies are only for their released and featured releases.

The article seems to be mostly in order; I can certainly see myself supporting it. I did a little copyediting. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you for the review, all points above have been responded to with some being corrected. Please strike or cap responded to issues. Thanks (: - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements are solid, and your explanations of the sourcing/content choices are reasonable. I am going to hold off supporting for a time to see if anyone else raises valid concerns, but, barring some kind of revelation, I will be supporting. J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead/infobox numbers don't tie up. done (forgot to update)
• "which garnered attention but did not chart. " quantify this and cite it please. done
• Worth linking something to certification. done
• Where is Katy Hudson directly referenced? not-done - There is a references right beside that sentence: "Before Katy Perry kissed a girl and liked it she worshiped Jesus and sang about it, all under her given name of Katy Hudson."
• Teenage Dream UK sales figures are two weeks old right now, and are therefore too precise. You should add an "as of" to the date of those (to the nearest album) figures. I've started a thread on this at WT:DISCOGSTYLE. Partially done : sales were changed to 700,000+ but until consensus on what you have said it will not as of yet been changed.
• Similarly started a thread there about using the same abbreviation for say the Swedish charts and the IFPI (SWE in both cases...) :not done: Until you gain consensus for this change it will be left as is.
• Ref 61 needs an en-dash. done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All except two issues have been changed as you need consensus to change the two issues which you have brought up. They are simple changes and if consensus ends up agreeing with you I will change them. Until then all issues have been addresses. Thank you for the review. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you. I hope you understand the reason for my oppose, it still stands, and it's up to you to gather a consensus one way or another to resolve these issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." Why does an oppose still stand when you started the discussion? It is up to you to gain consensus to change an established style to a way you would like? It is not my job to change something that you personally want,it is your job to convince the community that the proposed above is something that should be implemented on all discographies. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've already provided rationales for my objections. Using the same abbreviation twice for very different things is not right. It may be that it's happened before but it's not right. So please accept my position in opposing the promotion of this, and every other current discography based on that issue. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like it but nonetheless all issues have been corrected. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the winners were obviously nominees I think it would be better to rename the "Nominees" column as "Other nominees". Also you might consider making the font-size normal in this column.

Making the font normal size would increase the size of the column, in relation to the table as a whole, very much and would make the column not proportional. Other Grammy FLs have the "Nominees" section as such. Albacore (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Having pictures of some of the winners is fine but with them presented vertically on the right side of the page the table tends to look a bit squeezed. Perhaps you could place the pictures above or even within the table.

On my viewing system the photos are above the table, and on Firefox on a Mac the images are to the right of the table. IMO the images don't make the table look squeezed, and this image style (thumb upright) is used in Grammy awards that are already FLs. Albacore (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The sorting is not set up correctly. The names of the recipents should sort by their last names. Likewise, titles that begin with "A", "An", or "The" should sort by the following word in the title. See: Template:Sortname and Template:Sort.

Now sorts properly

• "Michael York" links to a disambiguation page. Is it supposed to link to the actor named Michael York?

Fixed.

• "Audio engineers" and "audio mixers" redirect. These need to be fixed. Check all the other links, too.— Jimknut (talk)16:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for the review. Albacore (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be good to add into Clinton's caption that he co-won it with Gorbs.

Already said this in the lead. Repeating would be overkill IMO. Albacore (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The NYT is linked differently in ref 14 and ref 18.

Fixed.

• "The Cricket In Times Square" -> "The Cricket in Times Square"

Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• You don't use the (AL) abbreviation in the article after the lead, so you can remove it. If you do keep it, then every instance of "American League" has to be abbreviated. I prefer removal.
• "defeating the White Sox' crosstown rivals the Chicago Cubs in the 1906 World Series" - missing punctuation: either commas, spaced en-dashes, unspaced em-dashes, or parentheses around the phrase "the Chicago Cubs"
• "with the White Sox winning the 1917 World Series"
• Link "American League pennant"
• "longest tenured White Sox manager" - I think needs to be longest-tenured
• If you use commas for four-digit numbers like "1,850" in the table, you absolutely must use them in prose.
• "most of any White Sox manager... highest of any White Sox manager" - repetitive, consider re-word
• "full time manager" - full-time
• "Al Lopez served three terms as manager, the first from 1957 to 1965, then for 11 games during the 1968 season, before being hospitalized with appendicitis, and then returning for another 53 games from the end of the 1968 season through the beginning of the 1969 season." - see punctuation changes herein: Al Lopez served three terms as manager: the first from 1957 to 1965; then for 11 games during the 1968 season, before being hospitalized with appendicitis; and then returning for another 53 games from the end of the 1968 season through the beginning of the 1969 season.
• "Lopez was elected as a manager," - comma should be semicolon
• Toolbox check: all clear.

Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sox' " -> "Sox's" (throughout)
• " led the White Sox to the" -> "led them to..."
• "in their inaugural season of 1901" no need to repeat 1901, you mentioned that already.
• "After the Black Sox scandal," repetitive since the last few words of the previous sentence were "the Black Sox scandal"...
• Our version of Jimmie Dykes seems to be Jimmy Dykes. Which is correct?
• No need to repeat Al Lopez's first name after the first instance.
• "[22][23][20]' can you order these numerically?
• You say "elected as players" in the lead but "elected primarily as players" in the key. Which one?
• "due to tie games" tied games.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them (although "tied games" doesn't sound right to me). Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just now read these, and "Sox'" is correct, don't know why it needed to be changed. Per Apostrophe, "If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s". Because "Sox" is a contraction/corruption of "socks", it's certainly difficult to pronounce "socks's" IMO. — KV5 • Talk • 10:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely no more difficult than pronouncing boxes? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. Perhaps. My brain can't parse that those are actually the same, or at least very alike. Haha. — KV5 • Talk • 11:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The key shows the last column as Ref, but the table has the plural Ref(s). This means that the key should be adjusted to reflect the table, and it wouldn't hurt if "Reference" was turned into "Reference(s)" as well.
• The publisher of reference 4 (Chicago Tribune) should be italicized since it's a printed publication.
• Ref 20 has a hyphen in the title, which would be better off as an en dash for stylistic purposes.
• Publisher name inconsistency: is it National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum?
• Ref 61 isn't from Baseball-Reference; don't know how that got in there.
• Also in ref 61, the true publisher is given but is again inconsistent with one of the general references. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point did this award became a postseason award and not a specific World Series award? From this article on A-Rod, "... selected the winner of the Babe Ruth Award as the New York chapter of the Baseball Writers' Association of America's postseason MVP." Baseball Almanac says the award with discontinued after 2002. It would be good to expand on if/when the award changed, and any other distinctions related to World Series Most Valuable Player Award.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too, and it sent me on a long Google News Archive search to find out. I believe it was an error on the part of the ESPN writer or A-Rod, though. As you see in the source on Lincecum's 2010 award, it specifies World Series only. As I saw nothing else suggesting the award was changed to all of the postseason, I took it as a blip, or fodder for a joke from A-Rod on his noted "un-clutchiness". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Courant wrote "For many years, the Babe Ruth Award was strictly for the World Series, an award competing with the MVP award given at the Series. In 2007, the New York writers expanded it to include the entire postseason, the first award of its kind." There are other sources that mention its for postseason, just as there are sources that say its for WS only. Maybe do some more research. If its not definitive, you might want to mention both possibilities or at least mention the minority view in a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I... did not find that article, or any other that said that. I will research more and respond tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching through the archives, I think you're right. The award was changed in 2007, but SI didn't know about it. That sort of makes sense, when you see how lousy the BBWAA website is. Then again, I expected an association of scribes would be better at promoting their work. Anyway, I'll work on this tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have made changes to the page to reflect that the award began to encompass LDS and LCS performances in 2007. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• While its mentioned that the award was created by the NY chapter of BBWAA, it should be made clear that it remains an award voted on by the NY chapter only. "... when the BBWAA changed the award to cover the entire postseason" might give the impression that it expanded.
• Context should be given that its considered a less prestigious award to the WS MVP per sources such as [6][7][8]

—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I purposely didn't use the Dickson source, though, because it erroneously says the award was discontinued in 2002. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments III:

Though MLB expanded its postseason to include the League Championship Series (LCS) in 1969 and the League Division Series (LDS) in 1995, the Babe Ruth Award continued to be awarded exclusively for performances in the World Series until 2007, when the New York chapter of the BBWAA changed the award to cover the entire postseason

The above makes it sound like the award was flawed for not expanding outside of the WS earlier, which I dont think was the case. First paragraph should be reworded to say that

1. It is currently an overall postseason award
2. It used to be a WS award
3. It wasnt as prestigious as the WS MVP
4. It was expanded in 2007 to entire postseason (not sure if any opinions since then on how it compares to WS MVP)

• Need a source for WS MVP award winners in the table.

—Bagumba (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay. If I use this in the table legend, is that sufficient, or will it have to be used at every row in the table? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about adding a general reference in the "References" section?—Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way is fine: legend or gen ref. Also, how about using a "‡" before resorting to non-standard "&" ?—Bagumba (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done and done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The statement on "first non-American to win" needs sources. I wouldn't be against removing it altogether as trivia, but it's not a condition for FL. Sources aside from referral to another WP article are needed if it stays.—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I'll delete it. It was only there because I copied it verbatim from World Series Most Valuable Player Award. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see the need to repeat Major League Baseball in the first sentence. Why not use the abbreviated version you introduced earlier?
• The most recent World Series champions bit could use an update now.
• See also should go before the notes section.
• Publisher of ref 52 (The Montreal Gazette) should be italicized like the other printed publications.

• The hyphens in the titles of refs 47, 54, 55, 61, and 110 need to be converted into en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Changes made. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Still a couple hyphens left in current ref 54. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad, I didn't notice there was more than one on that reference. It's fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Babe Ruth Award is an annual award given to the ..." instead of award...award, could we not say "The Babe Ruth Award is presented annually to the..."? Especially since the next sentence starts "The award..." as well...
• "The most recent World Series champions are the St. Louis Cardinals, who won the 2011 World Series" again a little repetitive, perhaps "The most recent World Series champions are the St. Louis Cardinals, who won the 2011 series"?
• No need to repeat Babe's first name after you've mentioned it the first time (with regard to the person, obviously you should with regard to the award)
• Ref 10 should be a referenced note, and not a reference.
• All image captions should take periods except for the infobox and Koufax, as they're complete sentences.
• Ref 4 has double period, "fool" the template by leaving the . off the Inc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Campeneris' "Series-winning home run" in 1973 was in game 7, not game 6. I fixed that, but I still think the phrase is misleading, since it implies a walk off home run like Mazeroski's; Campy hit the home run in the third inning to give the A's a 2-1 lead, the Mets even eventually scored a 2nd run though they never caught up. I'm not sure how to accurately convey the home run in a pithy manner, but at least the fact that it was in the 3rd inning (as opposed to the 9th or extra innings) should be noted. For 1992 it is mentioned that Winfield's Series winning double was in the 11th inning, so adding the inning here (and probably to Mazeroski as well) would be consistent and more accurately convey the context of the respective "Series-winning home runs."
• Green was selected for his defense, so just showing the 0-13 hitting stats doesn't convey an accurate picture of why he was selected. I added one defensive stat, his (tied) record (at least as of 1974) for most double plays in a 5 game series, to put a little context around his selection. You may want to consider others (his 3 DPs in game three also tied a record; it's not a stat per say, but the most memorable defensive play he made that probably clinched the award was nailing Buckner at 3rd in the 8th inning on a relay throw when Buckner represented the tying run - it just occurred to me that 12 years later the same award would go another player in part for his involvement in a play Buckner would like to forget, but that's a different story).
• The switch in stats from WS only to full post-season is confusing. I know there is a note in the header, but that isn't visible when perusing a 50+ element list. I am not sure there is a better way, and I would not withhold my support if there isn't, but it may be worth some thought if there is some way to mark the changeover within the list. Maybe using a different color, although I realize that could create other issues. Rlendog (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• One more piece of information that might be worth considering would be an indicator as to players who also won the WS MVP Award (or alternatively, those who didn't, if fewer), since the WS MVP is somewhat overlapping but generally considered more prestigious. Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll think about how to address these today. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a way to determine which BRA winners didn't win the WSMVP award, and edited the Campaneris and Green entries. As for the switch in stats, I could make Note #2 appear in every row from 2007 onwards if you like, but I don't think adding more symbols/colors would be a good idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, just few things,

• I see you refed the book Altham & Swanton (1938), but I don't see the book listed in any of the refs (ISBN and such). Only book I see refed is the #12 ref which is diff one.

Done Harrias ^talk 15:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Second, Maybe caption (the +) the tables for better understand.

I don't know what you mean, could you explain in more detail? Harrias ^talk 15:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you put |+Some info here about the table bellow under {| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't know what you mean. Harrias ^talk 18:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Third, the image does not have alt in it, should fix it.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Harrias ^talk 15:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The alt should realy say what we see the picture, for exemple, A black-and-white photograph of a man doing something something, holding a XYZ bat and looking at the camera.

The lead it self I find good, and I will support it once those minor from above will be fixed. Also, I seen you added a Bibliography maybe put the Notes by the Editor in that place aswell? and make it the same format as the General and Specific.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Alternative text for images says: Alternative text should be short, such as "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush". and that it is relevant to the article. I don't think it is really relevant that the photo is in black and white, or what he is doing.
• As regards the bibliography, given that it only contains one book, I don't see a need to split it into three columns, and I don't think it is necessary to include the book from reference 12 given that I only reference it once: the bibliography only contains sources that I have used multiple times and refer to in short-hand notation. Harrias ^talk 18:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since then no county has managed to achieve the same level of ascendancy" I think dominance would be better than ascendancy.

• I've already used dominance, or dominant twice in the paragraph, a third time would be too much repitition I think. Harrias ^talk 17:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yorkshire hold the record for most championships, with 30 titles" I think titles is redundant as you've already indicated what the 30 is for.

• Done Harrias ^talk 17:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables need a caption, HonorThe King alluded to this above, but I don't think he made it very clear. I'm not sure if you know how to add a caotion or not so I'll give you an example to be sure. So for the first table it would read: |+List of County Championship winners

• Done Harrias ^talk 17:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed in the table that some titles were shared I'd either make a note, or add a disclaimer in the lead stating why there are two champions, so readers unfamiliar with the sport understand what's being represented.

• Done (unless you want more details on the number of points etc.) Harrias ^talk 17:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure there is much point in having the last column sortable in the second table, doesn't seem to offer much.

• It shows in which year each county won the title first: it isn't much I admit, but it may be of some interest: seems silly to get rid of it. Harrias ^talk 17:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from these points the list looks in good shape. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I have responded to each above. Harrias ^talk 17:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When sorting by county in reverse, you need to force the single-digit wins (e.g. (2), (3) etc) to sort properly.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than a blank for runners up in shared wins, I suggest a N/A is appropriate.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any mileage in quickly discussing the scoring methodology for the championship (i.e. batting, bowling points etc)?

• I don't think so, only because the scoring has changed so many times over the years: to explain how it is scored now would put, I think, unjustified bias on that system, but to explain them all could take an article in itself! Harrias ^talk 14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would put the shared years in italics (and add a key) and remove the bold shared:.

• Hmmm: I'm not convinced myself! As a compromise, how about listing them in the main list, but putting (shared) after the year:

{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" |- !scope="col"| Club !scope="col"| Titles !scope="col"| Championship-winning seasons |- !scope="row"| [[Yorkshire County Cricket Club|Yorkshire]] |align=center| {{sort|305|{{nobr|30 + 1 shared}}}} | 1893, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1905, 1908, 1912, 1919, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1946, ''1949 (shared)'', 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1968, 2001 |} Harrias ^talk 14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, deal...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Harrias ^talk 20:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Add the parameter plainrowheaders between wikitable sortable to avoid the bold links
  • The other college coaches FLs (linked above) use bold/centered headers. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would edit the key template to make it full size and add scope=col and row to comply with WP:ACCESS
  • I'll bring it up on the talk page, but as its used on many other lists, I don't want to make unilateral changes. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You need to add the parameter format=PDF where this is ref that is a PDF
  • Done Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the refs wikilink the publisher yet others don't you need to be consistent, choose one method and stick with it
  • Delinked all the publishers. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Term should be Term(s) since some coaches have had multiple terms.
  • Done.
• Also, could be worthwhile putting each term on its own line.
  • This was brought up in the Alabama FLC (Courcelles' comments). Since this is a list of coaches, I think it's better to aggregate all statistics by coach; there is a separate List of Clemson Tigers football seasons for the season-by-season results.
• If the ACC Coach of the Year accolade is significant, why don't you link to it in the table?
  • Linked.
• What is SoCon?
  • Spelled out Southern Conference.

Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "before finally bowing out to Liverpool" I would change this to "before losing to Liverpool"
• Table needs a caption
• I would the disclaimer about the statistics being up to the 2010-11 season to before the table
• You need to put a header in the refs column, also I would consider moving this to the end of the table
• I understand you using refs to cover the dates of earlier managers, but is there a need for separate ones for recent managers when the soccerbase refs cover this area?
• Also I would consider moving those refs in the dates area into the refs column, seeing as that is what it's for
• You need to add any authors for the RSSSF pages, as its copyrighted, therefore they need attributing.
• What makes tranmererovers-mad.co.uk a reliable source?

It's not. Which is a shame, because they're both well-written articles. I'll look into resourcing or removing the statements. U+003F^? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now replaced with other sources. U+003F^? 11:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you use a number of books but don't give the page number fro those books, this needs to be done. I would also use a shorthand when referencing books such as the author, year of publication and page number and list the books in a bibliography below the references.

I've gone my own way with layout here. How does it look? U+003F^? 09:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed as suggested, for consistency with other manager lists. U+003F^? 09:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would remove the link to When Saturday Comes seeing as no other publishers are wikilinked

Nice to see a list about a local team (I live in Chester) getting nominated. If you want any input with further articles or lists I'd be happy to help :) Overall, its very good, great work. NapHit (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely be taking you up on that offer! U+003F^? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is quite short at one paragraph and a one-sentence second paragraph. I'd love to see the intro beefed up to a couple of nice-sized paras.

Had a punt at expanding the lead. Better? U+003F^? 11:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• History: World War II is an item that is so well-known that it doesn't really need the link. All it does is make the page a little more blue, which isn't always a good things.

done U+003F^? 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "amongst" → "among"?

Actually, I prefer whilst/amongst, but then I am very old (at heart). Done. U+003F^? 09:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove hyphen in "newly-formed Premier League in 1993". Also, is the hyphen in "cup-runs" desirable?

done U+003F^? 11:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could change "whilst" to "while", a simpler form, in note 3.

done U+003F^? 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be nice to see a bullet point added to the general reference.

done U+003F^? 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher of ref 18 (When Saturday Comes) should be italicized since it's a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done U+003F^? 11:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The references in the Notes section have gone seriously wonky. Doubtless this is due to the latest MediaWiki rollout. It seems to affect my firefox browser, but not safari nor opera. Is this bug this bug likely to affect the list's acceptance? U+003F^? 21:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This bug has (already) been fixed. U+003F^? 09:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't the slightest idea where Wirral is, although it does sound quite Australian. It would be nice if you put in the country to establish context.

Ha! U+003F^? 23:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid contractions: use the more formal "were not" instead of "weren't".
• No need to repeat links from the lead in the history section.
• Perhaps link "player-manager".
• "Stadium" in Wembley is capitalized. Similarly, "Tranmere Hall of Fame" is a proper noun and should be capitalized
• Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
• Each cell should begin with a capital letter. "Present" should not be in italics.
• References should be center-aligned

Is there a way to centre an entire column other than my approach of assigning

• Think you can wikilink all of "2011–12 season" rather than just the year range.
• "hold this role" perhaps "hold this position" or "fulfil this role"? Similarly comment at the start of the History section.
• "and stayed in charge" would prefer "and remained in charge" but it's not a big deal.
• "two divisions above.[14]" ->"two divisions above Tranmere.[14]"

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks a bunch. U+003F^? 13:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Anscheidt doesn't have a hyphen in his first name according to our own article about him.
• Is it road racing or road-racing?
• Probably worth (both here and other similar lists) linking "cc".
• "The 50/80cc referred to the size" - introduce this earlier.
• " of 5 to 10 " -> of between five and ten"
• You say "is the oldest World Championship" but then talk about "world championship" - why would one be capitalised and the other not?
• I think the points structure would make a good footnote, they're rather dry in the lead, just a list of numbers...
• "won the most championships; he won six during his " -> "won the most championships during his career with six."
• "Ernst Degner won the inaugural championship in 1962. Manuel Herreros was ..." merge with a "while" here.
• Key - second row is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
• Should you explain somewhere that the en-dash in fastest lap means that this wasn't actually recorded? Otherwise I imagine we'd expect a 0.
• Just check at WP:MOSFLAG that your use of the flags in the sections after the main table are okay (i.e. without the country name) - I think that's okay but just double-check.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked MOSFLAG and it says that as long as the flag is used along with the name of the country before hand then you can omit it later on in an article, so it should be fine. Done all the other requests, thanks for the review. NapHit (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify what you mean by "however, in some seasons only a certain number of results were counted." (it doesn't make sense to me)

Basically, now all the results in a season were counted towards the championship, in some seasons this was not the case only a certain number of results were used. Not sure if I can make that any clearer. NapHit (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To me it seems a bit odd that the country comes before the rider, but if other people find it natural, there is nothing wrong with the order.

The layout is the same in the other lists and no one brought it up, so just a matter of taste I guess. NapHit (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Countries should not be linked.

I know this has been brought up before and I've read the MOS, but I'm still not clear whether it is prohibited or not. I don't want to invoke WP:POINT but a number of lists have recently been promoted which link to countries in tables including some of my own. I would just like a definitive answer on whether this is allowed or not because it would end the debate. As far as I read the MOS on this, it seems that the guideline is for prose and not tables, but I could be wrong, its ambiguous as far as I'm concerned. I raised the issue here to try and clear it up once and for all. NapHit (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the debate is getting nowhere, I decided to remove the links to countries. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason Krauser isn't linked?

There isn't an article, and its not particularly notable. NapHit (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• More out of interest than anything else, but is there a list of the manufacturers championship? If so, it should somehow be linked.

No I don't think there is. NapHit (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a well-composed list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the Country column refer to the nationality of the rider? If so, I think it would be better phrased as "Nationality" and an explanation given in the key to clarify.

done

• I could be wrong, so it would be worth checking with someone more knowledgeable on the topic, but I think that the Dutch surnames "de Vries" and "van Kessel" should sort under the V and the K rather than the d and v.

I noticed that List of Premier League hat-tricks, uses the same sorting format that I use in this list, so i think that is the right way. NapHit (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Dutch name#Surnames: "In name directories in the Netherlands, the prefixes are always ignored for sorting (e.g. Van Rijn is ordered under 'R'). A Dutch surname may often contain an article and/or a preposition, preceding the noun. Sometimes these have been merged with the name. Many Dutch surnames originated from different personal qualities, geographical locations, and occupations. However, Dutch names in English directories (e.g. reference lists of scientific papers) may be ordered on the full name including all prefixes (Van Rijn would be ordered under 'V'), partly because many Dutch emigrant families to English-speaking countries have had their prefixes capitalized for them, whether they liked it or not, like Martin Van Buren or Steve Van Dyck, and normal practise in English is to order on the first capitalized element." – So I would suggest again that they should sort under the V and K.

Fair enough I've changed it now. NapHit (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't there a link for "Krauser"?

There isn't an article on wikipedia, and I don't have enough info to make one. NapHit (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but a redlink would seem appropriate. Harrias ^talk 11:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

changed to redlinks NapHit (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be worth mentioning why there weren't any poles until 1974: wasn't there any qualifying until then? How was the starting order decided?

Had a look around and apparently its because pole positions were not recorded properly until 1974. That information is not from a reliable source so I can't use it as a reference, but I think the currnet system that says info unavailable works well in this instance. NapHit (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, makes sense. A reference would be great at some stage for it not being recorded accurately, but no biggie. Harrias ^talk 11:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the list looks very good work: well done. Harrias ^talk 10:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Key looks a little odd on my screen, fills the width when it certainly doesn't need to and has blank cells.

The key is actually the Template:List of College Football Program head coaches key that I have incorporated into this list. Previously, the key looked like the one here. I personally like how the template looks better and it was utilized in my previous, successfully promoted coaches' list for Auburn. However, I will comply with any sort of consensus reached on its usage.

• Don't think that's the John Tomlin in the lead that you're after...

DEFINITELY not the correct Tomlin! Fixed now.

• Ref 22 has different date format.

Corrected

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. As always it is much appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't start with "This list..." - we haven't done that for a while, after all we don't start articles with "This article..." do we?

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider merging the lead and the Background (right now the lead is too short per WP:LEAD).

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "3000" ->"3,000" (and others).

• Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Croton is a dab link.

• Fixed. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No row scopes?

• There are no row headers, so scopes aren't required, as far as I understand it. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alliaceae redirects to Allioideae... should I be worried about that?

• Fixed: updated to APG III. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "spp" forgive my ignorance, what does that mean?

• Short for "species" (plural), but we probably don't need to abbreviate here – all are now written out in full. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would pipe link all the List of... so Anthurium species instead.

• Not done. Out of context, text like "Anthurium species" suggests an (unidentified) species of Anthurium, rather than *all* the species of Anthurium. It's a result of the plural and singular forms of "species" being identical, I suppose. I think it's better with the "List of..." prefix; it's not like we're particularly short of space. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be appropriate to add Category:Lists of plants here?

• Added. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, am unaware of any directly comparable lists. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are 57 such genera" What does "such" refer to in this sentence? The word can probably just be removed, but if it is intended to refer to something it should be made more clear instead. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. That was a relic of a previous wording; thanks for spotting it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You use both ">700" and "500+". If these mean the same thing, they should be in the same format (I'd prefer the "+", but either would work). –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardised to "+"; the difference in meaning ("500+" could be exactly 500, whereas ">500" must be at least 501) is so small as to be just about meaningless. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps note in the prose when the numbers are current as of. Presumably new species will be discovered as time goes on which would increase these numbers. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-worded (also covers following point). Actually, a larger effect comes from taxonomic changes (i.e. people lumping or splitting genera), although a fair number of species will undoubtedly be added as time passes. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "according to Frodin (2004)" -- Who? This guy isn't mentioned anywhere else in the prose. Also, the (2004) could probably be removed since it is in the reference. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Which reference are the numbers coming from? –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appropriate reference is now cited at the head of the table. I think that makes it clear. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the "rank" column really necessary? When sorting, the "species" column will produce the same sort order, and the "rank" column gives the list, in my mind, a feeling like it is some competition between the genera to have the most species. Perhaps remove the "rank" column and move "species" over into its place. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's useful, if only to prevent readers having to count manually. I may be able to see that Senecio is a big genus, for instance, but I don't want to have to count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 just to find out it's the tenth largest, if I could have simply read it off in a different column. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comments: –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first image could probably use a citation in the caption. Additionally Agamospecies is a redirect to Apomixis; is Agamospecies the correct word to use, using the definition by Göte Turesson mentioned in the target article? –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same fact is cited in the main text, not far from the image, so I don't believe the citation need be repeated in the caption. Agamospecies and apomixis do (currently) lead to the same article, but the two concepts are not identical. It would be possible, and even desirable, for separate articles to develop on the taxa and the process which produces them (analagous to species and speciation which basically cover non-apomictic taxa). Even before that happens, the links are not broken, and it seems preferable not to try to "fix" them. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The captions for all the other images should be reworded to say, e.g., "at least X species" rather than ">X species", to make the prose flow better. Symbols are fine in tables, but not ideal when used in prose. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to say who David Frodin is. What was his occupation? Why is he qualified to make an analysis on this topic? The article Philosophia Botanica refers to him (assuming it is the same David Frodin) as a botanist; if this is accurate, just adding that word before his name in this article would resolve this issue. (generally I don't request details like this for reference authors, but since his analysis is the only real source for the table I think it would be an important addition). –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "... and this disparity in genus sizes..."
  • Done.
• I'd link "taxon" rather than "taxonomist" (which redirects to "taxonomy")
  • Done. I have left the link to taxonomist, as I see no harm in its inclusion, but I have added the link to taxon as requested.
• Place a comma after genus in "... were united into a single genus while plants of ..."
  • Done.
• Don't use so many times the same reference. If a sequence of sentences can be referenced by the same source, you can place the ref only at the very end. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I reference every sentence during writing so that text can be rearranged without losing the references. Now that the article is in a fairly stable state, I can see that that might not be necessary. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I know TRM mentioned it before but I think you need row scopes, the genus is the row header. That's what I can accrue from the guidelines. NapHit (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I buy that argument. Row scopes added. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]