Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2013

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 17:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. I recognise it is far from a run-of-the-mill 'in popular culture' contribution and the archaic style of some of the language may stretch some reviewers but after a peer review I think it is ready. I notice that I seem to be the only nominator of a successful FL in the category of Archaeology - this one might be our first purely 16th century list. Ben MacDui 17:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB I may be off-line from Wednesday morning until Friday - definitely back by Saturday 16th November. Ben MacDui 21:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and comments. Ben MacDui 08:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I had the pleasure of peer reviewing this article. My few, minor comments were addressed, and I said then and say again that this is a remarkable piece of work. It is a fine example of the value of Wikipedia: try finding anything else half as good on the web! I greatly enjoyed rereading it for this FLC. The lead is shorter than usual, but given the nature of the piece I think that's as it should be: no point in padding, and much of the info in the body of the text doesn't lend itself to précis-ing in the lead. The text is balanced, clear, well researched and referenced, in highly readable prose and clear tables, resourcefully laid out for readability and pleasingly illustrated. Meets all the FLC criteria, in my judgment. If I had been the author I think I might have put it up for FA rather than FL but I see the point. Either way, it deserves loud applause. – Tim riley (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed. Ben MacDui 10:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – An impressive piece of work indeed, with much helpful descriptive detail. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and attention to the article. Ben MacDui 16:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment: Avoid unwarranted capitalisation. "Modern Name" should probably be "Modern name", for instance. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything very specific in MOS about this and it looks a little odd to me to have only one word out of 13 uncapitalised in most of the tables but I've completed this. I can't see any word other than "name" in "Modern Name" that needs changing. Ben MacDui 08:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree there doesn't seem to be anything specific; I just can't see any reason to diverge from the usual guidelines on page/section titles. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Anthony (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the similar Switzerland article recently passed. Sourced, thorough, the PR problems have been resolved. I believe this one is sufficient to pass standards now. Anthony (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written, well sourced, comprehensive. I believe it meets all the criteria. Rejectwater (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• For the Miracle on Ice game, the score needs an en dash.
• The em dashes in the last paragraph should be unspaced, per the MoS.
• In the 1980 team photo, "Flame" probably shouldn't be capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all 3. Anthony (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

• The "Tournaments" column sorts differently for netminders (where is sorts as "Olympics") and the skaters (where it sorts exclusively by year). I vastly prefer the way it sorts for the skaters. Harrias ^talk 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that myself. I have no idea why it does that or how to fix it, as it appears the tables are formatted exactly the same. I prefer the way it sorts for skaters too, but I don't know what to do to get the goalies to sort the same way. Any help? Anthony (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking at the code also and came to the same conclusion. I applied a fix to the goaltenders table using the {{sort}} function, just for the three goalies that have appeared in multiple tournaments. Why it worked one way on one table and another on another is beyond me. Rejectwater (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent notes. --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - didn't pick up any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good: many thanks for polishing those bits off. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice list! Resolute 20:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is ready. Kwee was one of the most proficient Chinese Indonesian writers, and this bibliography (I believe) does his oeuvre justice.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – good work. Zia Khan 23:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - on style and structure. For consistency, shouldn't that be pp. 306–25 where Sidharta's book is sourced under 'Works cited', and not pp. 306–325? Lemonade51 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Usual solid stuff from Crisco. Just two questions, it maybe all or nothing, but I thought I'd ask anyway:
  • Are you using ref 1 and ref 4 to cover for the lack of citation at the end of the first para?
    • Yes. Each citation is for the translation mentioned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN's in "Works cited" don't follow a consistently formatted order, should they? For instance, we have 3-3-3-3-1, 3-3-4-2-1, etc..
    • The ISBNs seem to all be 13 digit, so they are standardised. Nio's book was published in 1962, and I am unaware of any Indonesian books from the time which had ISBNs... the OCLC is given instead, which is necessarily of a different format. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Cassianto^Talk 21:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curtly Ambrose, one of the finest bowler in the history of cricket, took 26 five-wickets hauls for the West Indies. This list includes his Test and ODI fifers. I've worked on the list, and I think this is now ready to become one of the best wiki-list since this meets the FLC criteria. Look forward to comments/suggestions. Cheers, Zia Khan 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image captions:

"Curtly Ambrose took the most five-wicket hauls for the West Indies." Better as: "Curtly Ambrose has taken the most five-wicket hauls for the West Indies." and there are 3 links that should be added to this text.

Reworded the statement. I don't prefer repeat linking in the captions (have a look at this). Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Queen's Park Oval in the Port of Spain, where Ambrose took six Test five-wicket hauls, the most by any player at the ground." Link QPO and Port of Spain and remove "the" before the latter.

As above. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. Ben MacDui 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still I don't think this is necessary!? Zia Khan 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to get some additional input here. I very much doubt this would be acceptable at FAC, but I am less familiar with FLC. Ben MacDui 14:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked them, cheers! Zia Khan 14:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose:

"only 41 bowlers have taken at least 15 five-wicket hauls" - better as - only 41 bowlers have taken 15 or more five-wicket hauls

Done. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"8 wickets for 45 runs against England at the Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, in April 1990;" - slightly clumsy use of a semi-colon - you could replace this with "where"

Done. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"against the same team" - not really, in the sense that the members of the team were surely different. "against the same opponents" would be better.

Done. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ambrose achieved his 22 five-wicket hauls at 12 grounds, " - better as - " at 12 different grounds,"

Done. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"His first ODI five-wicket haul came later that year" - the repetition of 'ODI" gets a bit wearing. Perhaps something like "His first five-wicket haul in this format came later that year" to break this up.

Changed the sentence as suggested. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"17 runs in the match which is his best performance in ODIs." - use of the present tense suggests he is still playing; the use of "which" here is slightly problematic; and it's another "ODI". I suggest "He took 5 wickets for 17 runs in the match, his best performance in One Day Internationals."

Changed the sentence as suggested, ODI already expanded in the 1st para. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is expanded but my concern here is that we have five short staccato sentences, three of which contain "ODI". I will take a look at this myself. Ben MacDui 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Zia Khan 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As of 2013, he is tenth overall" - "ranked tenth overall" would convey the sense better I think.

I think, this will be excessive. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Factual:

"Ambrose achieved his 22 five-wicket hauls at 12 grounds, including 11 at venues outside the West Indies." - could you check your arithmetic re this uncited assertion please? Ben MacDui 17:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the table, anyways I have provided inline ref. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is helpful of course, but could you list the 11 Test "venues outside the WI" for me, here? Ben MacDui 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! fixed now. Zia Khan 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fixed the arithmetic, but the reference you have added (#16) does not seem to list only "venues outside the WI" despite the title you have given it. It may be that the title is wrong - I am not sure how the parameters of this site work. Ben MacDui 14:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this one. Zia Khan 14:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "Ambrose achieved his 22 five-wicket hauls at 12 different grounds, including 11 at venues outside the West Indies" is that it still implies that he only achieved the feat at a single venue in the Windies. This is not the case and I think you need to find a simple way to avoid this confusion. Ben MacDui 15:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Ambrose achieved his 22 five-wicket hauls at 12 different grounds, including 11 at 9 different venues outside the West Indies"? Zia Khan

It's not the most elegant of sentences but it clarifies the issue. Ben MacDui 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. Much appreciated! Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above issues resolved - Support. Ben MacDui 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Zia Khan 03:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Laurel and Hardy are among the best loved movie comedians of all time. Therefore they deserve an outstanding filmography. The peer review for this list has now been archived. I put this one together using the previously available version and put the films into chronological order with cited notes and a significant introduction. Take a look and give me some advice if you can to bring it up to featured list standard. Jimknut (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up on this shortly (very glad to see this here, but was also a bit disappointed, as I had plans to work on this list at some point!)

• Is there a reason why there is a non-free image at the top, rather than a free one? - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons does not have a decent picture of the duo. The one I used also appears on the main page and is therefore an appropriate picture. Actually, I don't see why it is listened as non-free when it is clearly a publicity portrait from the 1920s or 1930s and those are considered to be in the public domain. Jimknut (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Laurel and Hardy in Lucky Dog.jpg is free, and we should use free images in lieu of non-free ones where available. Since then, oppose until images are brought in line with guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've uploaded more here, and the Commons cat is full of pictures (including some that are quite nice, like File:Laurel and Hardy in Any Old Port.jpg this). Again, no policy-based reason to use FU here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Still from Any Old Port! now on page. Jimknut (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from SchroCat

• Not sure we need two very short paras to open: these are related enough to be run together.
  • Now put together.
• "hall tour of England, Ireland, and Scotland": could just be "hall tour of Great Britain"
  • Changed.
• Is there something we could add that explains the difference between a "short" and a "feature"? Even as a footnote this would prove useful, especially as the text states "all short film are two reels in length", while there are entries in the table for shorts that are three or four reels long
  • The second opening sentences reads: "Together they appeared together in 34 silent shorts, 45 sound shorts, and 27 full-length sound feature films." Note that there are hyperlinks to "silent film", "short film", "sound film", and "feature film". I think this should be sufficient.
  • The opening text of the filmography section reads: "except where noted, all short film are two reels in length." "Reel" is hyperlinked.
    • It's OK for this, but I think a footnote explaining the difference between a short and a feature could be useful. Is there a definition of where the line is drawn between the two? - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason why "20th Century Fox" is hyphenated in the table notes?
  • Fixed (hyphen removed).
• "Foreign-language versions" section: "sound" and "lost" are both duplicate links from the earlier text
  • Hyperlinks removed.
• FNs 2 and 78: shouldn't "The Laurel and Hardy Magazine" be italicised?
  • Fixed. Italicized and two identical footnotes merged into one.

Nice work - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good - just a small point of possible improvement, but your call whether you decide to incorporate it or not. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added some footnotes. Jimknut (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; thanks for the final tweak - it's perfect: just enough information to cover the question without people having to go to different articles to find it out. I've tweaked slightly to show which Academy you are talking about. All good otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch comments - I became aware of this at peer review and think it is pretty close to FL quality. I have made some copyedits to the article, and the following are some questions / comments I have.

• The fair use lead image needs to have a Fair Use rationale for its inclusion in this article (in addition to the rationale already there for its use in the main L&H article)?
  • Fixed. Free picture now used.
    • I made File:Laurel and Hardy (from Bonnie Scotland).jpg, which is also free and in color and tried that as the lead image. Feel free to revert if you prefer the previous black and white free image. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Should the lead mention that 10 of the (early) films they appeared in together were made before they became a team?
  • The lead states: "Laurel and Hardy officially became a team the following year, in the silent short film The Second Hundred Years (1927)." In the actual list we can see that The Second Hundred Years is the 11th film. I think it's a safe bet that most people who use Wikipedia can count that high.
    • While I do not doubt that people can count to 20, 27, 34, 45, or 106 either, these numbers are given in the lead. This count still seems to me like information that would be useful in the lead, perhaps just add the word "eleventh" as in Laurel and Hardy officially became a team the following year, in the[ir eleventh] silent short film The Second Hundred Years (1927)." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I changed it. Jimknut (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also in the lead, could the word "silent" be added for clarification here? Stan Laurel (1890–1965) and Oliver Hardy (1892–1957) were established as film comedians prior to their teaming, with Laurel appearing in over 50 [silent] films and Hardy in over 250.
  • Fixed
• Would it help to somehow clarify here that Hardy had died three years before In 1960, Laurel was presented with an Honorary Academy Award "for his creative pioneering in the field of cinema comedy."[12]
  • The years of Hardy's birth and death (1892-1957) were established earlier in the introduction. I'm sure people can figure out that by 1960 he had been dead for three years.
• Since "Atoll K" is also known as "Utopia", should that be noted here??
  • I don't think it's needed as Atoll K is hyperlinked in both the intro and the film list. In the latter the notes stated that it was also known as Utopia. Jimknut (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have switched to support, above. Nicely done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – This is a very good article and worthy of FL status. Nicely done! -- Cassianto^Talk 08:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Rejectwater (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Red Wings are back at it again with another Featured List nomination. Will they ever give up? Still going strong since 1926 so apparently not. Up for our attention this time is the team's general managers, all the men who have built the club into what it was, what it wasn't, and what it is today. The list has undergone the peer review process and came out clean. I am curious to know what the community has to say and I am looking forward to reading your input and acting on your recommendation. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport
• I'm not sure that the alt-text for the images needs to be quite so detailed. Is it necessary for such detail (is it really important that in the image of Ken Holland he has a slight smile on his face?)? I'm not sure whether it needs to be so detailed to meet WP:ACCESS

• I know what you're saying, but I don't see the value in removing detail to make them meet a bare minimum standard. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there is definitely a line somewhere, at which point alt text becomes too detailed. I'm not sure this has crossed it. Was more a comment then complaint. -- Shudde ^talk 06:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never read an alt text I found too detailed. The point is to describe the image to someone who can't see it; the more detail the better in my book. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading WP:ALT again, you are completely correct. The alt texts have been updated. Rejectwater (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language doesn't make it 100% clear, I see no reason why "Eleven men have served as general manager (GM) in franchise history" should not read "Eleven people have served as general manager (GM) in franchise history" -- is their gender important, are we implying it is by saying "men" rather than "people"?

• I don't think it matters. They have so far all been men, which makes it a one-gender context. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah I'm not so sure. Reading it again, I still feel it's implying that their gender is important (it's not), even though I'm sure it isn't meant to do so! - Shudde ^talk 06:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point. I will change it to something like "There have been eleven..." Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that this may not be necessary, but I'm wondering if a note could/should be added giving a bit of detail into what the exact role of a general manager is within the team? General manager isn't bad, but my main question is what responsibilities the head coach has, and what the general manager has. This is especially relevant because the roles were held by the same person for twenty years.

• Added a link to Coach (ice hockey), not sure if this covers what you're looking for. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a question of whether the list is about the managers themselves, or the role itself. Of course it is likely a combination of both rather than one or the other. Wondering if a sentence or two describing the role (in the context of this team, not a general description of a general manager) would be good. The fact that at least a couple of the GM's were simultaneously coach is quite interesting, but not sure how best to tackle that. -- Shudde ^talk 06:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a quick explanation of what the GM does will be added. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe reference the trader Jack sentence more explicitly, and add [9] immediately after the semi-colon.

• The references had been more explicit until recently when they were moved due a comment in peer review which stated that it looks nicer to have them at the end of the sentences. Six of one half a dozen of the other? Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As per WP:INTEGRITY, I think you should change it back. -- Shudde ^talk 06:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Under first Abel and then " -- Because you mentioned Abel was also coach in the preceding sentence, it's not 100% clear where you're saying "under first [head coach] Abel", or "under first [general manager] Abel" -- You might want to clarify this

• Added "as GM". Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "when they made the playoffs only twice" -- "during which they ..." ?

• Done. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "from 1990–94" -- "from 1990 to 1994" as per WP:YEAR

• Done. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "from 1994–97" see above

• Done. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wondering if more could be said about Art Duncan. Especially considering he was part of the teams founding, and was a player, coach and manager.

• I have wondered the same thing. There is an odd vacuum of information concerning Duncan's tenure with the team, which I imagine is due to being in Adams' shadow. One would think the man who was the first team captain, head coach, and general manager (all at the same time no less) would be a legend, but he's not. His bio on the Red Wings website doesn't even have a picture. He's just the guy who is first on each list. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking about this more it makes sense. He was only in Detroit one year and they didn't accomplish anything to note in that time. His claim to fame in Red Wings history was being first on those lists and that is it. Rejectwater (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that he was founding GM, coach, player and captain, and yet had no significant influence on the side is itself quite notable! Maybe that could be added. The only other question I'd ask is how he got all those responsibilities -- who appointed him? Even if not much is known about him, if a RS says so "that not much is known about his tenure", then there is nothing wrong with saying so in the lead itself. -- Shudde ^talk 06:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was typical of the time for someone to serve in multiple capacities concurrently; see General manager, for example, which states "For many years in U.S. professional sports, coaches often served as general managers for their teams as well, deciding which players would be kept on the team and which ones dismissed, and even negotiating the terms of their contracts in cooperation with the ownership of the team." Serving as coach and general manager at the same time is still done today in various sports leagues (Bill Belichick for example) and has been done many times by the Red Wings. As recently as 1990 owner Mike Ilitch was quoted as saying "I feel it's absolutely necessary to consolidate the position of GM and head coach." Jimmy Skinner was the first Wings GM to not also be head coach for at least some portion of his tenure, although he had been head coach in the mid 1950's. The only guys in Detroit who have acted as general manager while also never coaching are Jim Devellano and Ken Holland. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not really talking about the fact that he was both coach and GM at the same time - I don't think that's worth commenting on, rather I'm inquiring about his lack of influence considering he held four notable positions simultaneously: coach, player, captain and GM! Is there a reason he was only with the team one year? -- Shudde ^talk 03:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I imagine Adams was seen as an upgrade at coach and gm; hindsight proves it so. Adams traded Duncan away before the ink was dry on Adams' contract, probably as a house cleaning move. New leadership wanted to put it's stamp on the organization. This is almost all conjecture. I'm not aware of any source that goes into any kind of detail about the behind the scenes "what were they thinking" aspect of these moves. Rejectwater (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the team captain is always a player, so it was redundant to list both; I've updated that sentence. Rejectwater (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Shame it's all conjecture because would be good to have a little more on him (and why he was there so briefly). Anyway happy to support. All my comments have been addressed. - Shudde ^talk 10:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the excellent input and for your support. Rejectwater (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Minor suggestion; rather than "Ken Holland is Detroit's current general manager." (I hate the term currently) say "Ken Holland has been Detroit's general manager since 1997."

• Done. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. All rather minor (other than the Art Duncan thing). -- Shudde ^talk 06:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your input. Usually I would just hammer out your suggestions but a few of these seem to be more toss up type comments(?). I look forward to hearing anything you have to say on those or any other issue you see with the page. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah I apologise if my comments read like thoughts rather than "fix this please". I'm quite open to my comments not being valid or being a bit pedantic, but I'd rather say something if I'm going to spend the time on a review. Usually I just add comments as I read the article, and don't necessarily consider them important/critical. -- Shudde ^talk

• I appreciate the comments. There's no reason to apologize. I just wanted to make sure my comments were appropriate and that your concerns were being addressed. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Reference 2 needs a publisher (National Hockey League). Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Rejectwater (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: File:Ken Holland in 2013.jpg - hosted on Wikimedia Commons, appropriately licensed, image checks out okay. File:Jack Adams, Toronto Arenas.jpg - hosted on Commons, correct license, image checks out alright. Done. — Cirt (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The lede is of appropriate size, per WP:LEAD, and also provides good background info for the reader. The list is formatted well and meticulously referenced throughout. I like the Key, it's quite helpful. Nice use of portal selection. Great job overall, deserves the star. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your kind words and support. Warm regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well referenced/cited, especially for what is an actually short list. Good luck with it. Anthony (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your kind words and support. Warm regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of comma - yes, that is a cut and paste from the source.
• Switched the "first" and the "under" as suggested, however the "as GM" was added due to a comment in peer review that it was necessary to specify the position as head coach was mentioned in the previous sentence.
• Finals - changed "Cup final" to "Stanley Cup Finals" in previous paragraph.
• Too many ands - fixed.
• Thank you for the input and for taking the time to look it over. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1989 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Heyman and Moonjean in the best Picture box can be linked.
• I know you try to put related awards in adjacent boxes; should sound editing and mixing go next to each other?
• -> 1950s movie musicals
• In presenters list, I'm not sure why 'Set Direction' is included for Defoe and Hackman for the Art Direction award.
• Why wasn't there a host?

Good work again, Reywas92^Talk 08:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I fixed everything mentioned above. As for the "no host" thing, in one of the references its says...

"Carr said there will be no principal host on the show. ``No comedians, no Chevy Chase, no emcee. It`s going to be like a relay race from star to star to star-a true cavalcade of stars. We`re calling them star participants. Jane Fonda, for example, is going to introduce one of the five `best film` clips and then she`ll introduce her godfather, Jimmy Stewart, who will appear with Kim Novak after we show a clip of them together in Vertigo.

• So I stated in the ceremony info that, "Instead of hiring a host for the proceedings, he heavily relied on presenters often grouped in pairs as either couples, compadres, co-stars, or companions."

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 04:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Refereces and prose look good – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment: Didn't Who Framed Roger Rabbit win three awards? The article says four. If it won a special achievement award, it has not been mentioned.--krimuk ⁹⁰ 07:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I added the reason for Richard Williams Special Achievement Oscar. The link provided indicates the award was given to honor Who Framed Roger Rabbit. AMPAS officially gives Roger Rabbit's awards tally at four.

• Support: Terrific job on prose, references, and organization.--Jagarin 17:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, i only found minor problems (listed below) that are not a reason to oppose. Spotcheck not done.
  • "took place March 29, 1989" -> for consistency with all the other AA events "took place on March 29, 1989"
  • "Salaam Bombay! (India) Hindi – Mira Nair" -> should be "in Hindi", per consistency
  • "turned out to be a TV nyet" -> nyet © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I fixed everything mentioned above. I'm very grateful for your help!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Terrific job on meeting every single criteria!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 21:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, time to take a step back from increasingly-obscure video game-related lists, and return to speculative fiction award lists. We even have a non-obscure subject matter for y'all this time- the novels category of the World Fantasy Awards, the biggest player in the Fantasy-specific literary awards. Like always, the list is based off of the dozens of Hugo, Nebula, etc. award lists I've pushed through here in the last few years, so it should be pretty smooth sailing for this and future WFA category nominations. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, but do we need an asterisk and blue background for each winner? I think that the blue background alone does this pretty well Cambalachero (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you can't differentiate between things based on color alone, or color-blind people can't tell the difference. --PresN 14:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Crisco 1492

• Trophy is a copyvio, as the trophy itself is likely a copyrighted design and thus this is a derivative work of a non-free object.
• previous year. - calendar year or 365 days before the awards ceremony? You say it further below, but this is the first mention
• Tying in with that, do you need to repeat "previous year" whilst talking about the novel category?
• late Spring - Means a completely different thing for people in the southern hemisphere. Find another wording that means the same for everyone (see WP:SEASON)
• Should Ægypt be sorted after Z?
• Are any of the unlinked authors notable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed image and addressed other concerns; I'm not sure if Æ should be sorted as AE or what, so I left it as the default; and no, to the best of my knowledge the unlinked authors don't need a redlink. --PresN 17:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Solid looking list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Combed through it a few times but I can't really find anything to quibble about, bar my own aesthetic preference for something other than an asterisk for the secondary highlight—to me, an asterisk seems a little too easy to miss at a glance; though maybe this could be changed by placing it before the name rather than after it ({{sort|Hellwing, Jim|*Jim Hellwig}} would keep things sorted properly). But that's wholly a personal taste thing. GRAPPLE X 21:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and I can see little to suggest save these tweaks:

For The Mist you chose to link to Dark Forces but not also the publisher. Unless there is some protocol for this I suggest having both.

You use "Victor Gollancz Ltd" but don't use this style for e.g. Methuen Publishing Ltd or Simon & Schuster, Inc. I presume the first is the article title for purposes of disambiguation but I see no need for this inconsistency here.

Re "Collins Publishers" I see (a) no reason not to link to William Collins, Sons and (b) no evidence that this is the correct name, which would seem to be either "William Collins, Sons" or simply "Collins".

I don't know where it should go, but the link you have chosen for Macdonald is a set index article for names related to Clan Donald rather than a publisher.

It would assist readers if you copied the ref for The Club Dumas into the end of the Note about it being withdrawn.

Good work. Ben MacDui 13:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Forgot to say that the infobox looks a little sparse. I imagine comments above suggest an image was found to be a copyvio and its a pity the last two winners are red links, but is there a reason not include an image of say The Forgotten Beasts of Eld or The Drowning Girl?

• Wouldn't be allowed under the NFCC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - it would be good to have something although I can't see anything generic on Commons. A picture of an author, e.g. Lavie Tidhar, would presumably be acceptable from a licensing point of view. Ben MacDui 16:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of the publishing issues and copied the ref into the note; shame you can't nest refs. I'd rather not add a photo unless it's of G. Willow Wilson, the current winner; I can't find anything of her that's free-use though. I'll ask some people on Flickr if they'll relicense their photos.--PresN 18:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is of sufficient quality. I believe that this article meets the necessary FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about ways in which it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all good from me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SchroCat! And thanks for catching those ones that I'd missed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lemonade51 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I can see little to suggest save the following tweaks. Ben MacDui 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "mega-watt" - This is per the source but I think you could add <!-- sic --> to the text as it seems to have the same meaning as megawatt and looks like a typo to anyone familiar with the scientific term.

• Having reread MOS:QUOTE, it appears that "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment", so I've just changed "mega-watt" to "megawatt".

• "a combined age of 1,389" I don't think it breaches our OR restrictions to divide one number with another and tell us that the average was more than 27.5 as this would be a more meaningful statement.

• Per WP:CALC, it would seem that you're correct. I have added a parenthetical comment stating that each person was aged approximately 28.

• Cite 19 about Frank Carter's planned tattoo won't open for me but I don't have a good internet connection and Checklinks seems to think it's OK. I presume if you knew whether or not he actually did it that you'd include this information.

• Agh, every XFM link has gone down. They have now all been fixed.

• Ladyhawke links to the wrong article.

• Corrected. Thank you very much for the review, Ben! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1996 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a confusing "it also lower a higher" in the ratings section that needs to be rewritted, otherwise good work like with the others and Support. Reywas92^Talk 07:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I changed "it also lower a higher" to "it also earned."

--Birdienest81 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The ceremony, televised in the United States by ABC." That sentence lacks a verb. Perhaps it can be "The ceremony was televised...". The special awards and very few and may be better in a single section. In multiple nominations and awards you said "The following 19 films received multiple awards" over the list of multiple nominations. "The following individuals (listed in order of appearance) presented awards or performed musical numbers" lacks a period, and the parentesis may be replaced by commas. Cambalachero (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I fixed everything you listed above. Thank you. --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Cambalachero (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The header in the In Memoriam section is italicized, but is in quotes in the prose – which one should it be? ~HueSatLum 02:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: It is supposed to be in italics.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great job on prose and meeting the FL criteria.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks easy to read and is well organized.-Jairus Garin (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my "list of warships" series, this list is for the modern battleships built by the Italian Navy, starting with the first pre-dreadnoughts. The list has been reviewed at a Milhist A-class reveiw (see here). Thanks for all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• I think you mean naval gunfire support rather than coastal artillery support
  • Fixed.
• Need a cite for revolutionary nature of Dreadnought.
  • You mean in the lead? It's covered by the cite in the Regina Elena section.
• This seems awkward: Therefore, a new battleship that could match the firepower of the dreadnought battleships was needed. Perhaps something along the lines of: "a dreadnought-type of battleship was needed"
  • See how it reads now.
• Fate of Dante Aligheri should be added to the lede.
  • Added.
• What about fates of the Conte di Cavour and Andrea Doria classes?
  • Also added.
• Would indecision be a better word here: confusion in the naval design staff
  • Sure.
• Rhodes is more appropriately placed in the Aegean, not the Mediterranean.
  • Fixed.
• Link magazine
  • Done.
• Pictures are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm nowhere near as certain on the images, as Italian copyright law is ... weird. First, you need to prove that it's a "simple photograph". I don't think this is a stopping point, as warship profiles were common and may not meet the "artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality" criterion. Second, Italy's laws do not jive well at all with US copyrights. For basically all of those images, you have to prove that they were taken before 1976 (easy) and make a reasonable argument that it wasn't published in the US before 1978 (hard). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, based on this, it seems the threshold for originality isn't an issue - Italy's is quite low. The problem is going to be a pre-1923 date of publication or a pre-1978 date with no notice of copyright. I'll have to see what I can dig up, but it looks like the WWII photos are going to have to go, at the very least. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support
  • Re Regina Elena class, 21 knots = 'Dreadnought.
    • Ah yes, speed should be 22 knots.
  • "Ultimately, she was broken up for scrap in 1926" - yeah but that's not what the table says. ;-)
    • Ah, good eye. Fixed now.
  • Otherwise it looks pretty good to me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reviewing the list, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it represents a complete type set (list) of United States Fractional currency (with high resolution images), a description of all known varieties, and a succinct historical overview. Two start-class articles were recently merged, expanded, and stylistically turned into this list-class article with the addition of the illustrated and sortable table of different note types and their corresponding varieties.-Godot13 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a little bit concerned about the name of the article. To me the term "fractional currency" refers to "Coin or paper currency in a denomination less than a standard monetary unit", as per, for example, The American Heritage Dictionary or the Collins Dictionary. By my interpretation this would mean any American penny, Euro cent, Mexican centimo, Peruvian centimo, Australian nickel, etc. However, this article is only about a particular series of American fractional currency. At the same time I realize that there is not currently a Wikipedia article on fractional currency (as a concept defined by the dictionary definition quoted above). Additionally, this page, while not WP:RS itself, quotes The Standard Catalog of World Paper Money - General Issues, 6th edition, 1990 in reference to Canadian fractional currency. I would suggest that the page title be moved to Fractional currency (United States of America) or similar per project naming conventions. Alternatively, if you can demonstrate that the term "Fractional currency" overwhelmingly is used to refer to this particular set of banknotes than I would still like to see someway of mentioning the more (theoretical?) definition of fractional currency. Ravendrop 04:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the article/list. I understand your concern. I am thinking of possibilities which include United States fractional currency and Fractional currency (United States). Would either of these be objectionable?-Godot13 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd go with the second one. Also, do you really need the TOC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for weighing in Crisco 1492. The name has been changed and the TOC removed.-Godot13 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Make 'coinage[1] - gold' an unspaced mdash
• Make '1 – 3%' an unspaced ndash
• -> June 1862
• Justice holding scales, Bust of Liberty and Bust of Columbia need not be italicized unless they are actual titles of the artwork (In which case the first would need to be capitalized).
• See also section generally goes before References.

Great work Reywas92^Talk 08:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Reywas92- Thanks for the review and comments. All changes have been made. The titles of the three vignettes were descriptive in nature and have been removed from italics.-Godot13 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think the lead currently summarises the theme. Certainly, the first two (text) sections seem to be absent in the intro. That's the only big-ish issue though.Brigade Piron (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron- Thank you for your comment. I had intended the first few text sections to be the lead. I have removed the headers and done some very minor editing on the text and I hope it flows better and sets up the main tables. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support A phenomenal task, given that the subject matter is at best, obscure. Well doneCoal town guy (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The lead is very short at only one paragraph and doesn't summary the whole article, as was pointed out above. Two or three decent-size paragraphs should be the goal here. - Will work on this by putting some of the later material in the lead
• Last two words of "United States Federal Government" shouldn't be capitalized.-done.
• The pictures could use alt text.-done.
  • The ones outside of the tables still don't have alt text, and the ones that do shouldn't have Alt= in the description. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will add alt to the ones outside the table, but I would like to clarify- I was following the MOS:ALT example by putting the alt text in the with the file description (i.e., immediately following the file name). Is this incorrect?-Godot13 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what's causing the capitalization now. The parameter is being capitalized as Alt=, which is causing the description issue. Try decapitalizing the word and that should work. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, "Alt" has been changed to "alt".-Godot13 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Civil war economy: Again, "Government" shouldn't be capitalized.-done.
• "borrowed gold coin from New York City banks...'. Should "coin" be made plural? -Not in this case, it is already being used in a slightly different sense in the plural.
• Periods needed before refs 9, 10, and 13. That's something that at least one of the three supporters should have spotted during a review.-done.
• Remove comma in "January, 1862".-done.
• Postage currency: Closing parenthesis mark needed after "which led into the use of fractional currency".-done.
• From postage to fractional: "and" is needed before "watermarks to name a few."-done.
• The last sentence of this section is uncited and use terminology ("Today") that could become outdated.-done, getting page number for citation.

Last sentence in question removed as a suitable citation is not available.-Godot13 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Issuing periods and varieties: In the headings, the second word of "Features/Varieties" should be decapitalized.-done
• Third Issue: The hyphen in the features note should instead be an en dash.-done.
  • The en dash is the smaller one; according to MoS, the larger em dash shouldn't be spaced when it is used. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually done-Godot13 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 3: A colon would be nice before the quote.-done.
• In refs 7 and 9, the en dashes for the page ranges should be unspaced.-done.
• Ref 20 should have the date formatted like all of the others (3 May 2013) for consistency. You could also change all of the others to ref 20's style, but I figured this would be the most convenient way to make the cites consistent.-done (and yes, much more convenient).
• What makes Monetarylaw.com (ref 29) a reliable source?-It isn't and has been replaced. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments Giants2008. They have all been resolved except where noted. I will revise the lead within the next 2-3 days. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question @Giants2008: I had intended the first three-four paragraphs/sections to actually be the lead for the list, I added headings because I thought it would otherwise be too long. If I remove the first three headings and make sure the information flows properly, is that an appropriate lead? Otherwise it seems I would be writing 3-4 paragraphs to describe the following 3-4 paragraphs and the table. Either way, just let me know and it will be done. Thank-Godot13 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008- I have removed the section headings and done some very minor editing to make the text flow as a lead. Please let me know if this change is acceptable or you would like to see something different instead. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead as-is is a bit long for my tastes, but it's workable. A couple of other problems are caused by removing the section, though. There's still one subheading which needs to be removed, and the lead is now overloaded with photographs. The gallery in particular is odd; if it's to be kept, I suggest moving it down in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 - I tried moving this around a bit: the gallery (which may or may not be tenable to keep) I moved out of the lead in between two of the tables. If it needs to go I understand, but it is a great pictorial illustration on the evolution from an initial idea to a final proof. The section on the law prohibiting living people from being on currency I moved to the end of the list. It is not really lead material as it does not have to do with the history of the notes themselves. It is important however, as the law banning living persons was caused specifically by fractional currency. Let me know if this is better and/or if something simply needs to be removed. Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does look better now. The alt text issue above is still outstanding, but I'm satisfied with the rest of the fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on that, if does flow better. I think (given resolution of the Alt/alt issue above) that all your comments have been addressed. - Godot13 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.