Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2011

• Early shorts: "Afterwards he convinced the Mineralava Beauty Clay Company to produced a two-reel film...". "produced" → "produce".
• David O. Selznick Productions: Since United Artists was linked in the last prose section, another link really isn't needed here.
  • The link I wanted removed was in the pre-table prose, not the table notes. I have no issue with having links in the table itself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote 4 should give the page number in the pp. format, not p., since there's more than one page being cited.
• Footnote 23 has a pp. that should be p., as a single-page cite.
• Footnote 35 should have the publisher italicized, because it's a newspaper (printed publication).
• Footnote 43 is inconsistent with the other Academy references since it has The in front of the publisher. I'd imagine the publisher should be consistent for all of those cites, and the easiest fix is just to remove The from that cite. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All comments have been addressed and now fixed. Jimknut (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again all comments have been addressed and now fixed. Jimknut (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Five paras in the lead seems a little too much, perhaps think of merging down a bit to hit four.
  • The first two paragraphs have been merged.
• "He is perhaps most notable as the producer of the 1939 epic Gone With the Wind." this needs citation or else it's just WP:OR.
  • Link to NY Times obit.
• "Migrating to Hollywood ..." is that _really_ a "migration"?
  • Changed to "moved"
• " into the sound era" think of non-experts here, what's the "sound era"?
  • Linked to section of Sound film.
• "and developed Katharine Hepburn and Myrna Loy into major film stars" single-handedly or did he "help to develop..." them?
  • Changed
• "of literary favourites with" - bit tabloidy for me.
  • Changed
• [10][11][12][13][14][9] -> can you order these numerically?
  • Reordered
• " from Mr. Behlmer's book" no need for "Mr." here, this is an encyclopaedia.
  • Changed
• "David O. Selznick began working in"... just "Selznick began.." is fine since he is the subject of the list.
  • Changed
• Worth linking "Silent" for non-experts.
  • Linked to Silent film
• "The 12 films listed below "... I count 13?
  • Oops! Changed
• Lots of relinking, e.g. MGM, Duel in the Sun, is there a strategy here or is it haphazard?
  • Reduced relinking
• "travelling" -> traveling if you're USEng, right?
  • Changed
• "Of the 68 features that David O. Selznick" again, no need to repeat David O. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed Jimknut (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would prefer to not start with a single-sentence para, worth merging that into the second para.
  • I've brought the 80s part of the first paragraph up to this line. Bradley0110 (talk)
• "which he got while " don't like "got" at all, can you be more eloquent?
  • I can, how's "had"? Bradley0110 (talk)
• What's a "jobbing actor"? I don't get it, so I suspect others may not either.
  • "Jobbing" is simply casual work but come to think of it, it could be slang, so "casual actor" it is. Bradley0110 (talk)
• "He 1997, he got his breakout..." Grammar fail, perhaps "In 1997, Nesbitt secured his..."?
  • The erroneous "He" is more of a brain failure! I've changed "got" to "secured". Bradley0110 (talk)
• Ref 18 appears dead or not quite what you intended it to be...
  • Before I moved citations around Ref 18 was to an issue of Country Life with no link, however I think you might be referring to the Irish News citation. A paywall seems to have gone up around the site so I've added a subscription note. Bradley0110 (talk)
• " he feature film lead debut" - what?
  • Just more inability to spot basic errors before bringing the list to FLC. I shall shoot myself later on if the embarrassment doesn't kill me first. Bradley0110 (talk)
• " in more feature films" replace "more" with "additional".
  • I have changed the whole sentence to "He has also furthered his feature film career by taking roles in..." as "additional" breaks the flow. Bradley0110 (talk)
• "and is filming a role" no, he's not filming it, he's portraying a role, surely? Someone else is filming it.
  • I've just changed this to "has a role" Bradley0110 (talk)
• "he appeared in no less than five major plays" remove "no less than".
  • That would make it five exactly, which I don't believe it is. Bradley0110 (talk)
• link the Troubles.
  • OK Bradley0110 (talk)
• Many lines of the tables unreferenced. Don't forget that IMDB is not considered a WP:RS.
  • IMDb isn't and has never been used as a source here, however I've added citations for roles not already covered in the BFI reference at the top of the tables (just 2010 and 2011 roles). Bradley0110 (talk)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, the tables fail WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for information on this
• Secondly, from the few references I've looked at you don't use any cite templates, you need to fix this. Just so you know Cite news is used for refs from news agencies such as BBC, Guardian etc.

Other than these quibbles it looks good. NapHit (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Can you elaborate on your first point please? Bradley0110 (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I've expanded the table captions for clarity now. As for using citation templates, there is nothing to "fix"; templates are used by some editors as a choice and have never been compulsory in articles. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the citation bit just read the guidelines and its fine. I was unsure you didn't have to use citation templates so I apologise. I've edited a bit of the first table so you have an example on how to make the table accessible, as adding a caption was part of the problem but there were other bits that needed dong as well. NapHit (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - it's the coding. Thanks for the demo, I've implemented it in the tables now. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• John Weston is a dab link.
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "is the most awarded perfomer in the category" just think "has won the most awards" reads better than "most awarded"...
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Spanish version" - spanish language version, right?
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason you don't link LA Times in the refs?
  • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• Tables need row-header markup, captions, etc., per WP:ACCESS; see MOS:DTT for more details.
• Year ranges like "1997-98" should use en-dashes instead of hyphens.
• Link Safeco Field.
• All captions are complete sentences and thus need periods/full stops.
• No stats in the table? It seems very dry without them. Perhaps it would help to support the idea that the player was the "best" designated hitter in any given year.
• Remove spaces between daggers and their entries.
• Replace Unicode daggers with {{dagger}} and use appropriate alt text per WP:ACCESS.
• Remove superscript from asterisks as they are already superscripted by nature.
• In the lead, after you have named the teams with three or more players, I don't think it is necessary to enumerate all of the teams with two award winners; that is to say, leave the team names, but the player names can be removed. If the reader wants to see that in-depth, he can look at the list proper.
• The lead is currently 5 short paragraphs; I think some could be combined to get a solid 3.
• In the "See also" section:
  • A sub-bullet link to the Silver Slugger winners at DH would not be amiss
  • Direct-link to Major League Baseball Triple Crown rather than a redirect
• Re-format dates in references to either US or UK date formatting instead of ISO.

That's all for me for now. — KV5 • Talk • 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good ideas. I'm on it and will let you know when I've completed those changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Unless you think the table needs a caption, which I think would be redundant with the section title. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table captions are important, but for a definitive answer, I would query User:RexxS. Couple of things from after the edits:

• Can't use bold to indicate a league leader per MOS:BOLD. I suggest italics instead.
• Dagger template should still be superscripted.
• Row-headers aren't showing as headers; this is because the code line for the header (the player name) still starts with a pipe instead of an exclamation point. So that would complete that.
• Key needs row-header markup too.

Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table captions are normally a welcome improvement to the accessibility of a table, particularly as a screen reader like JAWS can call up a list of all the table captions on a page and allow the user to jump directly to a desired table. However, Graham87 tells me that he tends to navigate our articles by calling up a list of section headings in JAWS and going directly to the appropriate section. What this means for us is that if a table is (more or less) the first element in a section, then screen readers gain hardly anything from a table caption if it merely duplicates the preceding section heading – and you may attract criticism from sighted viewers for effectively creating redundant content. We need to be sensitive to the issue that improvements for the disabled may result in making things worse for the sighted, as we have to maintain cooperation between all users to advance the accessibility agenda in an effective manner.

Tldr summary: I wouldn't insist on captions directly below headers if the caption only repeats the section header. In this case Key and List of winners are the most likely captions and that means you could omit captions here without any real loss of accessibility. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RexxS. That means I've completed all of KV5's suggested changes successfully. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bagumba

• Why a column for hits instead of the more traditional batting average? Or perhaps standardize with List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter and include AVG, OBP, and SLG.—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took guidance from Hank Aaron Award, which used the same three stats I used here. I'm open to changing it to a different statistic if that would be an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the magic 200-hit mark, it seems hits in a season aren't as notable as BA. Further addition of OBP and SLG would be even better still.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • • I disagree. I think that hits are appropriate here, as the player's position is a designated hitter. — KV5 • Talk • 11:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering that the lead makes mention of Edgar's career BA, HR and RBI (because the ref'd article mentions those stats), maybe I should switch out hits for BA? Or should I add something else in addition? Hits and BA would be redundant. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whoops, still drinking my morning coffee here. I thought his stats were mentioned in the Seattle Times article about how the award was being renamed for him. Those stats are sourced by B Ref and I believe were chosen by someone else before I started working on this page, so I'm not married to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would support at a minimum swapping hits with BA. Sampling the sources in the article that announce the last four winners of Guerrero, Lind, Huff, and Ortiz, none of them mention their hits for that season. 4/4 mention BA, 3/4 SLG, and 1/4 OBP.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

1. The article title should also be mentioned and bolded in the first sentence and noted as its common name.
2. Redirects should exist for official and alternative names.
3. Reorder the content of first paragraph with the second. Explain to the reader who currently awards it and how before discussing previous association with AP and why its now named after Martinez.
4. Remove the listing of teams with 2-time winners. Its already large with seven teams, and is only going to become larger and less significant over the years (not to mention overhead of remembering to maintain the trivia).
5. I sorted the table by team and thought at first that the lead was incorrect. Then I realized that maybe the lead should mention teams by how many times their players have won the award (as opposed to number of players who have won.)
6. For MLB.com references, publisher should be MLB Advanced Media.
7. For newspaper references (e.g. Seattle Times, Providence Journal), use "newspaper" param instead of "work" and "publisher".
8. Boston Herald reference should add {{subscription required}}.
9. Reference to All bat, no glove: a history of the designated hitter should use "pages" parameter instead of "page" in cite tempate.
10. No need for "Footnote" section, include the footnote at the bottom of "List of winners". Otherwise, per WP:ORDER, notes go after "See also"
11. Remove (1) from players in the list from their first instance if they won multiple times, as in Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award. Otherwise, its not immediately intuitive why other 1-time winners don't have (1) also.
12. I've never found it in MOS, but I have seen on other pages where editors comment that consecutive citations should be in numerical order (e.g. for Edgar Martinez entry use [2][5] and not [5][2].
13. Remove the external link per WP:ELNO, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." There isnt any added value to this link. Alternatively, it can be cited as a reference.
14. Is this considered an official MLB award? Just wondering since Selig made the announcement of the rename. If so, relevant navbox can be added.
15. See also section
    1. Worth mentioning above that Ortiz won the Hank Aaron Award in 2005 as the top overall hitter, not just top DH. Aaron Award can then be removed from "See also"
    2. Silver Slugger not needed; one can get to it from inside List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter.
    3. Remove Major League Baseball Triple Crown removed as it's not an award and not directly related.
    4. This Year in Baseball Awards not needed when there is already a link to Baseball awards, unless there is evidence it is more relevant than other awards. They are handed out by MLB.com, which for whatever reason (marketing?) is a separate entity from MLB awards.
    5. List List of Major League Baseball awards before more generic Baseball Awards

—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will get to them on Monday, as I'll be unable to edit much if at all this weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question you asked, no this is not considered an official MLB award. I know it becomes confusing considering that it was Selig who announced the award would be renamed, but the award is maintained by BBWAA, not MLB.

I have completed your suggested changes with one exception, and that regards the "See Also". KV5 suggested adding the list of DH Silver Sluggers, and now you're suggesting I take it out. Which should I follow? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was suggesting to leave List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter but remove Silver Slugger. I dont think that is in conflict with KV5.—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not. I've removed it, so you can consider your suggestions completely incorporated. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comments (some are new, some I might only be noticing now):
Convention:Suggested add suggested delete

1. "... in the American League (AL) in Major League Baseball (MLB)since 1973." Should mention MLB early in the lead, otherwise non-baseball fans wouldnt figure out for a long time this is a baseball article.
2. "The Outstanding Designated Hitter Aaward is voted on by club beat reporters, broadcasters and AL public relations departments.": No need to mention original name again.
3. "The Boston Red Sox players have won the most Edgar Martínez Awards with eight": more accurate
4. Clicking on footnote "a" for 1994 row doesnt bring me to the footnote. Missing a {{reflist}}?
5. dont need a bullet for the footnote at end of table
6. "In addition to Martínez, David Ortiz has won the award five times." Didnt realize the significance at first reading, but I guess its the most times anyone has won. Should mention in the previous Martinez paragraph.
7. "In addition to Martínez, David Ortiz has also won the award five times, all in consecutive seasons (2003–2007). Ortiz won his five Edgar Martínez Awards in consecutive years.": combine sentences, Ortiz's years werent mentioned before
8. "Other repeat winners of the Edgar Martínez Awardaward include three-time winner Hal McRae (1976, 1980, and 1982), and two-time winners Willie Horton (1975 and 1979), Greg Luzinski (1981 and 1983), Don Baylor (1985 and 1986), Harold Baines (1987 and 1988), Dave Parker (1989 and 1990), and Paul Molitor (1993 and 1996)" reword

—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except the comment about adding Ortiz to the earlier paragraph. I feel that it flows well as is, with the first paragraph about the award, the second paragraph about the award namesake, and the third paragraph about other winners, with Ortiz listed first because he has tied Edgar (and for all we know, could surpass him with his sixth award for this season). If you insist, I'll try to find a way to rewrite it, but I feel it's better as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to convey was that the Martinez paragraph should say that five is the most times ever won. Then when we get to the part about Ortiz, we would know implicitly that Ortiz is tied for the most also.—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I can do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The list doesn't sort properly. The cell with the text "From 14 January 1989, compilation albums featuring various artists were no longer included in the UK Albums Chart." gets thrown into a position where it makes no sense.

• I made that particular row unsortable, simply because that cell is only really relevant when the number ones are sorted by year (the list's default position). Ideally, the row would disappear if the list were sorted by anything else (i.e. artist, album or weeks at number one) because then it is no longer relevant, but I can't think of any way of achieving this. Any suggestions?

• Yes. Take it out of the list and place it as a note right above the list. Jimknut (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture of Deborah Kerr: Are you sure she is on the soundtrack of The King and I? Her singing voice was dubbed in the film by Marni Nixon and I think it's Marni's voice on the album as well. Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, wasn't aware of that... Changed. Thanks a lot for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, I've got my own FLC: David O. Selznick filmography. Care to take a look? Jimknut (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid that I don't know all too much about filmographies on Wikipedia, but I'll take a look. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)]][reply]

• "and each week's new number one is first announced on Sunday evenings by on the The Radio 1 Chart Show." The "by on" has at least one excess word, maybe two.

• Agh, how did I miss that? Fixed.

• Should "per cent" be one word?

• According to MOS:PERCENT, "per cent" is the British spelling.

• Number-one albums: Remove hyphen from "most-successful"?

• Done.

• Could move the Take That link up one sentence to the first mention.

• Done.

• Hot Press should be italicized in ref 8, as a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Beatles have released seven Christmas number one albums, more than any other artist." would prefer "any other act" (as I find it hard to accept "artist" being used for a group.

• Done.

• I see no good reason to capitalise "Original Soundtrack" in the table, just "Original soundtrack" should be fine.

• Done.

• "Singer Marni Nixon provided vocals..." reference for this?

• Done.

• "Elton John has topped the albums chart twice at Christmas, in two consecutive years." No need for the "two" here as it's self-evident.

• Done.

• Do you need to abbreviate OCC? You only use the abbreviationce once but use "The Official Charts Company" a number of times afterwards, mainly in the references.

• Fixed.

• I see no relevance in the last two external links to OCC's Xmas Number 1 albums.

• Removed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've never even nominated a list or other article for FA or FL;
2. I can only imagine how much hard work has gone into this;
3. I don't have clear instructions for how to address the comments I want to make; and
4. my remarks will come across as negative, when there's clearly more to praise here than criticize.

Having said that, however, permit me to respectfully offer these remarks. I won't be opposing or supporting, but offer these thoughts for other reviewers.

• It looks as though the last 36 of the 41 refs here are all from the same Web site. That makes me a bit itchy, as I worry that we mostly just copied somebody else's work (last January).
  • The general reference verifies the list, if you know how to use the IOC's database. That's a tricky proposition, so the links are there for one-click access to verify the individual names. This was a change made in this series of lists after the stink made at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners/archive1. Courcelles 21:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The tables don't look very accessible to unsighted or even sighted users. It seems that the Event columns should be row headers; here they look like just another column. And a heading like "Men's" just seems incomplete. I don't know what to suggest here, other than to ask those more experienced in WP:accessibility issues (like User:RexxS) to see what they think.
  • Thanks to someone figuring out what to do with {{MedalistTable}} to accommodate the scope arguments, this is now sorted, row scopes added to the event fields. As to the "Men's", well, that's the description of the event. There's nothing else to call the event, the general type of event is always taken from the level 2 header above the table on these. Courcelles 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update, going back to put the row scopes in the last one of this series, the Cortina list provided the solution. They now say "Men's individual" instead of just men's. Only one event per discipline, so not strictly necessary, but it worked a few weeks ago when the 1956 list came through. Courcelles 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Men's details" seems even weirder (or naughtier) the more I look at it. Maybe some parentheses around "(details)"?
  • I think you're overthinking this one, parenthesis around details would just look silly, and break the format of all Olympics lists, a couple dozen of which are already FL's. Courcelles 22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer to see the "details" redlinks done away with. They seem less useful than, say, 2012 Hurricane Season, or some sure-to-be-notable-someday politician or actor, where at least the target is obvious.
  • Per WP:NSPORTS, all events at the Olympics are considered notable enough to have their own article -- that's why the redlinks are there. Courcelles 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what bugs me here isn't that there's a redlink text (to what deserves to be an article some day) in the middle of some prose, but more of a bait-and-switch, teasing offer of here-are-some-details — psych out! no there's not, ha ha, sucker!. Do you see what I mean? We gone out of our way to separately offer some – oops! – non-details. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And anyway, why aren't these things linking to subsections of Figure skating at the 1960 Winter Olympics? Isn't that what most (all?) of the other details links are doing (to the respective main articles)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done as an interim measure, though someoen is going to have to remember to undo that once the articles get written... Courcelles 15:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sometimes country names are italicized, sometimes they're not. It seems they should be consistent, unless there's some reason for the inconsistency, in which case that should be (better) explained.
  • They're templates, that you'll find on any of thousands of pages concerning the Olympics, see {{FlagIOCathlete}} and {{FlagIOCteam}}. Courcelles 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As a sports ignoramus looking at the speed skating table, I'm wondering why, in the Men's 1500 metres event, no silver medal was awarded. Perhaps a footnote?
  • Two racers tied for first, in which case no silver is awarded (as placings are tied for first, tied for first, third). Added a footnote. Courcelles 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't feel strongly enough about these (perhaps minor) details to get up on my hind legs to oppose the nom, but they seem like enough (in my mind) to keep the article from deserving "Featured" status. I nevertheless congratulate and thank the editors who've worked on this page; I do sincerely appreciate their efforts. Maybe the FLC process will both improve the article and get it to "featured"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Great lead photo!
• "of the sport of bobsleigh" perhaps "of bobsleigh events" would read slightly better (in my humble opinion of course...)
  • Fixed by Courcelles A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "part in the sports of" don't think you need "the sports of" here.
  • Fixed in two spots, one by Fluffernutter, one by Courcelles A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "won the highest number of medals with a total of three" -> "won the most medals with three"
  • Fixed by Fluffernutter A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "won two medals including a gold medal in the" remove second medal.. "including a gold in ..."
  • Fixed by Fluffernutter A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thoma caption, worth clarifying the other two were medallists at the summer games...
  • Fixed, probably a little awkwardly, by Fluffernutter A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't 10000 and 3000 metres be comma'ed? The ref is comma'ed...
  • Not sure what the MOS says about commas for this - I'll leave it for Courcelles to address. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a "may or not" job, see Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits), but if you do one (i.e. the 10000, mandated) then you should be internally consistent and do the 3000, 5000 etc.. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Commas added. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 42 could use a format parameter.
  • Fixed by Courcelles A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think WP:ITALICS applies to VIII Olympic Winter Games.
  • I actually think the italics was your idea a few of these lists ago... WP:ITALICS is not absolute likeWP:BOLD is in any respect. Courcelles 06:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I can't remember... Possibly. If true, now I don't see a reason for the italics. But I won't push this one further, although uniformization across these series would be ideal. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "... 1956 Winter Olympics omitting bobsleigh, and adding men's biathlon..." – I'd put the first comma right after 'Olympics'.
  • Fixed A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "... the latter being biathlon's first appearance in Olympic competition" – I'd make this a new sentence ("This was biathlon's first appearance...") and link it to the following about military patrol.
  • Tweaked to read "...and adding a sport new to Olympic competition, men's biathlon. The sport of military patrol, similar to biathlon, had previously been a medal sport in 1924..." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "... was by necessity; the venue..." – the semicolon could be replaced by 'as'/'since'/'because'. I think 'site' would sound better than 'venue', as I tend to associate the latter with an individual infrastructure (arena, stadium...).
  • I think the semicolon works here better than a conjunction would. Changed "venue" to "site." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The clauses scream "merge!" for me, but it's your call. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "... lacked an existing bobsleigh track" – 'existing' is extraneous.
  • Fixed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You think it is necessary to state that women also competed at these Games? In my guess, this would be far more relevant for earlier Games, where women were in fact a small percentage of the competitors and took part in very few events... but in the 60s this was not considered 'exotic' anymore.
  • It sore of was strange, in the early 60's, of the eight sports, women were barred from competing in four of them. (Indeed, only in Sochi will women be allowed to participate in ski jumping!) Courcelles 06:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, then I would rephrase to emphasize how relevant that situation was. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Soviet Union was awarded the most medals, with its athletes winning seven gold medals, five silver medals, and nine bronze medals, for a total of 21 medals overall." – 'medal' overdose!
  • De-medalified. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...12 of the available 18 medals in that sport, and..."
  • Changed to "..winning 12 of the available 18 cross-country medals and the remaining six medals being won..." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to say "cross-country", the sport's been stated at the beginning. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, fixed. Courcelles 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Parutakupiu (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:DTT suggests the use of col and row scopes to better aid screen-reading technology. You should apply that here and to your other, similar lists.

• Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "15–18 March 1945[149]" why the range, he could only have died on one single day!

• Hm, it seems that the exact date is unknown today. Scherzer states that he was killed sometime between 15 and 18 March 1945. Suggestions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A footnote saying just that would be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does his article list a specific date of death, vice a range? PumpkinSky talk 01:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't know. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While that is a good question, it's not within the remit of this nomination to fix all the other junk in Wikipedia. It would be helpful if the information a FL linked to was consistent though... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I update his article reflecting my sources MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In note 9, a space is needed after the parenthetical part.
• Note 20: "from SS-Bridadefuhrer Joachim Ziegler, Ziegler...". Wish the repetition from one sentence to the other could be avoided.
• Comma would be nice after "who was verifying the Oak Leaves presentation of behalf of Fellgiebel".
• Next-to-last sentence of this note could use a semi-colon or two to to replace the commas.
• Contraction needs fixing in note 21: "didn't".
• Note 31: "There is no reference that the Oak Leaves awarded to Adalbert von Blanc in the German National Archives." Missing "were" before "awarded"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the constructive feedback! I believe to have addressed all of the above comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note 33: "The accompanying letter is presented by Franz Thomas. Franz Thomas...". Another case of repetition from one season to another. You could combine the sentences into one, or if that's too long change the second one to "He" or something. There's also something like this in note 43, with two Burgdorfs back-to-back.
  • Note 36: Is "on the 21 April" acceptable phrasing in British English? Not too familiar with it since I use American myself.
  • Another contraction here: "isn't" about halfway through this note. And "wasn't" a little later.
  • Note 39: The comma after "decided 'Oak Leaves yes' but deferred" should be something else: either a semi-colon or period.
  • Note 42: Remove second "the" from "The presentation date was later assigned by the Fellgiebel."? The same is in notes 43–46. All this assumes that this is the book author, not a group (it's easy to lose track of things in a multi-part review). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again, all addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "division in MLB. The team joined MLB in " consider merging to "division in MLB, joining in..."
• "losingest " seriously, what is happening to the English language these days...! Seriously, we certainly don't see that commonly in BritEng, can you say "the coach with the most losses" or something similar?
• "the manager position, and his second stint as manager" repetitive, reword please.
• "is part of the" wouldn't "is inducted in" or "is a member of" better?
• Never quite sure but shouldn't season-and-a-half be hyphenated?
• "took over for Girardi" I thought normally we "took over from"...
• "and after a one-game stint by Brandon Hyde,[13] McKeon returned for a second stint as manager." two x stint, repetitive.
• # isn't in the key.
• "Elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame [14]" remove space before ref.
• "Interim Manager" -> Interim manager.
• The hash column doesn't sort correctly, and I would still expect the second stints to sort in correct order once it does.
• Not sure PA, PW etc does either.
• Don't mix date formats in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Issues fixed with the exception of the hashtag; I would think most readers would know that that means managerial number/order, but if you think otherwise I could add that in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it needs to be added so people understand what the em-dash means. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Added. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• " ... twenty-one music videos. Her mother, an opera vocalist ..." > I just think something should go in between these two sentences. Possible example: "Braxton was born in [state] in [year]."

• "The song failed to chart; however, Toni Braxton's voice caught the attention of producers" > "Although the song failed to chart, Braxton's voice caught the attention of producers"

• "In 1991, Braxton recorded songs for the soundtrack album of 1992 film Boomerang starring Eddie Murphy" > "In 1991, Braxton recorded songs for the soundtrack album of the 1992 Eddie Murphy film, Boomerang."

• "Toni Braxton, the album, has sold about ten million copies worldwide." > " The album sold over ten million copies worldwide." (We already know it's self-titled album, plus "about" seems too vague)

• "It also cracked the top-ten in many other countries including Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK." > How about "made" or "reached" rather than "cracked"?

• "... became Braxton's first number one single in the US" > Spell out "US" as "United States" here and elsewhere in the introduction. Likewise, spell out "UK" as "United Kingdom".

• "It also charted within the top ten in countries like Canada, where it topped the Canadian Albums Chart, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK." > What country is "like Canada"? How about saying "it topped the charts in Canada, France ..." or "It topped the Canadian Albums Chart and also the charts in ..."?

• The lead single "He Wasn't Man Enough" became another top-five hit in the US for Braxton and the second single "Just Be a Man About It" became a top-ten R&B hit." > What chart was it a top-five hit on? Also, put commas before and after the song titles (i.e: ... single, "He Wasn't Man Enough", became...)

• "The album charted within the top twenty in the US and received a gold certification in the US." > "In the United States the album charted in the top twenty and also received a gold certification." (Better not to have "United States" twice in one sentence.)

• "... signed a record deal with Blackground Records. The first album release through Blackground, titled Libra, debuted at number four ..." > "... signed a record deal with Blackground Records. Libra, the first album release through them, debuted at number four ..."

• "Later, in October 2008, it was announced that she had signed a record deal with Atlantic Records and her seventh studio album titled Pulse was released in May 2010." > "In October 2008 she signed a record deal with Atlantic Records. Pulse, her seventh studio album, was released in May 2010."

• The lead single from the album "Yesterday", peaked at number twelve on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart." > " The lead single from the album, "Yesterday", peaked at number twelve on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart."

• "With a career spanning over a decade..." > "In a career that has spanned nearly two decades..."

• Change all the charts so that the font-size to all of them is 100%. Jimknut (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments. Novice7 (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Compilation albums include greatest hits AND remix albums. They should be in the same section.
• Box sets are not linked in the infobox.
• I wouldn't say "Solo singles" is the proper to use for the singles, as some of them have guest spots, thus they are not "solo".
• I don't see why there needs to be a "Music video appearances" section when it can just be a part of "Music videos".
• Not too sure what the notes add to the article. For other charting, that's what separate articles are for.

— Status {^talk_contribs  01:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Zach. I've fixed the first three issues. As for the fourth issue, I don't think they should be merged as I want the "featured" appearances to be separate. Featured singles and featured appearances. I hope you get what I mean. Now the last issue, well, I think the notes should stay. I was told in a previous FLC that even if songs/albums have separate articles, references or notes are needed to verify their existence in the discography. Novice7 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead gives one of the songs as The Good Life, but our article is omitting The. I'd imagine we should follow what the primary article on that song calls it, assuming the article is accurate.\
• Remove hyphen from "newly-formed".
• More hyphen issues: one sentence has no hyphen in "top ten", but there is one in "top-five". This should be made consistent, no matter which way you go. Also, "top-ten" is hyphenated later, so there are multiple inconsistencies.
• "which asked for a release from the contract." Since the contract itself hasn't been mentioned before (other than signing), I'd prefer seeing "her contract" or something similar.
• "The album debuted at number two on Billboard 200 chart...". Missing "the" before Billboard?
• Extended plays: Minor, but a comma would be nice after "previously unreleased track" in the third entry. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed/Done. Thanks for your comments Giants! Novice7 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • If by "0 sites" you mean sites whose area is marked with an em-dash, the information is mentioned under the description for the "Area" column. As for your second request, I'm sorry but you may need to clarify, as I don't quite understand what you mean. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean countries without any sites (marked white in the map). In my opinion each map color should be defined in the legend. The second part of my request is not that essential, but on my screen the legend in the map caption is arranged vertically which leaves some empty space to the right of it (within the caption area) and stretches the whole image/caption thing vertically.
      • I forgot to respond to this. The legend was modified but now the new map is ready and has been placed on the article. I'll get a legend done once I get to my computer later tonight. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 13:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The new map looks very good. My only suggestion (in addition to the legend) would be to give it a bit more space, not to have the dots merge with the image frame. bamse (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll see what I can do. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done. Guess I'm not that useless with Inkscape after all, haha. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you want to practice more with inkscape ;-), you could change colors a bit (but not at all essential) for two reasons: i) countries with "1-2 sites" seem to merge because the color is too similar to the border color; ii) the color used for "no sites" is a bit too prominent for my taste; I'd prefer the brightness to increase gradually from 0 to 7+ sites. bamse (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Better? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • IMHO, countries with few sites are too prominent due to the choice of color. I'd prefer a color scheme like this increasing gradually from white for no sites to red for 7+ sites (or green or any other color you like). If the bright colors are too similar to the border colors, border colors could be changed to black or dark grey. bamse (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry, you said "I'd prefer the brightness to increase gradually from 0 to 7+ sites", so I thought you meant darker for 0 sites and brighter for 7+ sites. Changed the colors again, I'll update the legend later. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sorry my fault. I meant "darkness" (not brightness) to increase gradually. The present map is perfect if you also update the color in the caption/legend. bamse (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Done, and tweaked the colours a little. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How should overseas territories (both, with the main country in the map and the main country outside of the map area) be covered by the map?
  • I had never even thought of including, for example, Spain on the map. I consider it supplementary information provided in the Legend section. As for the overseas territory, see the next concern. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not including Spain, etc. on the map is fine with me, for the rest, see below. bamse (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently Canary Islands (belonging to Spain), one on Madeira (belonging to Portugal), one on Réunion (belonging to France), and one on Saint Helena (belonging to the United Kingdom) are not marked in the map.
  • As noted on the talk page, User:Arsenikk had made a different map which covered this issue. I would edit it to remove the wording, but I'm an absolute novice when it comes to vector graphics, and I have no idea how to do so. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could edit it, but don't have an svg-editor at the moment. Did Arsenikk color these islands and if yes, in what color (including sights in mainland Spain for Canary Islands, i.e. 7+ sites color or not?) bamse (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He did not. None of the territories were large enough to be included in the original source map, apparently. Only a dot was placed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The scale bar in the map is too small to be readable for me. I don't think it is really necessary for this kind of map, so I'd get rid of it.
  • Yeah, it was on the source map and I had not noticed it until I uploaded it. As I said, I'm a novice with the SVG file type. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd do that, but as mentioned, can't at the moment. Probably either WP:GL/I or WP:GL/M could fix those map issues in a second. bamse (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I posted a request, thanks for the suggestion. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As mentioned, requests have been fulfilled. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, did you make sure that the map projection is equidistant when you added the scale bar?
  • Answered just above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Several efforts have been devoted..." by whom?
  • Done. [14] Clarified the link between that and the following sentence. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "to do this" does not read well IMHO, maybe better spell it out what is meant here.
  • Tried to re-word it, but I'm not sure if it's clearer. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure what "(see below)" refers to or whether it should be used in wikipedia at all.
  • Done. It's no longer necessary with the link to the Danger article, which was further down the lead. But it was a bad addition to begin with, I agree. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a better way to write "The fund was ... funded..."?
  • Done, indeed there is. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• " funded by South Africa (US$3.5 million)" suggest to replace parentheses with "with".
  • Done. Agreed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...conserving and protecting the regions..." not sure what regions are meant here?
  • Changed to "areas" because it's meant to designate the "human origin sites"... I don't know how to better specify without repeating the word "site". _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How is table sorting implemented for sites that are in multiple countries or in more than one region?
  • Done. Described in legend. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple regions should probably also be mentioned in the legend. bamse (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, tried to word it concisely. I'll admit though, they were sorted randomly, so I'm going to go through them to change that. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Location – at city, regional, or provincial level" Should the country be mentioned in this legend?
  • Done. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue with a table review later. bamse (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table review:

• "a aquatic" -> "an aquatic"?
• Is "park is in the zone"->"park is located in the zone" better?
  • It's what was there before I copy-edited. User:Epbr123's prose checklist notes it's redundant.
• Is "housing" a good word in "housing of refugees in the park"
• Not too fond of the uKhahlamba Park description (which is marked as direct quote) since it relies on "exceptional beauty" which might give issues with NPOV. I realize that it is not always easy to transform UNESCO's language full of superlatives to something suitable for an encyclopedia, so if you tell me that a direct quote is the only way to go here that's fine with me as well.
  • I whipped something up with fresh eyes.
• "ranging over than 100,000 years." should probably be edited.
• Capitalize "Christian".
  • I was told not to do so when it acts like an adjective... Googled it and found it was a bunch of crap, haha.
• "The groups of stone circles are among over 1,000 monuments along the Gambia River." Do you mean "monuments of this type" or any kind of monuments?
  • Clarified.
• "The site was deemed to be in danger as of 1999..." Has the reason for being in danger changed or should 1999 be replaced with 2011?
  • Nope, just bad writing on my part.
• "spread across an area 200 km (120 mi)..." reads a bit confusing to me at first since I'd expect to find an area, not a length after the word "area". Only if it is confusing to you as well, maybe it can be phrased differently.
• "between Sahara and Europe." article before Sahara?
• I'd remove "is an exceptional area for the study of fauna and flora" from the Lake Turkana description since it not really neutral and would probably also apply to other natural sites in this list.
  • Removed all instances of the word.
• "helped cemented the World Heritage Committee's decision"...
• "The city remains, which is surrounded by a wall and feature buildings with Hindu and Arab influence, later transformed to gain a Baroque style by Jesuit missionaries." needs a copy-edit.
• "resulting in a diverse species and large mammals." Is there something missing or should it be rephrased?
  • Still not too happy : "resulting ... in large mammals" needs an extra word or two such as ("the existence").
    • Done. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "including the Great White Pelican, the Purple Heron, the African Spoonbill, the Great Egret, and the cormorant", replace "cormorant" with the species name ("cormorant" itself is the family) or replace "the cormorant"->"cormorants"
• "Many endangered species are in its surroundings as well", possibly "its"->"their", but honestly I don't really know what this sentence is telling me. Possibly needs to be rephrased.
  • Fixed with "within its boundaries".
• In Al Qal'a of Beni Hammad: "The ruins... was founded..."
  • Still needs a copy-edit. My point was that the "capital" and not the "ruins" were founded. bamse (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, got it this time. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In "It features an 8-bay, 13-aisle mosque, and is one of the largest in Algeria." possibly "and is one"->"which is one"
• "as of 2009, its position remains unchanged" why not as of 2011?
  • Seems to reflect the year I had written the sentence. Must have looked over it this year.
• "in 2001, due to recent cave-ins" Recent at the time, no?

bamse (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review and copy-edit. I didn't reply to everything you mentioned, but they have been corrected. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for corrections. I am happy with almost all of it. Please see responses above for those that still need to be addressed. bamse (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "list of sites in danger"->"list in danger" (and possibly capitalized) since that's how UNESCO refers to it (i.e. always without "sites").
  • I'm thinking of moving the page to reflect this as well. After the FLC, of course.
    • Which page do you want to move where? bamse (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "List of World Heritage Sites in Africa" to "List of World Heritage in Africa", similar to the danger list. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hadn't realized that UNESCO doesn't use the phrase "List of World Heritage Sites..." (correct?). If true, the page should be moved (can be done by an admin now but doing it after FLC is fine with me). bamse (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "...has designated 121 World Heritage Sites in Africa." and "...there are 76 cultural, 39 natural, and 4 mixed sites." Why is there a difference of two sites? bamse (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...whoops. Should be 127 sites, 81 cultural, 41 natural, 5 mixed. Done. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you forgot to fix it in the article. bamse (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hahaha, I was in class and I completely forgot to save it. Good thing I posted here first though! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't say whether it is an issue since I am not a native speaker, but when writing about the World Heritage in Danger, you use "loose/gain status" which to me has negative/positive connotations while on the other hand losing/gaining the status is rather a positive/negative thing. bamse (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see how reading it at first glance can be somewhat confusing; I don't believe it's confusing to the point of requiring a change, though. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]