Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2012

• Add alt text to the images per MOS:IMAGES

• Now done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be a pain, but not correctly. Alt text should actually explain the contents of the image, and not repeat what the caption says or could say. Like, an example, in the first caption, instead of "Peter Sellers" say "a man", or something. TBrandley 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But the contents are of Peter Sellers, not just "a man". Have a look at the image of Blair and Bush at WP:ALT: "The alt text shouldn't say "Two men shaking hands," because that's not why the picture was chosen; it needs to identify the men". I can tweak the text for the images, but identifying the person as Sellers is a must, I would have thought? - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that, but the point of alt text is to explain what is in the image itself, for screenreaders. In the alt, it shouldn't identify the man, that's what the image caption is for, alt text is to explain what is in the image, like "a man who is drinking soda" is a good one, just for example, but "Peter Sellers drinking Cola-Cola" isn't, because that's for the image. At the alt text page, it says, "Alternative text (alt text) is meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser. It should summarize an image's purpose, and should not duplicate its caption, [or what the caption could be like]." TBrandley 17:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll have to agree to disagree slightly, I'm afraid. Either way, the alts have now been tweaked. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the image captions, rather than saying "Sellers in 1973 by Allan Warren", etc., could you say "Peter Sellers created BBC Radio and this", that's just an example, I know that's not true, but can it be expanded upon, for all images, and their captions?

• I've done that for the single portrait images; the images from Dr. Strangelove has enough text already, I think? Let me know if you think differently: I'll tweak further. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks better, but I don't think the "Photographed in 1973 by Allan Warren" is necessary for the image captions. TBrandley 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed Warren from the captions - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, that's fine. TBrandley 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Link BBC Radio per WP:UNDERLINK

• Linked. -- Cassianto^Talk 03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, instead of repeating what says, could you say like, for example, instead of "Stage credits" as a table caption, say "Stage credits of Peter Sellers", etc. TBrandley 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This concern has now been addressed. TBrandley 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid bold links per WP:ACCESS and WP:CONTEXTLINK

• Did you mean 'Dr. Strangelove' in the image header? - if so, it's now delinked -- Cassianto^Talk 03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Too many external links per WP:ELNO, remove some

• Hmm, not sure there were that many but OK. SchroCat, I have gone with IMDb and TCM seeing as we have BFI and Screen online and BFI is generally more reliable. Maybe four EL filmographies were too much. -- Cassianto^Talk 03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You guys really are on a role with these. Here are my comments.

• This article is not about Sellers himself, but his work. As such, the dates of birth and death are of minimal relevance (years, on the other hand, I've used myself). Might read better if the dates are removed.

• Agreed, although not removed entirely. I think keeping the years of birth and death does no real harm as somebody viewing may wish to know his life span. Would this be OK? -- Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I was hinting at, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Filmmakers the Boulting brothers - Perhaps this is acceptable in BrE, but that reads very uncomfortably for me. Perhaps The Boulting brothers, filmmakers (who had worked with Sellers?)..."

• reworded. Does this work for you? -- Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "this country has produced" - Britain, England, or the UK, or...? This may be worth trimmming the quote.
• Henry Hall's Guest Night - I'd suggest against linking like this, as this is a single grammatical unit (a title) and should not be split.

• Unlinked. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• as a youngster with his family. - How old, roughly?

• Sorry I don't have Silkov to hand, but I'm guessing he was a child under the age of ten. SchroCat, would this be about right? -- Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• During his career he also released a number of albums, which were collections of sketches and comic songs, the latter of which were undertaken in a variety of comic characters. - Overly complicated sentence, perhaps split like "During his career he also released a number of albums containing sketches and comic songs; the songs were undertaken in a variety of comic characters."

• Better. Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix CN tag.

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but that ref doesn't support anything about black humour or contrasting temperaments and styles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. How about this?. As per edit summery, the line came from the finger tips of my co-nom who is currently away. I have put this for now and run it past him when he gets back if that's OK :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 23:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "contrasting temperaments and styles" is cited to...? Also, question about the Brothers' quote above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, both done i think. I didn't want to lose the whole sentence so I have cited what is there and lost the "contrasting temperaments and styles" bit. I must admit quotes are not my strong point, so I have somewhat ruthlessly added ellipses to make up for the loss of text as this cannot be elaborated on just yet. Can you check if this is OK? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That changes the meaning a bit much, as now it's putting him above American and Canadian born comedians. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I have replaced the quote and specified Britain. Both Sellers and Chaplin came from England; Sellers from Portsmouth, Chaplin from London. I don't want to say England as when we talk about something great in this country we don't really say "the greatest in England", we say "greatest in Britain". It is usual to include Wales, Scotland and Ireland when speaking of "this country" as per the "United" part of one of our many (unnecessary) titles. I'm sure this was what they meant. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did a copyedit, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, great thanks. I have slightly jiggled around the opening so it takes the emphasis off Sellers as a person, and bringing more of a focus onto his career. I see from your copy edit you would say "He made his radio debut on ShowTime in 1948..." as opposed to "He made his radio debut in ShowTime in 1948..." I think someone appears in radio but on television. Or is the problem the two "in's"? If so, would it help putting the year in a parens? -- Cassianto^Talk 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My issue was the two ins, yes. As for on/in, it may be a BrE/AmE difference. Looks like there's just one point left up there  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• lol, thank you. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "1925 – 1980" not sure that needs to be spaced per WP:YEAR?

• Gap closed. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "conducted a survey on modern-day " wouldn't that be a survey "of"?

• Yes, my fault. Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check all year ranges per WP:YEAR.

• All done (I think). -- Cassianto^Talk 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the filmography, is Year the year of general release in the UK? Might be worth noting that.

• As he's British, yes: it's the date of UK release. Now noted. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Won: BAFTA ..." since this is under notes, perhaps you could drop the colon?

• Is that just for the one you mention above, or is it for all? -- Cassianto^Talk 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's more related to the repetition of the information, and the lack of "prose" in the notes if, indeed, they are notes and not just a repeat of the info in the table below... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer to keep the colon there, RM. The reason is consistency between the various notes fields, with "Won: (list of 2 or 3 awards", followed by "Nominated: (list of 2 or 3 awards)", appearing a few times. Doing those for which he only won or nominated for a single award in a different format would look odd? - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the purpose of repeating the nominations/awards in the filmography table and then again in the awards/nominations table?

• They serve two different purposes: in the filmography people are looking for (and at) the film information and may be doing so in a chronological sequence. They may be unaware that Sellers won an award and only see it through looking at the overall picture. The awards and nominations table is for those who are looking solely at the awards. Other notable filmographies (Woody Allen filmography and Clint Eastwood filmography) have separate articles that deal with awards and nominations: with Sellers we have incorporated them into one artice for ease. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally not convinced. Not sure why you should have same fact in two different places. But I'll defer to the scrutinising public who clearly would have seen this repetition! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do take your point, but the list of nominations within the filmography section loses impact if it's not in a separate table, while not having the info in a notes section in the overall list of films overlooks crucial info about the film and role. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would prefer to see all ISBN numbers the same format.

• Good spot! Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Most, if not all, of the navboxes at the bottom usually only apply to the biographies, not to related lists, they don't navigate between lists...

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nav's removed. They are all the same as the main article, so it does seem a bit repetitive to have them here also. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Make lead map image bigger, right now it's too small to see.
• Image caption shouldn't have a period.
• Can you link Center City please?
• Philidelphia is overlinked in the lead.
• Is Daily ridership actually Average daily readership?
• Why is Year of Fiscal Year capitalised here?
• "Of the 280 route miles" probably can just say "Of this..." to avoid repeating 280 miles so quickly.
• PDFs are usually tagged with format=PDF.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• You link SEPTA sometimes in the refs, but most often don't. Be consistent.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have been addressed. Yes, the daily ridership is the average daily ridership. Obviously they lines didn't have the exact same number of riders every single day. I think "average" is implied as it was in the source and other places on Wikipedia (i.e. {{Infobox rail line}}). –Dream out loud (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:SEPTA map.png - Why use an out of date map?
• Fiscal year 2012 had an annual ridership of 35,254,300, - This reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps "The system saw 35,254,300 riders during the 2012 fiscal year."
• Why is "Airport Terminal" capitalised

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-date map is used as that is the only free one available. I can update it if necessary. Updated: New map has been added to lead. "Airport Terminal" is capitalised as it refers to the stations named "Airport Terminal", not just the "terminals at the airport". –Dream out loud (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fiscal year? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The lists must conform with WP:DTT.
• Think big and think globally. It is very difficult to understand where this is, especially since the US is not mentioned.
• A specific year for the first part of the system opening would be nice. Early 20th century could mean anything from 1900 to 1949. Was the entire system built then, or have there been later extensions/new lines (it seems that way from the sentence)? Perhaps use "most" or something like that.
• Stick to either digits or spelled-out numbers in the same sentence; for instance either seven and twelve, or 7 and 12.
• Is it possible to verify the date at which each station opened? (for most systems this is possible)
• There needs to be some sort of key explaining the accessibility symbol.
• Not a single image of a station?
• Is there some way distance could be included, such as mi/km from a "station 0", or even travel time from the central hub?

Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the list doesn't conform with WP:DTT. Can you give specific examples? I also don't see where the numbers are spelled out and used as digits int he same sentence. As far as when the system opened, the official SEPTA source simply states "The regional rail system was built in the early 20th century." To verify the date the stations opened is very difficult since many of these stations opened in the 1800s. If that isn't good enough, I can do more research for more info. For the larger stations and/or newer stations is it not an issue, but for the smaller, older stations, finding sources on opening dates is not easy at all. I didn't include images of stations since I don't see where they'd fit. I could add them to the lead, but then that would just look awkward since the lead isn't big enough to have both a map and images of stations. If you have suggestions on where to add them, then I could go ahead. Note that the similar featured list, List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations, has neither station images nor opening dates. Distance/travel time is not included for several reasons:

• Travel times can vary between stations depending on time of day, day of week, local vs. express service, etc.
• Since there are many different lines that all branch out from the same Center City stations, different stations on different lines could potentially have the same mileage. This would be confusing to viewers and not really help determine the stations location.
• Stations on the Wilmington/Newark Line and Trenton Line are part of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and their mileage is measured differently than all other lines. Wilmington/Newark mileage is measured from the an interlocking north of 30th Street Station and Trenton mileage is measured from New York Penn Station. Again, this would be confusing to readers and not help determine the station's location. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as there are good, well-thoughtout reasons, this does not need to be included. As for the dates, this depends entirely on availability (if they are not available in published, reliable sources, then they do not need to be included). As for images, they always make an article better, even if there is just one. I believe there is sufficient space for two images in the lead, as wide screens can handle them next to the first table. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all the requirements in DTT are not met

• The list needs to start with a title/description |+ TitleName
• Every column needs to have a scope ! scope=col | Description
• The first/main entry of each row needs a scope ! scope=row | Entry

Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the row and column codes, but do I need to add a header? I feel like this would only apply to when there's a table within the article, not when the table basically is the article. It would seem out of place especially since there's a section header right above it. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of stations scopes look good, but the same must be applied to the list of lines. As for the table caption, this should be included on all tables, even if it is the main table of the article. According to DTT, which any featured list must comply with, this is "easy" to do and has a "high" priority. Captions are necessary not just for the sake of including a description for the casual reader, but provides vital metadata which is machine-readable and heightens the accessibility of the table. For instance, it can allow screen readers to scroll directly to the desired table or can create a table of contents of tables. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to nag about the small details, but that is the nature of an FLC. According to DTT: "Table captions consisting of one single word like "actor", "film" or "television" are inadequate as they are not descriptive enough." So "lines" and "stations" are not sufficient; I would have chosen "List of SEPTA Regional Rail lines" etc, or if that sounds too much like the article title, you could always swap around the word order to "List of lines of SEPTA Regional Rail". Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The letters should be in lower case "A" to "a", etc. TBrandley 18:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The award is named for former collegiate..." same problem was in the Branch Rickey Award article. For should be replaced by after

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is considered to be the Heisman Trophy of college baseball." Context is needed for non-American readers, who do not know what the Heisman Trophy is. For example what sport is the award related to?
• To date, three winners

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again next sentence, In total is redundant

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jason Jennings and Buster Posey proceeded to achieve the Rookie of the Year Award..." I think won would suffice in place of proceeded to achieve

• Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a fan of sentences starting with In 1999 etc. Would change sentence in question to: "The National Collegiate Baseball Writers Association (NCBWA) became the voting body in 1999

• Sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is (x) next to Player in the key?

• From the explanation in the key, the (x) is used to designate the "number of times [a player] had won the award at that point". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image in infobox could do with alt text

• Added. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think we need five external links per WP:EL I would cut them down to two or three

NapHit (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut down to three. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove unneeded bold in the first key table per MOS:ACCESS

• The bold was added here because this is what it would have looked like with only the scope row format and no "plain row headers" parameter. Plus, the column headers are bold, so I think the key should reflect that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Add table caption to second table per MOS:DTT

• The main heading already says "Winners" at the top, with regards to the second table. Will that suffice, or does an additional caption have to be added? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, see MOS:DTT. And, since it isn't directly under that header. Please add. TBrandley 13:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove unneeded period dots on external links

• Done.—Bloom6132 (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 00:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 16, should be The New York Times.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the template, Rodriguez is a redirect, so when viewing Rodriguez's page, the link still appears visible and redirects to itself...

• Done. Removed the "...(baseball)" suffix from Rodriguez's template name. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• who died of brain cancer in 1987 at the age of 51. - Is the age necessary?

• Yes. Dying at 51 is fairly young and sudden, so mentioning this sort of justifies why the award is named after him (i.e. in memoriam to him). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In that same year, the award was presented to Mike Fiore, the inaugural winner. - Should preferably state immediately that it was created that year "In that same year, the award was established by (who?) and presented to Mike Fiore.", perhaps

• To my surprise, I haven't been able to find a website that states who it was established by. The official website says nothing about the establishment and Baseball Almanac (which has the most in-depth background info IMO) only says when it was created and who votes for the winner. Sorry. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, perhaps just explicitly state that it was created in 1987? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I found something. It was created by friends of Howser in the St. Petersburg area.[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• now presents the award together with the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce - I think that it is in Florida is worth noting, rather than Pennsylvania or Russia.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are all in compliance with our licensing criteria - no action required. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• centre should be center since this article is related to an American person

  Got it, good catch. GRAPPLE X 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Add plainrowheaders to all of the table's coding for MOS:BOLD and WP:ACCESS

  I've left bold headings in the key deliberately; I tried it with plainrowheaders and found that it was not clear enough at a glance given how brief the abbreviations are. I think the bolding makes it easier to flick back and forth between the key and table when necessary, and shouldn't cause much issue given that this isn't a table really designed for navigation of content. GRAPPLE X 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise"

  Uh huh. I'll give the article another read through then, I guess. GRAPPLE X 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That issue was bot-generated. No worries if there's nothing. TBrandley 23:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 22:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two dab links, Joy Williams and Voice of Truth.
• "group at reaching the top spot, with " remove "at reaching the top spot, "
• Our article is "Phillips, Craig and Dean".
• Our article is "Washed by the Water".
• Artists sort incorrectly. If the artist is just a name, it should sort by surname.
• "June 28-June 5" en-dash for ranges.
• "March 31: "Christian Songs (March 31, 2007)" missing a bullet point.
• You don't need Category:Christian music.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Reference(s)" shorten to "Ref.(s)"
• Just a suggestion, but perhaps align references in that table to the center
• Tables don't meet MOS:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does
• Tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does
• Add plainrowheaders to the tables for WP:ACCESS
• One image doesn't even exist on that page. Remove or replace.
• Add alt text to the images per WP:ALT; it should briefly explain the contents of the image
• Cut down on red links if possible

TBrandley 00:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the redlinks: that's in response to Rambling Man's comments above, in which he said we should redlink notable songs (and that they're all notable). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the issues, except for redlinks which should be there as the songs are notable and could be articles at some point. Toa Nidhiki05 16:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "with a specialized format that attracts less audience compiled by Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems." First, "less" would read better as "a smaller". Second, should "as" be placed before "compiled"?
• The two By artist tables should have the artist column sort by last name, not first.
• The pp. in ref 1 should be p., as this is a single-page citation. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I didn't intend to include that - I copied too much.
• YFixed.
• YFixed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "every two years" you should note that this wasn't the case on one occasion.
• "throughout the years" bit wistful, perhaps "throughout the history of the competition"?
• "four four ball" -> "four fourball".
• "However, Great Britain we..." -> "However they..."
• "performance in 1933" followed by "The 1933 contest at " should the first be 1931?
• "the last hole of the last singles " maybe mix it a bit, "the last hole of the final singles..."?
• "eight foursomes and four balls" fourballs?
• Jimenez has a couple of missing diacritics.
• Consider ending the History section with a nod at the 2012 tournament...
• Our article on Lytham St. Annes has a full stop after the St...

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments TRM, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Second "the" in "with the exception of the 2001..." should be taken out.
• Comma after September 11 attacks would be better as a semi-colon.
• "with players from each team playing contesting a one-on-one match." Removal of "playing" is necessary here.
• Same edit needed in "they were unable to match the American's at the Scioto Country Club and lost 9–3."
• "leaving Easterbrook with a putt to win the contest, which he made the putt...". Second "the putt" is a redundancy and is flawed in the flow of the sentence anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Giants, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • First word of "Men's major golf championships" should be decapitalized.
  • Try not to have a sentence start with a number, like in "1963 saw the introduction of two sets of fourball to the format". 1977 is also like this.
  • Name typo in "which left Jackiln with a putt to tie the match."
  • Comma after Olazabal's name should be removed.
  • "The United States fearing for their safety requested the match was played a year later in 2002." "was" → "be"?
  • "in what was the United States heaviest defeat in the competition." Apostrophe needed at end of States.
  • Ref 11 needs a publisher (looks like BBC Sport). Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments Giants, all been taken care of. NapHit (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "A fourball match, with two players from each team, each playing their own shot." This is a sentence fragment that is missing an element or two. Needs to be revised a bit.
  • Now has "which consists of" in it. Still needs a fix; try removing "which" and the comma right before it. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• History: "British captain Ted Ray cited the American's "superior putting" as the reason for their victory." "American's" → "Americans'", with the apostrophe moved.
  • Don't think the apostrophe should have been removed, just put at the end of the word. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Giants, fixed those last two comments. NapHit (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mauboy released her debut studio album Been Waiting in November 2008 and peaked at number eleven and spent fifty-nine weeks in the top fifty" This sentence does not read correctly, I would replace the first and with it
• Should we be mentioning that an album received nominations for awards? I'm not so sure as none of the tables mention it and I would expect to see that info in an awards and nominations article instead not a discography
• "Mauboy's second studio album Get 'Em Girls was released in November 2010 and debuted at number six and was certified gold." sentence doesn't read well, needs revising
  • Done myself. TBrandley 17:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "peaked within the top twenty" surely you can say what position it peaked at?
• In the External links Allmusic should be AllMusic

NapHit (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done — Oz (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "featured songs" it does still featured them though? How about "features songs"?
• "peaked within the top twenty" what position exactly then?
• "title track"? Could you clarify please?
• You say 12 singles, I see 13, including that other one
• Same for Other appearances
• Allmusic should be AllMusic

TBrandley 17:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done — Oz (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "eighteen other appearances and sixteen music videos" switch those round.
• Don't think you need to link "pop".
• "which peaked at number eleven" which chart?
• preceeded -> preceded.
• Can you add which territory release dates are pertinent to.
• "Miss You Most (At Christmas Time)" links to a Mariah Carey album.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done — Oz (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FN: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19 and 42 are missing dates/accessdates. "More Than This", albeit a live video, had a music video, so it should be included really. To be honest, I would have held off from nominating this until their second album and its lead single was released as a lot of crazy 1D fans will be editing the chart positions and making changes, but that's just a personal opinion. I would change: Preceded by lead single, "Live While We're Young", Take Me Home, One Direction's second studio album, is scheduled for release on 12 November 2012. to Preceded by lead single, "Live While We're Young", One Direction's second studio album Take Me Home is scheduled for release on 12 November 2012. It just flows more and makes it easier to read without so many clauses. The lead could do with more sourcing, such as signing with Columbia etc. AARON• ^TALK 20:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to new flow you suggested, I have added sources for record label signings, More Than This video, and accessdates to those you mentioned. The Music Canada refs all don't have accessdates because the cite webs are certification cite webs: {{Certification Cite Ref|region=Canada|type=album|title=Up All Night|artist=One Direction}} AdabowtheSecond (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. What about just putting the accessdate parameter in that style of ref, it would still work. Also, you should include the music video's for Heroes and Wishing on a Star in that table too. AARON• ^TALK 21:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added dates and accessdates to Music Canada refs and added featuring music videos although I have never been able to find the directors for those clips. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • My points have been addressed so I'll support. AARON• ^TALK 12:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Calvin AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• British-Irish boy band One Direction have released -> The discography of the British-Irish boy band One Direction consists of
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead should say something about the formation of the band. Before the "Syco Records" bit, it'd be great if you can add up something about the time of the band formation.
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Image in the lead needs WP:ALT
  • Done, although no other discography articles does this and I have been on a lot of discography articles. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• By August 2012, One Direction have sold -> As of August 2012, One Direction have sold
  • What's wrong with "by" its a nice change from "as of" AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• in late 2011 - I'd rather prefer the month in which it was released. Also if worldwide it was out in 2012, please included that also
  • All discography's only denote its first release, to add its worldwide release during 2012 would serve for unnecessary clunky sentences AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The word "One Direction" gets repeated twice in the 2nd line of the 2nd para. Use "them" for the second time

Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can last 2 lines on the 1st para be merged?

How do you suggest it should be sentenced AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much. The list looks pretty good to me. Since OD are new in the business, we cant have further inclusion in the lead and the lead currently is good enough. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes johnurbano.com [10] a credible, reliable source?
  • Have removed this made to unknown AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• FN48 is missing work and publisher/location: YouTube. (United States: Google, Inc.)
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I See "Billboard (United States: Prometheus Global Media)" and "Billboard. United States: Prometheus Global Media." be consistent with the use of {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} so that this doesn't happen.

— ΛΧΣ21™ 23:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made the news articles into cite news and to cite web for the refs of Billboard chart history AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "One Direction performs "What Makes You Beautiful", Toronto, Canada" missing in before Toronto
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt text needs to be added to images. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT.
  • Why hasn't this been addressed? If you don't know how to do it, you add the | Alt parameter to the infobox, and add the alt text. Add text is basically saying what is actually in the image, without saying the same as the caption does. Like describing something to someone over the telephone. TBrandley 02:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what that meant I have always thought it meant writing alternative text in the caption. Never actually read the guideline.. just presumed ALT stood for alternative text in the caption. Thanks for notifying me AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now officially done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlink DVD per WP:OVERLINK TBrandley 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sales for albums needs an "as of [date]" per new discography guideline (see Jennifer Lopez discography and K-Ci & JoJo discography for examples)
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Certifications need to use the initials of the organizer, not the country (again refer to the above examples).
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid WP:OVERLINK on the footnotes. You only need to link the first instances of works and publishers such as Billboard and Prometheus Global Media on the first footnote that contains the work and publisher (if this is wrong, then disregard this comment). Erick (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for every publication if I haven't missed something AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delinked some more from stuff I missed prior. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "after being formed and placing third" not keen on this, sounds very US English. We don't "place third", we tend to "come third" or "finish in third place".
  • Better? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Two "As of August", it's now October, so presumably an update is possible.
  • Have not been able to find a reliable source for total sales as of august 2012 AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't start two consecutive sentences with "As of August..."
  • Better? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "and garnered One Direction induction" awful, once again very US English. Perhaps "and saw One Direction inducted into the Guinness..."
  • Better? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Second para of lead, first sentence, too many run-on clauses. And repetitive "debut at number one" is repeated for instance.
  • Better? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You use the word debut five times in three sentences, this is not elegant prose.
  • Better? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "quintuple " normally in these discogs, we refer to this as five-times platinum...
  • Guideline?
    • Guideline for elegant prose? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to your preference .AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "selling over 5 million" -> five.
  • Removed this AdabowtheSecond (talk)
• Where are the release dates relevant to, and where are they referenced?
  • Don't understand could you be more specific AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take for instance Up All Night where you say "Released: 18 November 2011". Where is that release date referenced? What territory was the release date 18 November 2011? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It marks on which date it was first released, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Jennifer Lopez, Taylor Swift discography articles all FA lists do this AdabowtheSecond (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand what it means. I asked two things: Where is the release date referenced? What territory was the release date 18 November 2011? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added ref and in Up All Night's case it was the Republic or Ireland, for Take Me Home and Up All the live tour it is the UK added refs for all. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not much point in a caption as simple as "List of extended plays" if it's already under the heading "Extended plays". Expand it or lose it.
  • Done - expanded it. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allmusic->AllMusic.
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Author names are usually given as Last, First.
  • Guideline? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unknown, but I guess there's a reason that {{cite web}} has first= and last= fields... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We also just have 'author=' it isn't necessary and makes it much easier to work more swiftly. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We do, it's just not as professional-looking. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • • It just makes it way more easier copy paste AdabowtheSecond (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Check refs aren't bare URLs e.g. ref 26.
  • Fixed AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the pointers The Rambling Man, I'm kind of busy in real life unexpectantly so bare with me, couldn't fix all your points at this time AdabowtheSecond (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "It topped the charts in sixteen countries,[4] and saw One Direction inducted into the Guinness World Records,[5] by debuting at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart, making them the first British group in US chart history to debut at number one with their first album." this sentence is hard to follow and I had to read it several times before I understood what was trying to be said. Its too convoluted and needs trimming down. I would change to "It topped the charts in sixteen countries and was the first time an album by a British group had debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart. They were inducted into the Guinness World Records as a result.
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Music videos table does not comply with MOS:DTT. Title needs to be the first column and you need to add col and row scopes like the other tables
  • Have I fixed this correctly? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have NapHit (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have a better reference than The Sun for ref 1, I'm not comfortable with some of our best work, being referenced with this
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ref 47 the hyphen should be an en dash
  • Done AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Images need to have alt text per WP:ALT; it should briefly explain the contents of them
  • Done. The captions are sufficient in most cases, but yes, we need to accommodate for screen readers.
• Unlink listed building per WP:OVERLINK
  • I think the link has value—only Brits will be familiar with the concept, and I'd wager that not many of them fully understand it.
• "Only around four per cent" Remove "only" per WP:NPOV
  • That's not POV. I think "only" is quite justified when talking about 4%.
• Speaking of that sentence, change "around" to "about" or something like that
  • Why?
• In that same sentence, per cent shouldn't be spaced; should be "percent"
  • Wiktionary says "per cent" is acceptable, and the source also uses that variation.
• "15th centuries" and "11th (CE) century" don't have hyphen, whereas "14th-century" does. Which is it?
  • When the phrase is used to describe something (eg 14th-century original), it becomes a compound adjective and thus requires a hyphen; used as a noun phrase, it doesn't need one. Or to put it another way, I'm better at writing articles than lists.
• "List of buildings" → "Buildings", as for title header
  • Why?
    • Done myself. TBrandley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Tables don't meet MOS:ACCESS, it has scope cols, but not scope rows, need to add scope rows also, to first one in each point of table
  • In English, please. The table format was copied from the (featured) Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester.
    • I got the concern myself. Doesn't matter what other Wikipedias have; each one has different separate rules. TBrandley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does; it has been listed as a "high priority"
  • Likewise.
    • Done myself. Also, see above. TBrandley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a period dot to "Ref"
  • Done.
• Just a suggestion, but I would align the references in that table to the center, don't feel like you have to though
  • That's actually quite a good idea, but with the column being so narrow, I don't think it makes a significant difference.
    • Thanks! That's okay then. TBrandley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't believe a gallery section is needed. In fact, there is a policy which states that they shouldn't be here, but at Wikimedia Commons. See WP:IG, etc.
  • That policy says "[...] the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." But I'll consider Hassocks' suggestion below and get back to you.
• Why are red links in the see also section? Remove them.
  • Because they're notable, article-worthy subjects that will have articles in the near future. But you have a point, and I've hidden them until the links are blue.
    • Sounds good then. TBrandley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In fact, I don't think that section is needed at all
  • I disagree.
• Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
  • Actually, shouldn't Category:Coventry be first? But for what purpose is beyond me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dormer Cottage is Grade II, not Grade I. The city council list has an error.
  • Interesting. I couldn't find the National Heritage List entry for Dormer Cottage to reconcile the contradiction. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place; thanks.
• I find the justification for including Coombe Abbey weak. The building is not within the boundary of the city, so it is out of the scope of the list, in my view; the scope of the list is geographic, not based on ownership.
  • I include it because the Council mention it on their list, and so I think it's worthy of noting here, and including it in the list with an explanatory note is probably the neatest way of doing it.
• In relation to images, consider adopting the format used here. This avoids the need for a gallery.
  • I'll consider it. I'm hesitant, because I'm not sure the images are useful at a low enough resolution to fit comfortably into the table.
• Having a couple of sentences of notes about the building (as in the example above) would also be beneficial, even though each entry does have its own article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've hit the nail on the head—each entry has its own article, which contains more information than can be squashed into the table, so I'm not sure there's a lot to be achieved from adding details into the table. I generally prefer to keep prose and tables separate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Hassocks:

• In relation to making the Ref column unsortable, this code should work: ! scope="col" class="unsortable"
  • This is, I believe, done.
• As per TRM's note below, I am still troubled by the inclusion of Coombe Abbey, as it is already legitimately included within Grade I listed buildings in Warwickshire. I would be happy with your suggestion of adding a note below the main table explaining the situation. I have faced the similar scenarios when doing various lists—e.g. listed buildings that have been demolished but not delisted, buildings that may or may not have been churches etc—and a short explanatory paragraph at the end does the job.
  • I've taken it out of the table and added a note to the lead.
• I'll have another look after you've had a go at the images column. I also have a strong desire to see a notes blurb/column, as TRM says below. I will check back when I can, but unfortunately I only have internet access at work for the time being (I have moved house and the new internet connection is not ready yet – could be a while!). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added both an images column and a description column. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More from Hassocks, following the resolution of the above

• All of my earlier points are resolved to my satisfaction. Re Peter's comments below: I agree with the use of a separate "Refs" column rather than integrating them into the body of the Notes. Although both styles have proven to be acceptable at FLC, I find having a separate column is more appropriate for the reasons given by the nominator. I too prefer decimal coordinates over grid references, but HJ's rationale for using the latter is sound.
• I have spotted something else though. I fear that some of the details described in the Notes column—particularly those not directly related to the architecture of the building—are not actually referenced at the moment, in that they are not mentioned in the refs provided. For each building, the Cov city council list and the National Heritage List description are used to reference the content of the row. I spot-checked certain entries (I have not checked all). Examples: for St John the Baptist Church, Coventry, neither source mentions the bit about "sent to Coventry". For St Mary's Hall, again the Mary, Queen of Scots part is in neither cited source. I think we really need citations for all these bits (not that I doubt their veracity, I should add). At a guess, various pages of the Victoria County History should help to support all/most of the historical/social facts in the blurbs; or perhaps the Ian Soden book cited in the lead. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dug up the sources from these in other articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think it's a shame we can't add a summary of what each building's purpose/notability is here, I made a similar comment at the Maidstone FLC currently running. I know there are articles for each building, but for our featured material to be heavily reliant on sub-articles seems a real shame. I think a model more like Listed buildings in Widnes is appropriate. Our FLs expand for "listed buildings" and "churches" so why not "Grade I listed buildings"?
• " in the City of Coventry" is it necessary to say "the City of"? And if you insist, should City really be capitalised?
  • City of Coventry is the proper name of the metropolitan borough. -HJ
• I think the article could legitimately link Coventry, while a common geographical term to us English, perhaps not so for our global audience.
  • I agree. I believe linking in the bold title is discouraged, but I'll see if I can work a link in elsewhere. -HJ
• "There are 20 Grade I " vs "Of the 21 buildings on this list..."
  • The list includes Coombe Abbey, which owned by Coventry City Council but falls just the wrong side of the city boundary. I'm open to the possibility of removing Coombe Abbey if multiple people really think it's confusing or out of scope. -HJ
• If you use ref 1 every time, just have it as a general reference.
• "St. Mary's Priory" is a dab link.
  • "St Mary's Priory is, but that's just the displayed text—the link goes to St. Mary's Priory and Cathedral. -HJ
• Ref column shouldn't be sortable.
  • I'm really not very proficient with tables. Could I trouble you to explain how I remove the sortability, or even demonstrate for the benefit of the II* listed buildings which will be making an appearance here at some point? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would add a column for the image of each place rather than that rather unsightly gallery at the end.
  • I seem to be in a minority on this issue, so I'll work the images into the table, much as I think the gallery is better. -HJ
• You should link all linkable items every time in a sortable table (e.g. Bayley Lane).
  • That's the first time I've heard that, but I suppose it makes sense—it just goes against every instinct I've had drilled into me at FAC! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC) OK, images worked into the table (I still the the gallery was better, but I'll concede the point) and descriptions added. I think all the rest of your comments have been addressed by myself or Rock drum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlink Indonesia per WP:OVERLINK

• Done

• Any reason why text is small on key. Consider WP:ACCESS

• The key format is taken from the featured list List of songs recorded by Rihanna, through List of songs recorded by Chrisye. That being said, I've pumped up the size.

• Use actual sub-sections per MOS:ACCESS

• It is.

• Isn't "filmindonesia.or.id" the publisher, not work

• No, the website is the work. The publishers are the National Library of Indonesia and Sinematek Indonesia

• Double quotes (") should be single quotes (') in all references, as per MOS:QUOTEMARKS and WP:MOSQUOTE

• Done.

TBrandley 00:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Those already linked are those with articles. I may be able to make another five to ten DYK-able articles with the sources available, but ones like Pat Kiam Hap would never have more than what's there already. Others, like Asmara Moerni, would be stuck as eternal stubs owing to the lack of information available (unless I book a trip to Sinematek Indonesia and spend a couple weeks eating and breathing old film reviews, where possible).

The same issues apply to some of these directors and actors; Heuveldorp has almost nothing on him outside of Loetoeng Kasaroeng, and numerous actors are only known for one role. A couple directors, like Fred Young, F. Carli, and Rd Ariffin, may be doable, but I'm linking as I go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in reality, all of those films are of a similar level of notability so should really be linked... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming a national or interlocal (among different cities) release, possible. However, some (like Pat Kiam Hap above) are essentially known from a poster and the director's memory. I could redlink those if consensus is for it, but I wouldn't expect an article on Pat Kiam Hap or such films to survive AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think all films that could sustain an article should be linked... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redlinked those which I'm reasonably sure could support an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• My ignorance, but you say "the country's dissolution" - I thought the East Indies was a colony, not a country?

• Oomph, yeah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dutch companies were also producing documentary films to be shown in the Netherlands" I guess you mean documentaries about the Dutch East Indies? This isn't clear.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Teng Chun and the Tan Brothers" I would switch this around, just to avoid any confusion that the first The isn't a "the", it's part of someone's name...

• Done. Yeah, it was the source of confusion at Alang-Alang when the article was on DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Indicates uncertain year of production" I would expect to see that key being used in the year column, not the film title column.
• Don't think you need the Category:Dutch East Indies as you have the more refined "Films of..." category.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oomph, yeah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the extra comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link freshwater mussels and snails in lead?
• "populations in Michigan." not sure we need in Michigan here, seeing as we've already established this about species in Michigan
• Images could do with alt text
• There are minimal redlinks so don't think this is an issue this time around
• ref 3 needs the parameter |format=PDF adding

NapHit (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, NapHit! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns; please let me know if there is anything else. Dana boomer (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]