Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2018

• "As of September 2018, Smith's batting average of 61.37 is the third highest in Test cricket." I feel like it should clarify this for all time and not just current players.
• "at Melbourne Cricket Ground" as a local, "at the Melbourne Cricket Ground" sounds more natural in a sentence
• "Smith has scored his ODI centuries at six different cricket grounds" link to List of One Day International cricket grounds since test grounds is linked
• "He has scored eight centuries in ODIs and shares ninth position with Michael Clarke in the list for Australia." maybe clarify what this list for Australia is?
• The "Test centuries" table uses both "Draw" and "Drawn" in the result field

Allied45 (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allied45 thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the reference at the end of the first paragraph verify the entire paragraph?

• Yes.

• "following the partition of the British Indian province of Bengal" – I would like this to be followed by what it was partitioned into.

• Reworded

• "starting with Prafulla Chandra Ghosh of the Indian National Congress." – I don't think it's immediately obvious to the reader that the Indian National Congress is a political party (as opposed to a legislative body). I'd also introduce the abbreviation "INC" here, so it can be used further down the page.

• Fair enough, done.

• "fellow Congressman" – I'd rephrase this using "from the same party" or something similar.

• Changed to party-mate.

• "of the Congress" – there are three different parties in the list that are called "XYZ Congress", so this should be clarified.

• Done.

• "an Indian record until 2018" – add who surpassed it and the relevant details. It might be necessary to rephrase the sentence with that information added.

• Done.

• "A parenthetical number indicates that the incumbent has previously held office." – I'd rephrase this as "A number in parentheses indicates that the minister had held the same office previously."

• "While the tenures have been primarily sourced to a list on the West Bengal Legislative Assembly website, obvious errors (mainly around the 1969–71 period) have been corrected with the help of a historical essay from the same website." – I would like you to explain this to me in a bit more detail before I'm comfortable supporting this for WP:Featured list status.

• I have written a detailed explanation on the talkpage.

• All right. I find your explanation satisfactory with regards to Wikipedia's WP:No original research policy. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "the 90-member rump" – "remnant" is better than "rump".

• I believe rump is the technical term, ever since the 17th-century Rump Parliament of England.

• Well, "rump parliament" or "remnant" both work, but I don't think just "rump" really does. TompaDompa (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewritten.

• The footnote for Bidhan Chandra Roy should be placed after his constituency, not his name (since it deals specifically with his constituency).

• Done.

• "According to some sources, Sen acted as interim chief minister" – I would add the word "also" before "acted".

• Done.

• "President's rule may be imposed [...]" – I feel like this footnote should instead begin "Under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, President's rule may be imposed [...]"

• Done.

• "Initially for over a year" – this is a bit clunky. Try rephrasing it.

• Done.

• "[...] ministers from Trinamool and the Congress. After Trinamool quit the United Progressive Alliance in September 2012, Congress members [...]" – use "INC" instead of "Congress" to avoid confusing readers unfamiliar with India's political parties (since there are, as noted above, multiple parties with "Congress" in their names).

• Done.

• The link in reference 5 (as of my writing this) is dead.

• The West Bengal Assembly website is bizarre. You can't link to any specific page in it without a 500 error showing up, and you can't archive them either. But all the info is indeed accessible if you visit the site and click around. So I've added a note to the citation, 'Note: In case of an error, please click the "Origin & Growth" button in the top left of the website.'

• Oh. That's weird. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your detailed review, TompaDompa, I have addressed all your comments.—indopug (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: per MOS:DTT, column headers in the middle of tables should be avoided. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've split the table.—indopug (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This list does not include storms that also attained Category 4 or 5 status on the scale. – I'd remove "list".
  • Done ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• During January to April, the North Pacific High and Aleutian Low induce strong vertical wind shear and unfavorable conditions that serve to prevent the development of hurricanes. These effects are reduced or even disappear during hurricane season from May to November – what about December?
  • Accounted for that using sea surface temperatures (which also contributes up till April). No idea how I missed out that since it's one of the most important factors. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Should a Category 3 hurricane make landfall, its strongest winds are capable of causing "devastating damage" to human infrastructure, with "high risk of injury or death to people, livestock, and pets due to flying and falling debris". – I don't think the quotation marks are necessary. Try to paraphrase the second part a bit and then remove them.
  • Paraphrased and removed. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• that causes environmental conditions for tropical cyclone formation to be unconducive – I'd rephrase this as "that causes environmental conditions to be unconducive to tropical cyclone formation".
  • Done ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the entirety of the second paragraph in the "Climatology" section verified by those two citations at the end?
  • Unfortunately, yes; there's a surprisingly little amount of available literature that mention the roles of the Pacific High and Aleutian Low in limiting Pacific hurricane during the winter months. Another important and more commonly mentioned factor restricting hurricane formation during winter and spring, though, is low sea surface temperatures, which I've just put in with a new ref. The paragraph may be getting too long, however, so I may split it once I've worked through the rest of the stuff. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split the paragraph. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • which is responsible for the counterclockwise rotation of hurricanes – I'd add "in the Northern Hemisphere". TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically hurricanes refer to mature tropical cyclones in the Northeastern Pacific and North Atlantic only, but nevertheless I've added that in to clarify. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This allows for hurricanes developing that time to strengthen significantly. – I'd say "during that time" or something along those lines. This is currently ungrammatical. TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I must have been typing too quickly. :/ ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Combined with cooler waters around the Hawaiian Islands that tend to weaken approaching tropical cyclones, direct impacts on the Hawaiian Islands by tropical cyclones are rare. – I'd say "this makes direct impacts on the Hawaiian Islands by tropical cyclones rare." TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That does sound better. Changed the sentence accordingly. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The first table is too long for it to be practical to have the key at the bottom, so the key should be moved above the table. I'd also like WP:ALT text for the daggers and double-daggers.
  •  Partly done Moved the key to the top, haven't added alt text yet. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 05:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In both tables, the "Refs" column should be "Refs" (i.e. {{abbr|Refs|References}}).
  • Done ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The sorting for the "Pressure" column doesn't work for the cells that begin with "≤".
  • Removed the "≤" and used a color to indicate that instead. I guess adding symbols just messes around with the sort function. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 05:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would also have been possible to use a sort key for those cells, but this is probably a better solution. However, where you use a colour to convey information you also need to use a symbol for WP:ACCESSIBILITY; screen readers do not "understand" cell shading the way a human does. I would suggest using {{Section-sign}} in addition to the colour. TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed it myself. TompaDompa (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like the empty cells in the first table to be replaced with {{N/A}}, {{N/A|Unavailable}}, or {{Unknown}} as appropriate. The same goes for the "Not specified" cells in the "Pressure" column.
  • Done using find and replace. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would consider marking the entries in the first table that made landfall (i.e. the ones that are also in the second table) with a background colour and {{hash-tag}}. The current table is fairly long and featureless, so some visual variety would be welcome to improve readability.
  • Used color to indicate landfalling storms, and put the hashes next to the area affected where each storm made landfall. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 05:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like the circumstances that led to there having been 16 landfalls from 13 hurricanes to be a bit clearer. Specifically, I'd like it to be mentioned in the text that there have been 16 (the reader can figure it out from the chart or the table, but they shouldn't have to), and that Hilary made 3 and Fausto 2 (rather than just mentioning that both made more than one).
  • Mentioned both explicitly. I put the 16 landfalls in the first sentence, and added the number of landfalls Hilary and Fausto made behind their mentions in the fourth sentence.
• Only in two years – 1971 and 1984 – did more than one Category 3 hurricane make landfall, though in both years none of those Category 3 hurricanes made landfall as hurricanes. – I'd rephrase this as "Only two years – 1971 and 1984 – saw more than one Category 3 hurricane make landfall, though in neither year any of those Category 3 hurricanes made landfall as hurricanes."
  • Rephrased. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In the landfall table, I'd like each landfall to be marked with a date (the year is already mentioned in a separate column).
  • Added the dates. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The link in reference 56 is dead.
  • I couldn't find any other source that gave me the US$203 million damage total so I dropped it to US$112 million which was what I was able to source using working links. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article Andorra national football team is about the team as a whole and this list is about the individual players. There is plenty of room in the WP:LEAD to go into more detail about the players in order to make this distinction more readily apparent. The main article should perhaps also include a link to this list in the relevant section.

   I'm not sure what more detail can be added here, the list is for players with 25+ caps rather than all Andorran internationals and the major records are included. This page has a similar prose size to the other six country FL lists and is actually larger than Israel and Scotland.

   I'm mostly thinking about WP:FLCR 3(b) – this list should justify its existence as a separate list (in other words, why shouldn't it be merged into Andorra national football team?). I'd start by adding something about Koldo – that he was the goalkeeper for over a decade and has more caps than the other goalkeepers, and that he then became the manager, perhaps something else too (if there is anything more worth mentioning). TompaDompa (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @TompaDompa: I've expanded the opening somewhat so it's around a third bigger than it originally was. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. "No." should use the {{abbr}} template per MOS:NUMERO. - Done
3. The picture of Óscar Sonejee is not particularly high quality, so if there's a better photo available it should be replaced. I think the current one is better than nothing though, so it shouldn't be removed if there is no better alternative.

   No better alternative unfortunately.

4. Óscar Sonejee held the all time appearance record until 2017. – I'd include the reference for this in the caption. I know it's in the WP:LEAD, but the reader shouldn't have to look for it. - Done
5. Koldo being the manager seems to be unsourced. - Done

TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thanks for the review, I've answered your queries above. Let me know your thoughts. Kosack (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's perfectly reasonable in this list's opening sentence to link Andorra. - Done
• "was forced to wait " is there a reason for this "forced"? It feels like it needs explanation. - Hopefully made that a little clearer
• "most capped player, accumulating 117 caps as " avoid repeating cap, maybe rephrase using "appearances" for one of them. Similar comment for the Koldo sentence. - Done
• Link "friendly match" in the lead. - Done
• In the key, link Goalkeeper to the same article you linked it to in the lead. - Done
• The list of active players links to a section in the main article where it explains those listed are "The following players were called up for the 2018–19 UEFA Nations League matches against Georgia on 13 October and Kazakhstan on 16 October 2018.[24]", not "players who have not retired from international football and are, subsequently, eligible to be called up." How are these verified?

As with the other lists, unless there is a reference available to confirm a player's international retirement, any active player is regarded as still eligible. The Rsssf link also denotes which players it considers still active to aid that.

• Looking at this list, " only player to have scored ten or more goals for the side" would be true if it said " only player to have scored five or more goals for the side". - Done
• I'm never sure if we clarified that eu-football.info. and Soccerway were both RS, do you have anything to support those websites?

Soccerway is owned by the Perform Group who also own several other brands, including Opta Sports which is one of the biggest sports analytics companies around. Both sites are listed at WP:Football's recommended links and are widely used across football articles.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks very much for the review, I've responded to all of the issues raised above. Kosack (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Four of the cardinal electors were from Eastern Catholic Churches: Antonios Naguib (Coptic), Béchara Boutros Raï (Maronite), George Alencherry(Syro-Malabar) and Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankara). – Does this belong in the WP:LEAD?
• On 13 March 2013, they elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires as pope, who took the papal name Francis. – this needs copyediting for grammar and clarity.
• precedence is determined by the date of the consistory in which they were created – this is pretty opaque for readers not familiar with the subject. Papal consistory should be linked and the sentence should probably be rephrased with something like "elevated to the rank of cardinal".
• The reader gets no explanation as to why the precedence is important or how it affects the proceedings or the outcome.
• the senior cardinal bishop, the senior cardinal priest, the senior cardinal deacon and the junior cardinal deacon are assigned specific roles in a conclave. – what specific roles are those?
• I would suggest replacing the asterisk for the cardinal elected pope with a symbol that allows for WP:ALT text, such as {{dagger}}, {{double-dagger}}, or {{hash-tag}}.
• The "Rank" for the cardinals not in attendance needs to be fixed, because it can be interpreted in different ways. I see three different options:
  • Remove the hypothetical ranks altogether.
  • Explicitly write which two cardinals in attendance the ones not in attendance would've ranked between.
  • Move the cardinals not in attendance to the main table, mark them with a colour and symbol, leave their rank blank, and add a non-integer sort value to place them between the two they would've ranked between.
• Countries are grouped into continents according to the regions of the United Nations geoscheme; for the Americas, North America comprises the Northern America, the Central America and the Caribbean subregions, while South America comprises the remaining subregion of the same name. seems unnecessary to me.
• If cardinals don't represent the countries they originate from, there shouldn't be flags per MOS:FLAG (and even if they do, I don't see what the flags add).
• For the sake of completeness, a table of the cardinals who were not eligible would be nice (I am aware that it was deleted as a separate list article). I noticed that the Dean of the College of Cardinals, who is mentioned in the text, would be in that list.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well, this note should be ideally made somewhere; the lead seems a good enough place to locate it, next to the general numbers of cardinal electors. Being buried in a footnote, it shouldn't be too intrusive as it currently stands.
2. Reworded slightly; this should hopefully read better.
3. Linked consistory (I thought that I did!) and modified slightly to "created cardinals". I would prefer to keep the standard terminology in this regard; its meaning should be apparent.
4. Addressed, adding how precedence affects conclave proceedings.
5. Some (two) examples of specific roles provided, without going too far into intricate detail.
6. The asterisk seems to have worked perfectly fine on my previous featured list nominations. I don't think that this would necessarily cause accessibility problems; I'm not particularly fond on the insertion templates, anyway. What do you think?
7. Ranks removed.
8. Fair enough; removed.
9. Even if they don't formally represent their countries, they're certainly still representative of them to a certain extent; placing some emphasis on nationality / country of origin doesn't seem out of place. This also matches the lower section, where flags are directly used in relation to countries in the table of cardinal electors by country.
10. This could be something I could add over the next few days but not immediately.

@TompaDompa: I just realised that I forgot to address no. 10 in the original comments – now fixed. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Actually, after some deliberation, I decided to rename the "Rank" column as "№", also reinstating it for the non-attending cardinal electors. However, the numbering is now independent to each table, which still allows each to be sorted by precedence. This would be useful especially for the table of ineligible cardinals to be added, which should ideally still be able to be sorted by precedence (the original rank numbering, as you pointed out, would be open for interpretation and difficult to implement). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:NUMERO, "№" should be replaced with No. (i.e. {{abbr|No.|Number}}). TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Some responses and replies above. Thanks for your review. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'd place the note directly following For cardinal bishops who are Eastern Catholic patriarchs, in the body of the text. That seems like a more natural placement to me.

Unfortunately, not all the Eastern Catholic cardinals are patriarchs, so I don't think it would fit there. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, right. Might it work to move Of the 115 attending cardinal electors, 74 held pastoral appointments, while the remaining 41 worked in the Roman Curia; 48 were created cardinals by Pope John Paul II and 67 were created by Pope Benedict XVI. The oldest cardinal elector in the conclave, Walter Kasper, turned 80 on 5 March 2013, before the conclave began; he was still 79 at the time of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation and thus eligible to participate. The youngest cardinal elector was Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal, at the age of 53. to a new paragraph under the Cardinal electors section, and move the text in the footnote out of the footnote into that paragraph (which would then be describing the characteristics of the electors)? TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I've now moved that part into the Cardinal electors section as suggested, except the phrase relating to the oldest/youngest cardinal electors, in part not to empty out the lead too much. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. The new wording introduced a dangling participle. I'd rephrase it as "On 13 March 2013, they elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires; Bergoglio took the papal name Francis."

I've opted for part of the original phrasing, substituting "who took" instead of "taking". RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. I am decidedly not an expert in these matters. I just figured a screen reader would read it as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ asterisk" (whereas I would prefer it to be read as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ elected pope").

Looking through other featured lists, it seems largely acceptable to provide abbreviations and symbols in data tables, without using templates with alt text, provided that a suitable key or legend is included. Screen reader users would probably still grasp the meaning of the asterisk, despite the lack of alt text here. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8: It's still there, no?

My apologies; it has now been removed. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Please see my individual replies above, including added comments on nos. 10 (ineligible cardinals) and 7 (rank). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: A table of cardinals ineligible to participate has been added, in accordance to no. 10 of your comments above. I have italicised the names of these cardinals, so as to distinguish them from the actual cardinal electors. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was very close to supporting here, but I am a bit concerned about the sourcing because it here seems to be around 200 individual biographies rather than one source that discusses the college as a whole during the time of the 2013 conclave. This causes a few problems:

1. Yes, we know that everyone who is listed as participating in this conclave participated (the Holy See press office is an RS for this, even if primary), but we don't know from the current sourcing that you got all the cardinal electors. There is no source to measure the completeness of the list by.
2. This becomes a larger problem with the over 80 cardinals: I'm assuming it was fairly easy to track down the bios of the participants, but there is a solid chance you missed some of the ones over 80. I would remove them completely because firstly, they are not cardinal electors and are thus outside the scope of this article, and, additionally, I think you're going to have to look really hard to find a source that lists all living cardinals in March 2013 who did not go to the conclave, because, to be blunt, no one really cared about them at the time because they weren't electors.

I don't think this can pass FLC unless you find a source listing all the participants, and a secondary source rather than primary source would be ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nominator, but wouldn't a source for the number of cardinals suffice? TompaDompa (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly for the electors: it’d be better to have one source for both the number and the participants, but that could work. For the non-participants, I think there’s both the sourcing issue and the scope issue that need to be overcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I obviously disagree about the scope since I was the one who suggested it in the first place (see my resolved comments above). TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the ineligible cardinals stay, that would be enough for me to oppose this nomination both on grounds of sourcing/original research and scope.

On sourcing and original research: all you have is the bio from the Holy See press office not mentioning a conclave and giving a birth date. That is not the same as positively mentioning them not being participants. The Holy See press office also isn’t known as a model of efficiency and while I’m slightly comfortable using them to confirm attendance at conclaves, I wouldn’t even use a lack of mention from a source like a NYT obit to confirm not attending. If you’re going based of their age, well, that is the definition of WP:SYNTH.

Re: scope, it makes an already long list pretty unwieldy and less useful for readers. They aren’t really relevant (they didn’t vote, and weren’t supposed to.) Most conclave histories at least up to the 19th century only list electors, omitting even the names of eligible cardinals who couldn’t make it. Their names are only relevant if they entered the conclave, and combined with the glaring OR issue, they should be removed.

Edit: I also just looked at the previously deleted article on the over-80 cardinals to see if I could restore it to userspace to be used for sourcing. All it had as a source was Salvador Miranda, who does not meet our RS policy as a self-published source. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni and TompaDompa: Regarding sourcing: refs. 3 and 4 give, respectively, the number of cardinal electors (plus the identities of non-attendees) and a list of all 115 cardinals in order of precedence. These are both from the Press Office (primary sources) but they'll hopefully suffice. Regarding non-electors: I agree that they're outside the scope of the list; however, I can't really excise that section from the article at the moment, as I don't have much access to a computer over the next couple of days. I'll remove it when I can. Thanks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just ping me whenever you get the chance. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Section on cardinals ineligible to participate removed, as requested. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done. ElizaOscar (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The footnote that says "Styles is also credited as a writer by the ASCAP as Harry Edward Styles." seems entirely unnecessary to me; that's just his full name, no?
  • Yep, I've removed it. ElizaOscar (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe there's something obvious that I'm missing, but what's with all the empty cells?
  • The songs have been registered online but are unreleased. Sometimes ASCAP will show the artist(s) that have recorded the song, but sometimes no artist is attached. ElizaOscar (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay then. The unreleased songs should be marked as such. TompaDompa (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed the year of the unreleased songs from "n/a" to "unreleased". ElizaOscar (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• About the footnote that says "Styles is also credited as a writer by the ASCAP as his alias Mick Greenberg.":
  • If this applies to this song, the note should read "Credited as his alias Mick Greenberg." If it does not apply to this song, the note should be placed somewhere else.
  • If this applies to songs besides this one, the note should be added to those as well.
  • ASCAP should be spelled out and linked or not mentioned at all.
  • The use of this alias requires a citation.
    • Done. ElizaOscar (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The footnote that says "'Oh Anna' and 'Medicine' are two unreleased tracks from his debut album that were included on the setlist for his first arena tour." needs a citation.
  • Done. ElizaOscar (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't need two One Direction links in the lead.
• Same goes for that band's albums, several of which are linked in the first and second paragraphs.
• Refs 1 and 4 need en dashes in their titles' date ranges.
• ASCAP should be spelled out in the references. For less work, you could just spell it out in its first appearance and include the abbreviated version in parentheses. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I've reworked the lead just a bit. ElizaOscar (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Since my original batch of comments, it looks like the BMI references have grown nasty red error messages saying they don't have urls. This is certainly worth investigating and fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. ElizaOscar (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. An appropriate image in the WP:LEAD would be nice (perhaps the naval ensign of the Ottoman Navy?).

   That seems purely decorative to me - there aren't many good photos of these ships, and the lead image I had previously used doesn't have clear copyright status, unfortunately.

   It's mostly visual appeal I'm thinking about, yes. It would be nice, but it's not necessary. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. The use of unit conversions is not consistent throughout. On a related note, not all units are preceded by a non-breaking space ( ).

   Figures are converted on the first use and not thereafter - this is pretty standard practice. As for non-breaking spaces, the point of those is to prevent digits and units from being bifurcated by the end of the line of a page - that's not an issue in tables, so I don't use them if they weren't copied over from another list.

   This of course varies with screen (and window) width, but I see multiple armor thicknesses broken up over two lines. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. in 1878 in the midst of a war scare with Russia – is there a relevant article for this? If so, it should be linked.

   The Brits thought they'd get pulled into the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, which is already linked.

4. sank Feth-i Bülend in Thessaloniki – I feel like the word "harbour" should be in there somewhere.

   That seems redundant to me.

5. top speed/horsepower generated should be rephrased per MOS:SLASH.

   Done

6. The date the ship was commissioned – it should be clarified that this means the date it entered into active service, as opposed to the date its production was ordered (which is a definition of "commission" I suspect many readers will be more familiar with, and which still makes some sense in context). The reader shouldn't have to click the link to avoid misunderstanding this term.

   Tweaked.

7. As the largest, and most valuable, members of the Ottoman fleet, the Osmaniye class was kept safely in the Mediterranean Sea during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, since the Ottoman command did not want to risk them in coastal operations in the Black Sea. should be rewritten in a way that doesn't result in a single sentence having four commas.

   Tweaked.

8. Fatih, in Prussian service as König Wilhelm as originally built is a bit confusing and should be rephrased.

   The point was to make clear that the ship was in its original configuration, not this one

9. She was involved in a collision with the ironclad Grosser Kurfürst in 1878, which saw the sinking of the latter vessel. – it should be clarified that this was an accidental collision between friendly vessels in peacetime.

   Added "accidental", but the rest seems to be unnecessary explanation - it should be safe to assume that, in the absence of a reference to a war or specific battle, it did not occur during one.

10. The "Armament" cell for Fettah needs copyediting.

    Fixed

    14 × 203  Armstrong guns – I'm guessing that's 203 mm? TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11. All the sections for vessels ordered by the Egyptian Eyalet should mention that they were turned over to the central government, in case the reader skips ahead to one of the sections.

    That seems awfully redundant.

12. They displaced less than half the earlier vessel – I'd add "as much as" after "half" or rephrase it entirely.

    Done.

13. Though they had one less gun – I'd use "fewer".

    Works for me.

14. Avnillah, c. 1885 should use the {{circa}} template.

    Didn't know that existed

15. A hexagonal casemate – maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing, but in the drawing it definitely looks octagonal to me.

    Good catch.

16. were rapidly made obsolescent – "obsolescent" means "in the process of becoming obsolete" (i.e. not yet obsolete), which makes this phrasing a bit weird to me.

    Right - the ships didn't have much time in service before they were rendered obsolescent.

    Isn't that like saying "He fell ill and quickly became dying"? I don't know, to me it's an odd phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17. The page uses both "Thessaloniki" and "Salonika". Stick to one of the two (I'd recommend the former, as that's what the article is called).

    Salonika would be the appropriate name for the period we're discussing - Thessaloniki wasn't formally used until after Greece retook the city in 1912.

18. It should probably be mentioned that Hamidiye used the name originally planned for the ship that became HMS Superb.

    Does that really need to be spelled out?

19. "Belleisle" is twice misspelled as "Bellisle".

    Fixed.

20. For consistency with the other sections, the last table should note that the vessels were commissioned as HMS Belleisle and HMS Orion, respectively.

    Good point

21. The linking to vessel articles in the tables is not consistent throughout.

    Only ships that were part of a class are linked in the tables, since individual ships are linked with the {{main}} link - doing them both seems like overkill.

22. This might be a stupid question, but how are the sections ordered?

    Chronologically, as they're ordered in the Langensiepen & Güleryüz book

23. There are two identical Sondhaus, p. 90 references.

    Fixed

TompaDompa (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would combine the first and third sentences of the first paragraph. "Campeche is a state in Southern Mexico that is divided into 11 municipalities."  Done
  • I also would remove "located" as redundant to "in"  Done
• In the first paragraph and the table, is there a need to go out to 3 decimal points on the land area? I would recommend rounding to one decimal (or even whole numbers).

• Not really, however this is exactly the accuracy published by INEGI and all these lists are populated with official government data. Some countries use only 1 decimal, most use 2, but Mexico seems to be the only one so far that uses 3. I like to just use whatever the official census bureau uses.

• Link Intercensal Survey Done
• Third paragraph, last sentence, I would replace the "and" with "while" ... reads a little better that way. Done
• Third paragraph, second sentence, you need a comma after "Calakmul"  Done
• Last paragraph, last sentence, you need a comma after "Candelaria"  Done

That's it Mattximus. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks « Gonzo fan2007! What a great review. I've addressed all comments, please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Mattximus (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the table headings, is the second word of Municipal Seat a proper noun (as part of an official title or something)? If not, it shouldn't be capitalized.  Done
  • Some of the reference publishers (INEGI in several refs and OECD in ref 4) could stand to be spelled out. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind doing this however the name OECD is actually their commonly used name and not Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the INEGI, would you like it spelled out in Spanish or English? There is a wikilink to this one.

Thanks for the review! I've made one change and queried the second. Mattximus (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If OECD is the common name, I wouldn't complain if it was left as is. As for INEGI, I would go with what our article on the subject uses (which appears to be English). Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done And I've also added the English title on all other list of municipalities of Mexican states. Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Oops! Didn't understand what you meant until just now. Fixed.

Comments on top of the unaddressed stub comment (16 days back!), some more thoughts:

• Is "Southeast Mexico" a formal title, i.e. most examples I've seen don't capitalise "Southeast".

• This question came up before and I was indifferent, however it was found that the 8 regions as defined in the Spanish wiki all use the capitalization convention so this was followed for consistency ([[13]])

• Concerns above about precision are reasonable, especially when adding up overly precise numbers to provide an overly precise total.

• I believe this was done, I chopped off 1 unit of precision from all area figures and totals. From all municipalities list for every state of Mexico.

• I spot checked Carmen (the link wasn't obvious to find the stats, as ref [2] is a general ref (and remove that space before it in the table heading), but troubling, the population density in this article for that municipality is given as 28.7/km2 while the ref (here) gives it as 25.6/km2 (actually 25.58/km2 but...). THEN I REALISED -> you're using the 2015 figures and calculating the answer! So the population density column probably needs (2015) in it too. Done

• Changed here, and on every list of Mexican municipalities page.

• Looking now at this kind of list with relatively fresh eyes, why separate columns for land area in km2 and mi2 (with the incorrect overall heading of km2!) but a combined column for population density?

• Partially complete. Fixed incorrect overall heading, which was oddly only in a few of these lists. As for why there are two columns for area and 1 for density, good catch! I don't know how that convention evolved, although it does "look better" like this. The problem is that every list of municipalities I created and the ones that I based mine off of all used this convention, so I wonder if it would be better to keep this convention here, rather than it be different here only? For consistency? One of my goals here is to have nice looking consistent lists so I'm a bit conflicted about this change.

• " 899,931[1] inhabitants " I don't think that ref needs to be so awkwardly placed. Most readers would be content to wait until the end of a clause or sentence to see what's verifying the contents of the clause or sentence. Done

• Changed here, and on every other list.

• "population in Campeche is Campeche" I know it's right but it just looks odd. Any chance of rephrasing this?  Done

• I think I fixed this wording.

• "on April 6, 1825 and" needs a comma after 1825. Done
• Should ref 7 and 11 have (Spanish) in there?  Done

Changed here and on all other municipalities pages.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for your review! I've only had a chance to address a few but will get to the others on the weekend. Mattximus (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, thank you for your continued reviewing of these lists, I think it is making wikipedia better to have consistent high quality and up to date tables and articles that can be easily compared. Mattximus (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
• Godflesh have recorded at least three songs with unknown titles that have never (and likely will never) be released. – I'd remove this.
• Godflesh released the influential albums, Streetcleaner (1989) and Pure (1992) – remove "influential" per WP:PUFFERY and remove the comma.
• and were then courted by a major label in Columbia Records – "major label" is WP:PUFFERY.
• Reference 19 is a duplicate of reference 6 (this link).
• The following chart lists all of the band's recorded songs that saw release. is unnecessary and should be removed.
• Remixes should sort below the original versions, not above them.
• This song is a rerecording of "Wound" from Tiny Tears. – I'd say "the unreleased EP Tiny Tears".
• I don't like "Demos, live songs and other remixes" being collapsed by default – I almost missed it entirely!
• The footnote for "Demos, live songs and other remixes" should be converted to regular prose below that heading.
• the distinction between a Broadrick remix and a Godflesh remix is often unclear since there is little effective difference. The ones listed below are explicitly labeled with the Godflesh title or are inextricably tied to Godflesh. – what does "inextricably tied" mean in this context?
• I think "Demos, live songs and other remixes" should be three tables rather than one.

TompaDompa (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you, I'll fix these shortly when I get home. I have a few question: when I divide "Demos, live songs and other remixes" into three tables, would you recommend that those be collapsed or expanded? On Streetcleaner and Pure being refereed to as influential, is it still puffery if I cite them as such? I have several more references I could add supporting that. On remixes sorting below original songs, should I have them aligned like that by default and allow alphabetical sorting to rearrange them, or should I force them to be alphabetically lower even though they mostly appear alphabetically higher? Thanks again CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 13:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables should be expanded.
• I'd say it's still puffery.
• Arrange the remixes below the original songs they are remixes of by default and add a sort key that fixes the sorting. The only reason they get sorted before the corresponding original songs is that the songs are enclosed in quotation marks and quotation marks are sorted after spaces.

TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your suggestions have now been implemented. These changes bring up some more questions that I hope you don't mind answering. The remixes with blatantly different titles than their host songs, (i.e. "Domain" as a remix of "Angel Domain"), should I still put them directly under their host song, or should I leave them alphabetically apart? And as for the newly separated lists at the bottom, I did a rowspan style for "Demos". Should I apply this to the others, or should I remove it from the one? Thanks again. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave them apart. For the ones that aren't titled "[Original title] ([new version])", there should be footnotes that clarify what the original was called.
• For "Demos" and "Live songs" I'd remove the "Writer(s)" column altogether. For "Remixes for other artists", I'd replace the "Writer(s)" column with an "Original artist(s)" column, as that seems much more relevant to me.

TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alt text, removed unnecessary columns, and noted all isolated remixes. I think I'll add rowspans to the live and other remixes sections. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second sentence, list all the members of the band when it was formed. Any lineup changes currently not mentioned in the lead (if there are any) should probably also be noted at relevant points.
• "lead single's" is an Easter egg link: mention "Crush My Soul" explicitly in prose.
• The sentence "Following the disappointing sales ... in 1999" is too long and should be split into two sentences.
• The first paragraph is quite long: I recommend splitting into two paragraphs.
• "all of which were done primarily by Broadrick" – This reads weirdly because of "all of [...] primarily". I think "all of" can be dropped.
• "Aside from cover songs done in the studio" – "Aside from studio cover songs" sounds better to me.
• Footnote (e): would it be better to say "This song was originally record in the early- to mid-eighties when the band went by the name Fall of Because"?
• Why is footnote (m) used in the prose part of "Remixes for other artists"?
• Which songs had music videos? Can this be either a list of its own, or a code in the key?

Nice work overall on an interesting topic. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thank you! These are great changes. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 02:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response! Just two more small notes:

• I think "Crush My Soul's" should be "Crush My Soul"'s, though perhaps it's better rephrased to avoid this entirely (e.g. "the ban of the music video for "Crush My Soul"").
• "released their final album before dissolution, Hymns, in 2001. In 2002, the group broke up." — This seems a bit repetitive/tautological with "before dissolution" and "broke up". Maybe merge the two sentences e.g. "released Hymns in 2001 before breaking up in 2002."

— Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, and done. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems odd to me to repeat "of which" three time in the opening sentence. I'd suggest rewriting it as "... of which 119 are original, 44 are remixes done by the band and 5 are covers." or similar.
• "Courted by" is an WP:IDIOM and should probably be rewritten. In its current writing, it sounds like Columbia were toying with the idea of signing the band, but never did.
• What did Broadrick and Green do when they "reunited in 2009"? Did they release new music as a duo, or did were they just together publicly? Had they not seen each other for seven years?
• I suggest wikilinking "ambient".
• "None of their songs have". I believe that "None of their songs has" is correct.

  I'm not the nominator, but according to the Oxford Dictionary of English "none" can take either a singular or plural verb. TompaDompa (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore me then. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The alt text for some of the images is too similar to their captions (e.g. "Justin Broadrick performing with Godflesh in 1992" [caption] and "Justin Broadrick performing with Godflesh at a small venue in 1992" [alt text]). The alt text needs to be either rewritten entirely or simply replaced with, say, "Refer to caption".
• Titles beginning with A (e.g. A World Lit Only by Fire and "A Shadow on the Wound") need to sort under their second word.
• We tend not to have rowspans in sortable tables (as in the ones in the "Demos, live songs and remixes for other artists" section) as they break up unappealingly whenever the table is sorted, and then can only be remerged by refreshing the page.
• Per MOS:QWQ, "Listen to Godflesh "Be God"" -> "Listen to Godflesh 'Be God'" and "Godflesh – "Imperator"" -> "Godflesh – 'Imperator'". Similarly for "New Dark Ages" and "Ringer" elsewhere in the references.
• It's nice to see some discussion of the songs themselves in this article – many lists of this type don't include that.

Incidentally, my current open FLC is YouTube Awards. If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed all of this now. Thanks a lot! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 02:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: CelestialWeevil didn't ping you, so wanted to make sure you saw this. --PresN 21:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final couple of comments from me:

• Per MOS:NUMRANGE, "0 – 9" -> "0–9"
• Similarly, "1980-1989" -> "1980–1989"
• Six images of Justin Broadrick seems a little excessive to me, especially when a couple of them don't do a great job of identifying him – this one only really identifies his chin, and this one only identifies the top of his head. Could they maybe be swapped out for some equally relavant images, e.g. of AC/DC or Black Sabbath?
• Not a FL criterion, but it might be worth considering adding archive-urls to any weblinks to prevent WP:LINKROT. You can do that automatically here.

Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: I fixed all of these, but I only replaced one image. I agree that some variety is needed, but it's pretty tough to get pictures of Godflesh, and I want to limit it to images directly tied to the band. Even though it's two members, people only seem to take pictures of one. Anyway, thanks for all your help, and thanks for telling me about the link rot fixer. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 15:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I want to limit it to images directly tied to the band". Okay. But why, though? All other featured lists of this type have just one photo of the subject in the lead, then all other images are of other relevant people. Having multiple images of the same subject in one article can risk it violating WP:NOTGALLERY. I'm just proposing throwing in one photo each of AC/DC and Black Sabbath, along with some accompanying captions explaining that they wrote "For Those About to Rock" and "Zero to Hero". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: Alright, I did it. Thanks. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The list title is "songs recorded by" and the lead opens with "have released 168 songs", so which is it, released or recorded?

This is addressed in the first note, the 'a' note, that comes directly after the statement. Since there's no way to know how many songs Godflesh recorded, and since using 'recorded' in the title is standard for these types of articles, I clarified it that way. This was done at the request of someone on this page. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm confused, because that note mentions three "unknown" recordings which aren't included in the list, unless I missed them? It looks like this needs a wider discussion as this is most definitely not a list of "recorded" songs, but "released" songs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three songs are in the list, just not in the list; they're mentioned on the article, but they're not included in the count or the main table. I did this to be accurate, comprehensive, and to maintain Wikipedia article naming conventions. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "which were done primarily" done? ugh, perhaps "made"?

Changed it CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to link band members time for each image caption.

Done CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Table caption "writers" should be "writer(s)" as there's at least one solo writer in there.

What do you mean? By the way, I had it like that, but I changed it at the request of someone on this page. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your response. Your first part says "what do you mean" and the second part says "I had it like that" so I think your first part has already been answered? It needs to be writer(s) because the caption is describing each singular entry. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had it like that because the list I was basing mine off of had it like that. Then, someone here mentioned that each entry only had one writer, so the (s) was unnecessary. Every song is credited to a band as the sole writer or an individual. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized something. Since this is an article about a British band, collectives are considered plural. So, even though there are only bands and individual writers, the bands would be considered writers with an 's'. So you're right, I'll make it 'Writer(s)'. Good thinking! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the "with a music video" references?

There are only a handful, like "Christbait Rising". Since there are so few, it's not worth having its own color, and in most cases it would conflict with another. This was done at the request of someone on this page. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, where are the reliable sources that verify that videos exist for these entries? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add them, thanks. I put in citations to their music video compilation. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the distinction between a Broadrick remix and a Godflesh remix is often unclear since there is little effective difference. " this sounds like OR.

'the difference between this and that' sounds more right to me than 'the difference between this or that'. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it sounds like original research, I'm not querying your language, but how you verify this claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained in the 'm' note. I originally had a citation for 'm' there, but because it was mostly directed at two specific songs, someone here asked me to remove it. But you're right, so I restructured it and added another reference showing Broadrick's creative role in the process. Thanks! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to ping you, @The Rambling Man:. Thanks for your suggestions, CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: responded CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RoseCherry64. All of the songs under the writer(s) section were credited to the full band, except in the case of Gilbert's. There are several featured lists that have band names under such sections (like List of songs recorded by Rise Against, List of songs recorded by Beastie Boys, List of songs recorded by Daft Punk, and List of songs recorded by Oh Land). As for the Black Sabbath and Pantera pictures, I would happily remove them. But, in some of the comments above this section, the 'resolved comments from A Thousand Doors', that user was pretty insistent on them being there. I'll take them down regardless if you still think it's a good idea after perusing the comments. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 22:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: I did remove them myself, with this comment "Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE — having images of bands very vaguely related to the subject in a list where their presence is minimal is clutter."

For bands which have had numerous members over the years, I think it might be better to list the relevant members. Especially for bands like Black Sabbath. I'm not certain if there's a guideline for this, however. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoseCherry64: Good point. I wrote out the Black Sabbath members. Thanks for your help, CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 23:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: Some more issues:

* The Earache Peel Sessions was released after Grind Madness at the BBC — original release and date should be updated.

* Live songs should have the recording date in the list — the Peel Sessions are from 1989 but are listed as 2001 and 2014 currently. This makes it very hard to find relevant information about the recording — one would have to check the album page for the actual date they were recorded.

* I would list information not part of the track titles like "Christbait Rising" (Rehearsal April 1989) and not "Christbait Rising (Rehearsal April 1989)".

* Standardize the Peel sessions in the extra information (wikilink the first instance of Peel session?). Right now, "Like Rats" and "Wound (Not Wound)" doesn't have them.

After these are resolved, I think the list is good to go. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoseCherry64: Alright, I think I fixed all of this. To explain why half the Peel Session tracks have different info, only two were released on Godflesh's 2001 compilation. So, the other two first saw release, as you pointed out, in the Grind Madness comp. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: I think it's still relevant to point out that they're Peel sessions, even though it's not written like that on the release tracklisting. It feel inconsistent to have half of the tracks from the session not have "(Peel Session)" next to them. Good work otherwise! RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoseCherry64: Good point, I'll add that. Thanks again. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. and remained there until the chart dated January 10, when it was replaced by "A Broken Wing" by Martina McBride sounds a bit weird to me since it was only on the chart a single week in 1998 (and three in total). I might rephrase it along the lines of "and was replaced by "A Broken Wing" by Martina McBride on the chart dated January 10".
2. The other first-time chart-toppers were Jo Dee Messina, who reached the top spot for the first time with "Bye, Bye", Anita Cochran, who spent one week at the top with "What If I Said", a duet with Steve Wariner, and the all-female group Dixie Chicks, who first reached number one in August with "There's Your Trouble". – this should use semicolons to separate the items that contain internal commas.
3. I'd try to rephrase some of the more comma-heavy sentences in the WP:LEAD, since too many commas in one sentence impedes readability (though they are of course necessary when listing things).
4. Tim McGraw spent a total of ten weeks at number one in 1998. – I'd mention the number of songs.

TompaDompa (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do something about the second sentence of the first paragraph having four commas? TompaDompa (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it down to three - any good? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]