Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2009

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Jrcla2 ^talk 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list on behalf of myself and User:Remember because we believe that it fits FLC criteria and is referenced with WP:RS. After seeing the Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year get awarded a FL status, the ACC Player of the Year is now, we believe, worthy also. Jrcla2 ^talk 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Mm40 (talk)

Comments The ALT text mentions player names. While you and I may be able to recognize some of them on sight, the casual reader cannot. Mm40 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Described their ethnicity and relative complexions. In the key, symbols should be centered. Centered. Well, I must ask why this is necessary. In many FLs, this is not the standard way to show symbols in the key.—Chris! ct 01:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I thought it was, but I'm evidently wrong. IMO, it still looks better. Not something I would've opposed over ;) Mm40 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] In the table, use <sup> </sup> around symbols. Superscripted. In the "Seasons" column, some years are linked while others aren't. There's actually a reason for this: There are only a limited number of pages created so far for ACC seasons. See Template:ACC Men's Basketball and you'll notice that any of the applicable seasons have been linked, while the others that are red links have not. It would look really ugly and unprofessional to have linked 25-30 non-existent ACC seasons. I would remove the "See also" section because the only entry is listed as a category. Removed. In the second footnote: "Charlie Davis was the first African American player to ever receive this award." You can take out "ever". Removed. Do you think you should link Basketball in the first sentence? I'm unsure; up to you. It wasn't linked when I opened the page. Actually, I scoured the rest of the page and couldn't find basketball being linked anywhere, so I'm not sure what to tell ya. Link "National Player of the Year award". Couldn't link that specific phrase, because the criteria mentioned in the key that the only two NPOY awards being used are the two most major ones. But, I did add a quick bit in the lead about that, so hopefully that resolves the dispute. Jrcla2 talk 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] After these comments are dealt with, I'll be glad to support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Chris! _ct 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All looks good, but two quick comments:
  • Second "paragraph" of lead is one sentence, this should be integrated with another paragraph
    • Done. Remember (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the "class" column refer to and what do the different values "Senior/Junior/Sophomore" mean? Is this some sort of basketball terminology? It should be explained within the article or at the very least wikilinked somewhere
    • This refers to the year that a person is in school in the United States. See freshman, sophmore, junior, senior. I will try to think of a way to deal with this. Remember (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and added a footnote that explains to non-U.S. people the meaning of "Class". This should clear up the confusion. Jrcla2 ^talk 16:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, ya learn something new every day :-) Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Comment Really nice job; my only quibble is that the note about the first African American winner is unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When I added that it was because I felt that it was a poignant piece of information, because it shows (via college basketball) the historical race relations in the United States. If you really feel strongly about having it removed, I won't object, but it was never intended to be a slanderous or demeaning footnote, just an "interesting factoid" kind. Jrcla2 ^talk 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Jrcla2. Remember (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never thought it was "slanderous or demeaning" at all; it just seems to give undue weight to race, which really is irrelevant in this context. Furthermore, the lead doesn't make any mention about race at all, so a footnote like that seems strange. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No that's fine, I'm just saying that it seemed pertinent to me when I put it in. If people feel that it might be superfluous and that it should probably be removed, that's also okay. I'm not going to argue a minor detail with this. By the way, this FLC has been up for a while now and doesn't seem to have any opposition, yet (so far) nothing but support. When can this finally close and become a FL? Jrcla2 ^talk 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The directors will close the FLC when they think there is consensus. I have changed to weak support, and will support if the note is removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – List looks clean except for this note: "The University of South Carolina left the Atlantic Coast Conference in 1971, are are now a member of the Southeastern Conference." I think the first one is supposed to be "and". Giants2008 (17–14) 20:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It's been fixed. Remember (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Very good list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [2].

---

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After heavy clean-up and ref from the old, pretty good version I feel this list meets all the criteria. Notifying previous nominator, although user appears to have retired/gone on Wikibreak. I have one style question for you FLC folks to decide. I have the 7 winners of the local award by the Chicago BBWAA (from the Vaas source article). However those awards are NOT listed on the official MLB website list, so I have not included them (since the award wasn't really in it's "real" form yet). That ok with everyone? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty well established that Jackie Robinson was the first winner of the award in its current form, so it's good the way it is IMHO. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Torsodog

Table Comments --TorsodogTalk 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm not a huge fan of setting the width of the tables. There is far too much empty space in a lot of those cells. The reason I set them is some people really prefer when all tables are the same size. I'll shrink them at least to kill some whitespace. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Have you thought of adding in relevant batting and pitching statistics? (See: Cy Young Award and NPB MVP Award) This would remove the empty right-hand space when you removed the set table width and I think stats would add a lot to the list. I understand the desire, the issue is a mix of hitters and pitchers (so the table would be messy) and you run into the classic "What stats" question. One might say Triple Crown numbers, and that works generally, but for example would miss why Maury Wills won the 1961 NL MVP over Willie Mays (stolen bases). That's the MVP award, but you get my point. It's a breadth of data that would be difficult/messy to chart and would be difficult to pick what to list. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I just created the NPB MVP Award list with both pitching and batting stats, and I don't think the list looks all that messy. Personally, I think the list would benefit by having stats such as RBIs, batting average for position players and ERA, record and saves for pitchers. I guess we can see what others think about this proposal though. --TorsodogTalk 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] You might considering adopting elements of the format from League Championship Series MVP, which includes triple crown stats unless WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that another statistic, like saves or stolen bases, be included. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] FYI, adding stats to the list in my sandbox, should be done soon. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Completed Stats added. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Awesome, thanks. Couple more comments: Is there a reason only "Year" is bolded in the key and the rest of the column is not? I think the entire column should be in bold. That's because it's a header in the table; since it's displayed in bold, it has to be keyed in bold. The other info is not contained in a table header and is not displayed bold in the table, so it's not keyed as such. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] What he said. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relevant information in captions, such as player names, should be wiki-linked. --TorsodogTalk 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Going to do that now! :) Staxringold talkcontribs 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice work here! You added and fixed quite a bit as a result of this FLC, and you did it all very quickly. Pretty impressive stuff! --Torsodog^Talk 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5

Initial comments from KV5 Not a big fan of the year links in prose; the "year in baseball" links provide less context than the MLB season links in the table. I would remove them. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Since "Year" and "Player" are headers in the table, they should be bold in the key. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Don't superscript asterisks; they are superscript by their nature. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Now that there are stats, the table doesn't seem to be wide enough. Especially considering that a lot of teams are how on two lines. Widened to 70%. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Would like to see more images. At the very least, there should be equal numbers of images for the NL and AL tables. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] References: Baseball-Reference is not a publisher. It's a work (should be Baseball-Reference.com). "Sports Reference LLC" is the publisher. Titles for the Baseball-Reference references are wrong. The correct titles, according to B-Ref, is "[xxx player name] Statistics and History". Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] MLB.com is a work, but this would be better changed to have Major League Baseball as the publisher (both are not needed), since MLB.com used to be occupied by other companies. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] In current reference 9, make the publisher "ESPN", add the parameter |agency=Associated Press instead of having them as a work, and change to the "cite news" template, instead of "cite web". Same for all other refs using AP. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have more comments, but no time to add them at the moment because I have to go to a performance. Perhaps more later tonight, or perhaps tomorrow. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Can't wait! :) Thanks again, I think I've fixed your first round of stuff. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Further comments from KV5 "by the Chicago chapter of the BBWAA" - comma after BBWAA Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "who selected a rookie of the year" - I think that's probably obvious from the name of the award; is there a less redundant way to say it? Reworked. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "with Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodgers first baseman," - should be either with Jackie Robinson, the Brooklyn Dodgers' first baseman, or with Jackie Robinson, the first baseman for the Brooklyn Dodgers, Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "1947 and 1948, but the honor" - change comma to semicolon and remove "but" to avoid creating false contrast Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "from 1949 onwards" - since 1949 Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Originally the award" - comma after "Originally" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "13 of the 162 players named Rookie of the Year" - normally we don't begin sentences with a digit per MOS:NUM, but I might make an exception here due to the necessity of writing out "one hundred sixty-two" that would result. I would like input from other reviewers on this. What about something like "Of the 162 players named Rookie of the Year 13 have been elected to the HoF"? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] 'Twould be fine. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "The award has been shared twice;once by Bruce Metzger and Pat Zachry of the National League in 1976 and once by John Castino and Alfredo Griffin of the American League in 1979." - colon instead of semicolon after "twice", space after the colon, and semicolon after "in 1976". Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Los Angeles Dodgers players have won the most awards for a single franchise (with 16), twice the total of the New York Yankees (eight) who have produced the most in the American League." - clarify that it's the Brooklyn and LA Dodgers franchise (assuming Brooklyn is included - I believe it is); something like Members of the Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers have won the most awards of any franchise. Also, comma after "(eight)". Done (yes it includes both teams, wasn't sure how to do this one). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Two players have been named Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player in the same year—Fred Lynn in 1975 and Ichiro Suzuki in 2001—and one player has won Rookie of the Year and Cy Young Award honors in the same year—Fernando Valenzuela in 1981." - too many em-dashes in one sentence. Rewritten. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Sam Jethroe is currently the oldest player to win the award at age 32,[3] 33 days older than 2000 winner Kazuhiro Sasaki (also 32).[4]" - if the difference is only a matter of days, we should say a total of months and days if it's possible. Done (it's only the 33 days). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "From 1947–1956 each BBWAA voter" - no dashes in prose when using a from-to statement, and comma after 1956 - From 1947 to 1956, each BBWAA voter Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "who qualified as a rookie" - should be linked to Rookie (baseball), but is already linked earlier, so remove. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Then in 1957 the term was first defined" - remove "Then", cap "in", comma after "1957" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "less than 75 at-bats or 45 innings pitched" - link terms at first appearances (currently at second in following sentence) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Finally, the current standard" - finally is extraneous Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "a first place choice is given five points, a second place choice three points, and a third place one point." - commas after "points" should become semicolons; comma after "second place choice". Are you missing the word choice after "third place"? Also, all "xx place" descriptors are compound adjectives; thus, first-place instead of "first place", etc. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "received three second place votes" - as per above, second-place Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "have won the award such as Hideo Nomo" - comma after "award" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "some feel that past NPB players are not true rookies because of their past professional experience" - who? This definitely needs a reference That's what the ESPN and Japan Times refs are about. Should I reword to be more general such as "Recent awards presented to former NPB players have drawn criticism"? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not necessarily, but after a statement that includes phrases like "some feel", "some say", "people believe", a reference is needed directly because otherwise we invite the "who" tag. Easily corrected by duplicating the refs at the end of that sentence. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "have had" - can just be had Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tables: I don't know that we really need "Player" in the key; I think that's definitely intuitive enough. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] All win-loss records in the table should use en-dashes instead of hyphens Owwww, ok, I'll do that. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Link "appearances" in the table to Games played. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] That should be most of it from me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – phenomenal work that I consider equal to, if not better than, my own painstaking quality standards. Great work, Staxringold! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – "by the Chicago chapter of the BBWAA, who selected an annual winner from 1940 to 1946." Change "who" to "which", since the former is not referencing a person. "One award was presented in both leagues in 1947 and 1948, the honor has been given to one player each in the National and American League since 1949." The punctuation in the middle is begging to be a semi-colon. Comma after "Of the 162 players named Rookie of the Year". The Dodgers are linked twice in the lead. The text isn't exactly the same, but it's clear enough that the same franchise is being discussed; therefore just the one link is needed. Italics for Minneapolis Star-Tribune in the text and Japan Times in ref 10. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] All done. Are you sure on the Dodgers thing though? Seems like the 2nd link would really be useful. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] They both go to the same article in the end. If there was a seperate Brooklyn Dodgers article, then that would be a useful link. If you want to keep a second link, you could link the original Brooklyn Dodgers mention to a section in the article dedicated to their time in Brooklyn. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another in the series of good baseball award lists that has been coming through here lately. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Evan Longoria of the Tampa Bay Rays and Geovany Soto of the Chicago Cubs are the most recent winners." As I said in another baseball award FLC, mention the season in which they won the award.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I know I didn't comment on this on previous FLCs, but how is a "key statistic" determined to be "key"?

• The base statistics were Triple Crown numbers (AVG/RBI/HR and W/K/ERA), and then if those weren't particularly notable (guys with single digit HRs, for example, or like twice as many runs scored as runs batted in because they were top-of-the-order) I listed other stats (triples, runs scored, stolen bases, etc). Could rename it "Select statistics" if that makes you feel better about it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be nice, thanks, but be sure to make it consistent across these articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are DH and 3B not linked in the AL winners table on two occurences? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a mistake, I used a find/replace to link the positions when I removed that part of the key. Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [3].

---

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to meet all of the criteria. This is the newest and latest article in the future baseball awards featured topic, created in response to recent changes in that topic's inclusion criteria. A couple of things that I want to pre-address:

• The format of this list is borrowed, in part, from List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters. The reason that I did not use statistical abbreviations in the table is because of the format I chose. It looks much cleaner with statistics written out rather than having to constantly refer back to a key for the name of a statistic that the casual reader may not know.
• The names of the statistics themselves are not overlinked. MOS:LINK states that linking only the first occurrence of a term "is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including... tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own." Additionally, this table is sortable, further necessitating this sort of link density.
• Criterion 6 shouldn't be a concern here; this was built in my userspace and, as with a lot of the other lists I nominate, comes to life ready to bear the brunt of the FL process (I hope). I say this only because I've seen several nominations over the past few days where this concern was raised. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Most if not all of the facts given in the lead without inline citations are covered by the general reference. If you happen to see something that's got an outstanding need for an additional citation, please let me know and I'll try to scrounge one.

Please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be corrected. Concerns will be promptly addressed. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Mostly very good. Little redundancy: "From the pitcher's mound, Steve Avery pitched 16⅓ innings...". Pitcher and pitched. Change the second to "threw" or "hurled"? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Use p. instead of pp. for the Howard Bryant book. I own the paperback version of the book, which mentions the playoff cancellation on a different page, but I'll assume it was that number in the original without any knowledge to the contrary. Yeah, I have the hardback. It lives on my coffee table; can you tell what I think of the steroid era? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I know what you mean. As a Yankees fan, I'm so lucky that none of my team's players have gotten involved in this stuff. :-) Giants2008 (17–14) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bullet for the general reference? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The first sentence of the second paragraph isn't covered by the inline or general reference, and a look in my almanacs proved fruitless. I'm sure this can be found in a news article on a winner. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Searching. Nearly impossible to reference something like this. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] OK. The only source I've been able to find is this blog from Michael Rand, who's the assistant sports editor of the Minneapolis Star-Trib. [4] Considering his credentials, I believe this can count as reliable, but I want the opinion of other reviewers before inserting it. This isn't controversial information, and WP:RS says that a news source "that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story". Let me know your thoughts, please. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Does it really need sourcing that the most valuable player award for a series goes to the player deemed most valuable in that series by the voters? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I didn't think so; I thought it was pretty well straightforward as a definition, but since Giants2008 is asking for a reference, and since I trust his judgment on sourcing considering the amount of featured lists we've both worked on and reviewed, I tried to do my best to satisfy his request. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] A blog on a newspaper website by an editor should work fine. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Then we are done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Yet another high-quality baseball awards list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Amazing work KV5, you do the Baseball Wikiproject proud. My only issue was that I only saw 3 years marked for WS MVP winners but you said 4 in the lead, but I saw Stargell's wasn't colored to I went ahead and did that. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• I made a few tweaks to the lead; hope they look OK.

• Most looked fine; I did replace "currently" which was removed; the LCS hasn't always followed the Division Series. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who decides who gets the award?

• I have no idea; it's been incredibly hard to find information about this award aside from "who won". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The current LCS winners are the" "current" as of which season? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed to "2008 winners were". Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support How come this hasn't been finished off yet? --Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [5].

---

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria, including suitable graphics (with ALT tags) and supporting citations. It is the 7th in the series Grade I listed buildings in Somerset and follows the format of Grade I listed buildings in South Somerset which is the most recently promoted. — Rod ^talk 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I noticed that no-one had commented on this and I have to say that overall it is very good with just a few comments. I also corrected a few typos that it wasn't worth writing out a comment for.

• I believe that the county of Avon was created in 1974 not abolished.
• "Outside the city of Bath most of the buildings are..." You might want to qualify the word buildings with listed (or similar) just to make it clear that we are still talking about those in the list.
• In the list it would seem that the default order is based on the location (which is fine) but this column isn't sortable so you can't get back to the initial order.
• I am not sure that it is usual to put a Category into a See Also section, especially as the page is already in the category.

Boissière (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - thanks for the comments (& edits). I believe Avon, outside of the city and See also are dealt with. I've made location sortable, however this doesn't put them quite back into original order as they were done with Bath first & then the rest. As the street or area is included when they are resorted some of the villages appear earlier in the list - do you think I need to make these return to their original order?— Rod ^talk 20:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is particularly necessary - as there is no 'right' order for the buildings anyway I don't think that it particularly matters that one can get back to the exact original order that has been chosen.Boissière (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, support. Boissière (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• I made a few minor tweaks to the lead, hope they look OK.

• Thanks great

• "he oldest sites within Bath are the Roman Baths, which were provided with their foundation piles" Not sure what "provided" here means here.

• I've tried to clarify this. The spring was used for bathing before the romans but it was them which put in foundations (on piles into the mud).

• No page numbers or ISBN for ref 13 (Georgian Summer)? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added

Response. Thanks for these comments (& your edits) hopefully all now addressed?— Rod ^talk 08:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.buildinghistory.org/bath/index.shtml reliable? I lean reliable, considering the author's background, but it would help to know that the ref isn't used for anything controversial or obscure.

• Jean Manco is a well known & respected author on local architecture. A list of some of her publications (books, journals & for official bodies is available here). (see also User:Genie). The reference is about the period and ornamentation of Bath Abbey, the period & style is supported by the English Heritage ref given & I've added a journal ref which talks about the ornamentation.

• Should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.essential-architecture.com/STYLE/STY-E02.htm reliable?

• I can't find the ownership details of this site so I've replaced it with a reference to Gadd's book

• http://www.plumbingworld.com/historyroman.html – I'd prefer if the actual magazine article were used (there's always the possibility for transcription erros), but won't push this too hard if it can't be done.

• I do not have access to the original hard copy of Plumbing & Mechanical magazine, July 1986 so am just going by the web page. Therefore I've added another ref to the local council document "City of Bath World Heritage Site Management Plan" which talks about Roman involvement: "Evidence of pre-Roman timber lining was found at one of the springs suggesting a more formal arrangement than previously thought" & "The temple was constructed in 60-70 AD and the bathing complex was gradually built up over the next 300 years".

• Should also be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Spell out HMSO in the publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done HMSO = Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
• Response - Hopefully all sources can now be considered reliable?— Rod ^talk 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I like this list but would find it easier to use if the architects sorted by surname rather than by first name, with "unknown" at the end. There are two blank spaces - should they be "unknown"? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - Thanks for the comment. The two blanks are not known to me & I can't find them in any of my sources - I was hoping someone would be able to add these, but can add unknown. As far as sorting the list by surname - I could add the sort template, but might run into problems with those where more than one architect is identified.— Rod ^talk 12:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise, but it looks a bit odd when the sort leads to a string of "unknown"s followed by "William Killigrew and John Wood, the Elder". When there is more than one architect, how about using the more prominent first, I guess often this will be one of the John Woods? Then it would sort, for example, Wood, John the Elder, and John Pinch. Just a thought. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've sorted by first named architect in the sources which is generally the one with most input or initial idea. Take a look & see if this is what you intended?— Rod ^talk 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that if you're going to do this in this list, you should probably implement this style of sorting in all the other listed building lists you've written. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other lists don't include architects as the vast majority of the buildings are Norman(ish) churches, castles & manor houses (pre 1700) & would all say unknown.— Rod ^talk 15:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks, that's great. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - thank you for your sharp eyes and helpful comments. I hope they have all been addressed & sorry for my inability with n dash & m dash (I've looked at Dash & still can't understand why people get so het up about this).— Rod ^talk 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too; after several years I have finally learnt the "rules" for dashes, but never really established the purpose! All alterations look fine; I corrected a minor typo. Sorry for being ambiguous on my comment under "Notes"; the decapitalisation was the intended meaning. Support accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [6].

---

Nominator(s): 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) and Mister sparky (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I did some major improving. Everything is sourced properly. 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Have you notified User:Mister sparky of this nomination? As he/she has made the most edits to the page, just leave a note on that user's talk page.

can we make this a joint nomination then? as i was going to nominate it myself once i'd done some fixes :) Mister sparky (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess so, it doesn't matter to me, all I care is improving the quality of Lily Allen's articles.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The image in the lead needs ALT text; see WP:ALT.
• What does "…three as a featured one…" mean?
• I would change "…Platinum in the United Kingdom, and Gold in the United States. It earned a nomination for Best Alternative Music Album at the 50th Grammy Awards." to "…Platinum in the United Kingdom, Gold in the United States, and a nomination for Best Alternative Music Album at the 50th Grammy Awards." This eliminates the repetition of "earned", which sounds a bit clunky.
• Link Digital download in "Extended plays"; It doesn't matter that it's linked earlier in the article, every table should be thought of independently.
• The link to "Oh My God" in "Other appearances" doesn't link to the correct section.
• Are there better sources for references 36 and 37?
• Alphabetize "External links" and take out the period for her site.

Once these issues are fixed, I'll gladly support. Mm40 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all except one... Unfortunately there are very little references on the web that concern Lily Allen. I searched for hours and hours even for the chart sources and also the video directors ones. All I could find were blogs and a few suspicious sites... but I picked the ones that I found most reliable. I did my best. If Mister Sparky can find better sources, that would be great. :) --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I did some more research and found some better sources. I hope everything is good now. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting now; well done. Just so you know, the reviewer generally strikes his/her own comments once they see that they've been dealt with adequately.

Comments by JD554 (talk · contribs)

The year columns all look the same on my computer. I'll now support as this meets WP:WIAFL. --JD554 (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - nice article, nice lead. My only annoyance is that the dates in the references are in number format and, if it wasn't obvious that a source was retrieved on September 1st rather than January 9th, I wouldn't know whether they were in a British or American format. Please change them to long form: "September 1, 2009". -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with regard to date format, it was my understanding that as allen is british the dates in the article should be written in the international format day-month-year, not the american? Mister sparky (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the format used in the references is ISO and therefore the month always precedes the day; there is no ambiguity. However, I can change the format to DD Month YYYY if that is so desired. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that a passing reader wouldn't know if the dates were American or British. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The follow-up singles—"LDN", "Littlest Things" and "Alfie"—did not" What do you mean by "follow-up" singles?
  • By that I mean the singles that followed the release of "Smile".
• "Other singles include "Not Fair", another" When you say "other singles", are you referring to singles that were spawned only from It's Not Me, It's You, or all singles that Allen has released?
  • Since that paragraph was on the topic of It's Not Me, It's You, yes, only the singles from that album.
• Can you add a caption to the infobox image? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.

Sources

• Are there higher-quality sources than ChartStats and aCharts that can be used (have you checked print publications for example)? I won't push the issue too much if you can't. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, no other sources exist; but ChartStats is a very high quality source, it is published by the Official Charts Company; regarding aCharts, I only used it for Canada - I couldn't use Billboard (which officially publishes the Canadian Hot 100) because it doesn't archive the singles that haven't charted in the top 10. But aCharts is listed under WP:GOODCHARTS. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ChartStats have nothing to do with the Official Charts Company. ChartStats' about page[7] states the sources used for the charts data which makes it usable. However, better sources do exist such as British Hit Singles & Albums, The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles and Music Week being the best print sources. As far as online sources go, I would use the archives at The Official Chart Company's site itself: albums[8], singles[9]. However, they only go back so far and only cover the Top 40. --JD554 (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it would help, I could pop to a bookshop and get the page references from the hit singles and albums books (as well as checking, of course, that the info they give matches what's here!), but the latest editions only go up to 2007/8 (I forget which). For 2009 hits, this should do for "The Fear" and this for the album (and "The Fear" as well, in fact!), - 23/05/2009 This shows "Not Fair" at number 5 (although of course this doesn't technically prove that it didn't go on to peak higher, I don't know how you'd cite that.....) and - 05/09/2009 this shows "22" at number 14. That just leaves "Fuck You", for which I seriously doubt that any other source could be found given its lowly position.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd also question the reliability of aCharts, as I've seen some dud information on there (such as Portuguese singles chart data from 2007 when, according to the British Hit Singles book 2005, Portugal ceased publishing a singles chart the previous year). Couldn't you just ditch Canada? It's not like she's had huge success there, and it's not exactly a major world singles market. You could either just run with 9 charts (the MoS doesn't say a discography has to have exactly 10) or show the two Belgian charts separately....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, aCharts has a few bad archives: Italian, Portugese and Worldwide Single (see WP:BADCHARTS). But the rest are fine.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think this is the best place to discuss website reliability, although Chart Stats is very reliable, it was used in other FL as well: Duffy discography, Dido discography, Geri Halliwell discography etc.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't review that last FL you cited, but in the past I've let ChartStats slide a couple times because it is borderline reliable (still very marginal), and because I wasn't aware there were better sources. My point is that if there are better sources available, use them. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, fine, but the official charts doesn't archive all the songs and ChartsStats does, also putting all the peaks in one page (so I don't have to use a cite tag on every peak); and if the website says it cites TheOfficialCharts.com, the BBC and other reliable sources, then I don't see a problem.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, do you reckon this is a better source?--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chartstats is listed at WP:GOODCHARTS as a recommendation for use because it is very reliable. if it is only borderline reliable and not liked for use why is it recommended there? Mister sparky (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zobbel is fine. Just because ChartStats is listed at GOODCHARTS doesn't mean it's reliable; in the past, nominators have had trouble proving its reliability. Yes, it may cite its sources, but the tone of the main page implies that the site is maintained by one person, without apparent editorial oversight or backing by a major media company. That's why I consider it only marginally reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this puzzles me greatly, why on earth does WP:GOODCHARTS exist then if the sites it recommends are unreliable? makes no sense to me whatsoever. also, many admins and article reviewers won't allow the use of zobbel because they say it's extremely unreliable and i have noticed myself it does make many mistakes. there needs to be a concrete list of sites and sources that all reviewers agree on that editors can see and make use of. i was under the impression that was the whole point of WP:GOODCHARTS but i clearly must be wrong. all reviewers contradict each other and it's really hard to work on articles with this going on. sorry rant over :) Mister sparky (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Zobbel lists some other songs with very low UK charting positions which aren't currently in the article. If the site is deemed reliable then should these be included? Personally I'd say no, as I don't consider a chart peak of number 160-odd to be a "hit", but I just thought I'd throw it out there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a discography lists all the charting songs, whether they were hits or not is not important. I will not add them yet. Some editors think Zobbel is reliable, but most think that it's not. So, to play it safe, I won't get it involved.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Chart Stats I can live with, but I am not so convinced about acharts. Has ChrisTheDude been asked about getting the appropriate book references? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? aCharts is very reliable (except for the Italian, Portugal and worldwide chart archives). Look at all the FAs and FLs that cite aCharts: Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song), I Don't Remember, Irreplaceable, Hilary Duff discography, Duffy discography, 50 Cent discography etc. (the list can go on) and it's listed under WP:GOODCHARTS. I think that's enough proof. Also, I don't think book references are such a good idea. First of all, I can't verify them and neither can anyone who doesn't have them. And with Allen not being so popular, I doubt he could find anything on her. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, if you read what I wrote, I offered to go and look in the official books of British hit singles and albums, which list every hit single and album in the UK since the chart began, so what on earth gives you the impression that Lily Allen's chart UK positions would not be listed in books which list every hit single and album in the UK since the chart began?? Anyway, if Dabomb87 is happy with the use of ChartStats then I guess it's a moot point....... I'm also baffled as to why you'd describe Allen as "not....so popular" - she's had two number 1 singles and a number 1 album in the UK and is clearly one of the most popular and successful current artists in the country!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know about the "every artist" part; I don't have special music shops or books about chart history in my country... Over here, the music industry is not very important. I didn't mean "popular" as in commercially successful (not that she's a big hit outside the UK). I wrote two good articles about Allen's songs and finding reliable sources for them was like searching for Nessie; she's not like Madonna or Michael Jackson, for whom you can find the same information on five different sites, I had to search for hours, not a big ammount of people write about her. That's what I meant. Anyway, I hope the reliability of the sources aren't a problem anymore.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to see ChartStats and acharts replaced, but I won't let ChartStats hold up the FLC; however, I will not support as long as acharts is used. I strongly encourage Chris to dig up the book refs if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book refs I said I could get would only cover UK chart positions. Currently three of the aCharts refs (currently showing as refs 26, 27 and 28, I think) are being used to source chart positions in other countries as well, the book refs wouldn't cover that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←aCharts for the Canadian Hot 100 singles could be replaced by Billboard[10] (incidentally, neither Billboard or aCharts confirm that "Smile" charted in Canada); "Oh My God" chart positions could use ChartStats[11] and IRMA[12] (search for "Oh My God"); "Drivin' Me Wild" could use ChartStats[13]; and "Never Miss a Beat" could use ChartStats[14], Australian-charts.com[15] and Ultratop.be[16] - although aCharts says "Never Miss a Beat" charted in Ireland, the official IRMA website doesn't confirm this[17] (search for either "Kaiser Chiefs" or "Never Miss a Beat"). --JD554 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*hoping for the objections to end*. So, I replaced the aChart sources in the "as featured artist" sections. Regarding the Canadian peak for "Smile", acharts does say it peaked there. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aCharts may say it did, but Billboard who actually publish the chart say it didn't[18]. The new references you've added to the "featured artist" table should be next to the relevant chart position as that is what they are verifying. Also the Irish chart position for "Never Miss a Beat" isn't confirmed by IRMA, so I think this chart position should be removed. --JD554 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed aCharts for good from the article and done exactly as you said. Mu only worry is to how much of the Canadian Charts does Billboard actually archive ("Smile" and Alrtight, Still are from 2006). I also organized the refs form featured artist part. Anyway, now I'm sure it's all good (hopefully). --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my concerns have been addressed. Happy to support! Drewcifer (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment - my only quibble is that you refer to a shift in genre for her second album, but have not actually mentioned what genre(s) her first fell into (there's a general comment earlier about genres, but it seems to refer to her whole career rather than specifically her first album). If this can be resolved, I'll support - I'm fine with the sourcing as it stands -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolved, I mentioned it. --10:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • In that case I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A few discrepancies which may, or may not, need fixing.

• Belgium chart positions for Smile and The Fear doesn't match ref 13.
  • Fixed.
• France chart position for Fuck You doesn't match ref 15.
  • Fixed.
• Netherlands chart position for Smile, The Fear and Fuck You doesn't match ref 17.
  • Fixed.
• New Zealand chart position for Alright, Still doesn't match ref 18.
  • Fixed.
• I can't see Fuck You on ref 7, additional ref needed.
  • Added.
• I can't see Canadian Album Figures on ref 14. If they're not there then that column needs another ref.
  • Sorry about that, aCharts doesn't have the Canadian albums, I guess. I've put the Billboard link instead, it covers Canada too.
    • It does cover Canada but doesn't list Alright, Still. Is there a ref for that? --Jpeeling (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In the infobox there's 6 'other appearances', which don't appear to be covered by the list so should it be there?
  • Have no idea why it said 6, I put 3.

--Jpeeling (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good job of checking every source! I didn't look after peak numbers, I thought they were good, but I guess some vandals changed them. All good now.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [19].

---

Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk), Alansohn (talk), Geraldk

I am nominating this for featured list because after working on it today, I believe that another one of those boring county lists stands up. Also, I'm about to notify the other two editors with significant contributions to the page, Geraldk and Alansohn. Mm40 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second the nomination. I have just updated the 2008 census population estimates, to go along with details on founding, area, and sourced details of the derivation of each county's name. As it currently stands, this article compares favorably to other county lists that have reached featured list status, and I will be happy to collaborate on any changes needed to address any issues with the article needed to reach featured status. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I took a very quick look at the article (I still recall its previous FL candidacy) and I have one comment (not a thorough review yet). The paragraph about FIPS codes gives undue attention to a very peripheral detail. I suggest trimming it back along the lines of the shorter paragraph on FIPS in List of counties in Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Mm40 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It would help the article greatly if a summary of the functions, structure, history, and extent of power of county government in New Jersey is included in the introduction. If an article discussing New Jersey county government exists, it should be linked. If there is no such article, a more detailed discussion should probably be included. --Polaron | Talk 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. See if that's what you were looking for. Mm40 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Material was added to the article about the historic role of representation by county on the New Jersey Senate, a practice that was eliminated based on one man, one vote considerations in the 1960s. Alansohn (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The county maps lack alt text. For example, for Image:Map of New Jersey highlighting Atlantic County.svg I suggest using alt text something like "Located on the Atlantic Coast, just north of the state's southern tip", and similarly for the other county maps. You can specify the alt text with the "|Alt=" parameter that I just added to the {{Countyrow}} template. For the lead map, the current text doesn't help the visually impaired reader much (please see WP:ALT#Maps); I suggest something like "Larger counties are in the center and northwest, with smaller counties in the northeast; see the list for details." Eubulides (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Working on it. I was going to add it to the individual counties, but at the time, {{countyrow}} didn't have the alt text parameter. Mm40 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. For some reason, they aren't showing up in the ALT text reader in the toolbox. Mm40 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, the template uses a capital "A" instead of lowercase (which is what the parameter usually is). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for adding the alt text. I tweaked it by removing the not-that-useful "in red" from the alt text, as per WP:ALT#Maps. Eubulides (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The list looks good; I have just two questions:

• What makes http://www.familyhistory101.com/maps/nj_cf.html a reliable source?

  I guess it was used to introduce more sources to the article. I've replaced it with two references used earlier in the article. Mm40 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't there be an external ref link for the US Census citation (ref 1)? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, added. I was too lazy to find the correct link when I first used the reference ;) Mm40 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the counties' areas different from the source? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite sure. Fixed, in any regard. Mm40 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think the article is well put together. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The population column needs a reference and there's a number of discrepancies between the created column and ref 11. Also Gloucester has a different area on that ref. --Jpeeling (talk | contribs) 12:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm seeing wrong, the population column does have a reference. Mm40 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know now I need to check over a pre-made table before nominating at FLC. Fixed. Mm40 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also fixed. Mm40 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the population column needs a reference which actually backs up the data. --Jpeeling (talk | contribs) 09:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Another editor updated the population, but not the reference. Is the one I replaced with, current ref 13, OK? Mm40 (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [20].

---

Nominator(s): DiscreteIllusion (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar in style and make to Kronos Quartet discography. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Should "discography of classical pianist Lang Lang" be bolded?
  • "discography of the Kronos Quartet" was not bolded. Therefore, I did not bold "discography of classical pianist Lang Lang". DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You can take out the second sentence; it's evident from the first sentence what genre he performs.
  • Done. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In the "Notes" column, some entries have periods while others don't. Make this consistent.
  • Periods removed because sentences were not complete. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Includes traditional Chinese music and work by Central Philharmonic Society..." I would link traditional Chinese music instead of traditional music. Additionally, it should read "...work by the Central Philharmonic Society..."
  • Done. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on a search, other articles have "Io ci sarò" in place of "Io Ci Saro".
  • Replaced. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Current reference 3 (Videointerview mit Lang Lang) has a date of publication inconsistently formatted. Others have it as YYYY-MM-DD, but ref 3 has it as MM-DD-YY.
  • Fixed. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once these issues are fixed, I'll have no problem supporting. Mm40 (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Well done. Mm40 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Very nice work. I only have a few minor comments: Avoid putting citations in the middle of a sentence. Done. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Some formats say MP3, though I would recommend something like DD, since not all downloads come in MP3, and so by just saying MP3 you're ignoring other downloads in other formats. I have not seen the songs distributed as anything other than as MP3s. However, it has been changed, as it appears that most recent Discography FLs do use the term DD. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Don't bold the years. This is a function of the sortability. See my comment below on this. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I changed the formatting so that the bold does not appear anymore. I didn't see the point in using column header code. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. Had no idea that was what did it. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lang is Chinese, so dates should be in international format (2 January 2008) rather than American format (January 2, 2008. But these are predominantly the release dates in the US, not China. I can change this as necessary, but I'm incredibly confused by the dating format policy. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's really pretty simple: give the earliest release date, and give it in the format that represents the artist's place of origin, in this case Chinese (which would be the international format). If the Chinese versions of the albums came out first, then you should change the dates to those. Drewcifer (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Retaining the existing format says If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting either format, but am only stating the facts. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Interesting, didn't know about that. That said, I think the point of that guideline is to protect articles that have evolved a certain way over a long period of time. This list is less than a month old, so I don't think that would really apply. Drewcifer (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] You're mistaken. Lang Lang may be Chinese, but his releases certainly are not. I'm not even sure if his music is released in China and/or if the release dates are different. In any case, since he's predominantly an American performer, I still think the release dates should follow the American date format. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ok, as long as there's a rationale behind it. And as long as the formatting is in some way related to the artist himself, rather than the author's preference. Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Having sortable columns is unnecessary and largely unhelpful since it's already chronological, and the only option is alphabetical by album titles. Lang hasn't really released that much stuff, so an alphabetical sort option seems silly to me. The other list had them alphabetical. I don't see how it's silly; frankly, I don't understand why it isn't used. The added functionality isn't negatively affecting the list in any way. Additionally, I think other discography pages, particularly those who list the places that releases received on charts, should be sortable as well. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] An External links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The only items I could potentially add to an External Link section (that I can think of) would consist of links I've used as sources and links to Amazon to purchase the songs. What exactly do you suggest? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Most discogs have a link to Discogs.com and the artist's homepage. That is usually enough, though if you can think of something else go for it! Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Year columns are usually centered. Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] This cannot be done with a sortable table; additionally, all other discog lists that I've seen have the column so thin that they appear centered. I can do this if requested. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Generally speaking, the only good predecessor to this list is Kronos Quartet discography. All other discographies that are FLs are of a different format, since they list chart placements. It is for this reason that I'm more inclined to follow the format of Kronos Quartet discography instead of the more recent discography FLs. It was promoted on May 5, 2009, which is not that long ago. I would be surprised if the formatting has changed that severely in such a short period of time and would question why these changes occurred. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A little bit of a departure from most discographies, but given the subject matter, I'm okay with that. Everything else is clearly up to FL standards, so I'm happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "This CD was not released to North America" Needs a period at the end. Above, I was told to keep the period usage similar throughout. While I realize this sentence is a complete one, as opposed to the other notes (i.e. "Performed with Christoph Eschenbach and the Orchestre de Paris"), I don't see a way to solve both the necessity for a period and the parallelism. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Follow the same logic of image captions (see WP:MOS#Captions). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] That isn't nearly so simple as it appears; besides, a caption is not the same kind of thing. As Dabomb knows, cause we argued over this, my preference is to give phrases and sentences in tables a period, because it removes an inconsistency. If none of them have periods, we are offended--certainly complete sentences require periods. If only complete sentences have periods, then some table contents have periods and others don't, and that is esthetically displeasing (surely not to me alone). Besides, there is no grammatical reason why fragments shouldn't have periods--in prose they do: "124 was spiteful. Full of a baby's venom. The women in the house knew it and so did the children." Picked randomly off the shelf, these are the opening lines of Toni Morrison's Beloved.) Drmies (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Make sure that all the notes are referenced. For example, I could not find anything to support the claim that The Magic of Lang Lang contains "both live and studio recordings". Also, "including" (in the same note) implies that the compilation contains tracks besides live and studio recordings. Is this true? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Changed "including" to "containing". Nothing exactly can cite the "both live and studio recordings" except for the CD itself. All the pieces on it are taken from other CDs... How would I cite this? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• What makes http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=19938 reliable?
  • It's a magazine, or so it claims. Is it any different from the Stern source? How may I prove reliability? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a look at that site, and it looks pretty good. Since it's a commercial site editorial information is not so easy to come by, though, but the fact that you have to pay for it is kind of an endorsement. I'm going to try and look a little closer, but I'd accept it as a reliable source, yes. Is it different from Stern? I don't understand the question. I guess "of course" is the answer. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, look at this. These hits suggest to me that the magazine is treated as authoritative. I'll write their article when I have a moment. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think stern.de is a magazine. If so, you should format it as an italicized work rather than a website (Stern, no stern.de). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea. It's in German. I've italicized it though. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand: yes, it's the title of a magazine--one of the best-known magazines in Germany. I've added the proper wikilink. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list as it stands now meets, I would say, most of the formal criteria for an FL. However, I am not so thrilled with many of the references--I simply don't take that much stock in Amazon.com as a reliable source for listings etc. That's a matter of preference, I realize that, but I believe that an FL should be the best it could be and right now it isn't: it could offer more in the way of references. For instance, to verify that Christoph Eschenbach participates on Beethoven: Piano Concertos Nos. 1 & 4 you can certainly use the Amazon listing for a dry fact--but you could also browse around and find (more?) reliable and much more informative sources: [21], [22], [23], and [24], all found using a Google News search (such as this one, but I played around with the search terms a little bit to find some of them).

In my opinion, the best kind of list that Wikipedia can produce should have a little bit more in terms of references than just the bare bones of an Amazon or Rhapsody listing. I realize this is a lot of work: doing that that for Kronos took me a month or two, but I believe it is worth the effort. If I am too demanding, by all means pay no attention--but standards for an FL should be high, and since this discography is relatively short, it shouldn't take months.

Did I already say, "Great work, Discrete?" If I haven't, pardon me: great work, Discrete. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drmies wrt amazon; I won't raise a stink over it, but prefer that higher-quality sources are used. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmies. I've begun to replace references, but I'm almost positive that the article titles for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Dallas Morning News are incorrect. Would you happen to know where I could find the proper names for these articles? Google News is being decidedly unhelpful. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The Philadelphia Inquirer article, that is correct (though there was a subtitle). I have not yet found the Dallas article (did I add that??) though I'm working on it--for some papers, older archives are not complete in LexisNexis and other databases. I'll see what I can find later tonight, after bath time (not mine, mind you). Drmies (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "Reviews" article by Peter Dobrin? I cannot find that in the Inquirer, and I've looked everywhere. Where did you find that to begin with? A search in the Inquirer (through ProQuest) for "lang lang" and dobrin finds five articles, but they're all concert reviews. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, from a Google News Search. I'll go work on other references when I get a chance. And no, I added the Dallas article. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 05:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is so weird. I looked again at ProQuest, and they have 88 articles from that issue--none with that title, and none written by Dobrin. I also searched the issue of 25 March (the Sunday before), and nothing. Finally, I searched for the phrase "Works of Haydn, Rachmaninoff" in the entire PI archive, again nothing. Then I looked at all articles written by Dobrin in 2001, again nothing. I'm puzzled.

I'm going to have to assume that ProQuest does not list all of the articles of the older papers, esp. not if they're brief reviews--that's the only thing I can come up with. It's not very satisfactory, but I don't really want to doubt that Accessmylibrary database either. If you want to make sure you could order the paper article through your library... Drmies (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do this when I get a chance to; otherwise, are there any further outstanding issues with this list? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 04:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• There's seven albums in the Studio Album section but the lead and infobox state six. Is there a reason for this difference? --Jpeeling (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake; I found another album and added it, but forgot to increment the number. I've changed it to seven. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 16:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009 [25].

---

Nominator(s): —Chris! _ct 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) & User:SRE.K.A.L.24[reply]

I am nominating this with User:SRE.K.A.L.24 for featured list. We wrote this a while ago, but neither one of us managed to start the nom.—Chris! _ct

There is currently no reference that cites the first part of the second sentence, and the fourth sentence of the second paragraph. We will do our best to find one. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for the reference that mentioned that the Packers, the original Nuggets, the Hawks, and the Red Skins were playing in NBL before joining NBA, perhaps you can use this (page 87) and for the Jets here (page 306). — Martin tamb (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here (page 180) for the fourth sentence. — Martin tamb (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added them to the article.—Chris! _ct 00:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"and are also only defunct team" - missing "the". Also there's a link to the 1949–50 season which is piped simply as "1949", might be better to reword it to something like "at the start of the 1949–50 season". Other than that I couldn't find anything amiss, and will happily support once you've sorted out the minor sourcing issue you mention above. Oh, don't suppose an image is available at all, is it.....? Not a deal breaker, but would be nice....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Why is North America linked? Who doesn't know what that is?
• Note a: Change "which" to "who". Giants2008 (17–14) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything should be fixed now.—Chris! _ct 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Nice list on a creative topic. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just some minor comments, that might be useful addition to the prose.

• Is it worth mentioning that the Bullets won the title in 1948, when the league was still called BAA.
• Is it worth mentioning that the Stags, the Olympians, the Red Skins and the Rebels were successfully qualified for the playoff in every years they were active in the NBA.

You don't need to follow my comments if you think adding these infos are excessive. Other than that, I think the list already looks good. Great job. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add the second fact. The first is not that important imo.—Chris! _ct 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree, the second fact is more useful to show that these teams were successful before they became defunct.

Support — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is ".....were successfully qualified for the playoffs" a standard usage in American English? Because to me, in the UK, it sounds incredibly weird. Why not just ".....successfully qualified for the playoffs"? Oh, BTW, well done on finding an image to go in the article. As I mentioned above, this wasn't a deal breaker on my support, but it's really nice to see one added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it. The sentence does sound weird when I read it.—Chris! _ct 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• [26] says the Packers had a playoffs appearance. Also, table needs to mention championship-winning teams. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed—Chris! _ct 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please go back and check your math on everything. The Bullets had only 158 wins, not 161. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And 292 losses, not 303. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed—Chris! _ct 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009 [27].

---

Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Ricky Ponting is third on the list for most One Day International Cricket Centuries and second on the list for most Test cricket centuries. Although his career is not over, at least 80% is done and dusted. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "This list shows all instances in which the Australian cricketer" Featured lists no longer begin like this. See List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly for an example of a better start. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I've already commented here, why can't we have a "List of career achievements by cricketer? If we create that page and have all the achievements and records from the respective sections in the main article, then there'll be a chance to have a featured list and a featured article. I can see that you're one of the main contributors of Ricky Ponting's main article and I am sure you want to make that page as good as possible. By just skimming through that page, I notice that the last two sections just don't belong there because they're in a list format. I believe it will be beneficial to have a separate page for the achievements. Since having international centuries is an achievement, the info in this page should be a part of the aforementioned list.--Cheetah (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand what you mean, List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting is notable enough to have its own article. As we already have FL on List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly Aaroncrick (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am talking about the present. The two that you mentioned were promoted before and I don't really care per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I can also show you the List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag that was not promoted, by the way this was the latest similar nomination. --Cheetah (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest keeping List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting and then creating Achievements of Ricky Ponting for all other records like at Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar. Then List of Test awards for Ricky Ponting could be merged into Achievements of Ricky Ponting along with other jargon that was in the main Ricky Ponting article. It would be a lot easier to do this, as we then wouldn't have to change Tendulkar and Ganguly. Regards, Aaroncrick (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really like your suggestion. However, I'd like to see how the future list of achievements of Ricky Ponting looks first before making a decision. To me, when the main page for the cricketer, like Ricky Ponting, gets big, the achievements section should be separated first. If/when the achievements page becomes big, international cricket centuries can be separated. I just don't like skipping steps in the process. Also, I am a little worried that this page is too young. It was created within the last 24 hours and it is impossible to see whether this page passes the criterion #6, more specifically, its content does not change significantly from day to day.--Cheetah (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose criterion #6 hasn't really been tested yet as created the article in my userspace first. Although the content can't really change much except for a few tweaks. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Comma after Sachin Tendulkar in second paragraph. Thanks for your comments Giants2008. Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "played at Headingly Stadium, Leeds in 1997, where he...". "where" isn't designed to go after a year. Either change it to "when" or restrucutre the sentence. Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Just short of a century, he has been dismissed four times above the score of 90." Move the part before the comma to the end of the sentence? Removed "Just short of a century" as it virtually contradicts whats already said. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Melbourne Cricket Ground and Melbourne are linked excessively in the lead. Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Test century table: a couple rows have missing months. Good spot :) I spelt the months wrong in the template and it wasn't too happy. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The external links for reference publishers look slightly odd. Why not just have wikilinks like the others? I could do that although I only did this because List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar is formatted done like that. Thanks again Giants. Aaroncrick (talk) Giants2008 (17–14) 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Removed those external links from the lead. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support – Pending replacement of the links recently discovered to be dead. If I may offer a couple of additional comments, I would like to see ABC spelled out in ref 1, as that could be confusing for some (The US has an ABC of our own, for example). Also, I'm not sure why the first few Cricinfo references don't have publisher links when the many others do. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Ponting, among 38 centuries, has scored four double centuries and remained unbeaten on 26 occasions." As this article is about his centuries, to me "remained unbeaten on 26 occasions" refers to being not out in 26 of his 38 century innings. Schumi555 22:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed as it is not relevant. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 18 is out of date order, or the date is wrong. Hesperian 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, Number 18 where? Aaroncrick (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is in date order, except for the 18th entry, which says "31 January 1999" despite being amongst 2003 matches. I've highlighted it in red in the snippet below. Hesperian 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No.	Score	Against	Inn.	Test	Venue	H/A	Date	Result
16	206	West Indies	1	2	Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain	Away	19 April 2003	Won[1]
17	113	West Indies	1	3	Kensington Oval, Barbados	Away	1 May 2003	Won[2]
18	169	Zimbabwe	1	2	Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney	Home	31 January 1999	Lost[3]
19	242	India	1	2	Adelaide Oval, Adelaide	Home	12 December 2003	Lost[4]
20	257	India	1	3	Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne	Home	26 December 2003	Won[5]

Fixed thanks. Very clumsy indeed. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nice work Aaron! Some questions however:
  • Rules about photos "looking off the page"? Do they apply at FLC? Perhaps other commenters may have some advice. Personally I don't see the problem.
    • I have seen FAs with left-aligned images in the lead (Joseph Priestly). However, I agree it's not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo for the One-day section sits above the table while the photo for the Test section sits to the right. Is this a deliberate editing choice and if so, why? My immediate thought is that consistency would be preferred but there may be a valid reason for this approach.

• Not sure what you mean. Looks the same to me. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be just my browser and screen resolution, but the one-day photograph sits above the table, against the right hand side of the screen. This leaves an unsightly piece of white space above the table and to the left of the photograph. I am not sure you can do much about it, some other commenters may have some ideas. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looks fine to me. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, definitely my screen, I am looking at it on a wider screen now and the pictures are where they should be. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • There are different date formats used in the two tables, the Test table uses "8 July 2009" and the One day table uses "February 24, 2008". This should be consistent and I prefer the former for this list.

Not sure how to change this. Tendulkar and Ganguly are like this and if I try in doesn't like it. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The one-day table includes position in the batting order and the Test table does not. Is this by design?

That's how Tendulkar's was, but I'll do that later. Bit busy now.Aaroncrick (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that one, at least, is important. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The one-day table includes batting strike rate and the Test table does not. Is this by design? Is strike rate information available for Test match innings? Do you think that that the strike rate for Test innings is relevant or important. I would tend towards including it, if the information is consistently available.

Tendulkar's is like that. Didn't change it because thought there might have been a reason for it. Can do though. Aaroncrick (talk)

If you choose not to include it, that's fine too. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Have you given any thought to including innings length (jn minutes), especially for the Test table?

Yeah, but I probably wont. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I would think the length of the innings (either in minutes or balls) is an interesting and relevant piece of information. If you think otherwise, that's fine, I won't oppose over it. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otherwise, great work. Once these have been addressed let me know and I will take another look. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment needs a note/info that the century against Asia was for the World XI, not Austraila YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What symbol do I use? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters, but it has to be noted surely. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "In Test matches, Ponting has scored centuries against all the Test-cricket playing nations and has scored a century in at least one cricket ground of all Test-cricket playing nations" - won't saying just that he has scored hundreds in all Test countries cover both the things mentioned in this line ? Tintin 02:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a few dead links; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Argh Crcinfo links have just died. I'll wait a couple of day. Surely they will have to spring back to life? Aaroncrick (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All working again. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (reviewed version) - No major issues but there's an awful lot of 'minor' things which need fixing. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "has scored hundreds in all Test playing countries" He hasn't scored a century in Zimbabwe or Pakistan.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about the third sentence, mentioning his retirement from T20I is fine but mentioning the IPL in an list on international centuries seems unnecessary.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "He has been dismissed four times above the score of 90" Wrong even if you interpret you mean nineties.
• "both of which are Australian records." True, but could do with a ref(s) as it's not backed up by the list.

• done. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "He has scored 13 centuries in home grounds" 12 according to the table.

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead mentions that Melbourne Cricket Ground is in Melbourne three times when I'm not sure you need to say it at all.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Seven of these centuries were hit at the Melbourne Cricket Ground" 'these' suggests you're talking about away/neutral venues as that's the last thing mentioned.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead, which lends largely from Sachin Tendulkar's article, seems a bit bland and could do with some uniqueness to make it more engaging. It may be worth mentioning the century in a WC final, the World XI century or scoring two centuries in a Test on three occasions - a joint record. You could mention the circumstances of his highest score in ODIs, you cover it in less words than his first ODI century when it's in fact one of the most memorable ODIs in history.

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

• Innings number needs fixing, first seven Test centuries use match innings number (1-4), the rest is Australia innings number (1-2). I'd prefer 1-4s as it provides more information to the reader and would be consistent with the ODI list, which would be all 1s if you used Australia innings number throughout.
• Test number (within the series) incorrect for century numbers 1, 11, 12, 31, 33 and 37.

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Match results incorrect for Test century numbers 18 and 32.

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Test century numbers 11 and 12 were neutral grounds.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Test century number 14 and ODI century number 5 have wrong date.

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Scores for Test century number 9 and ODIs 15 and 24 need fixing.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strike rate incorrect for ODI century 2.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Key above the table would make more sense.

• Yep Aaroncrick (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking 'Asian XI' to List of Asian XI ODI cricketers might be better than nothing.

• Ok Aaroncrick (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Grounds - wrong Old Trafford, wrong Headingley, wrong Warner Park, Kingstown?? Kensington Oval in two different locations, 13th Test century should have a Brisbane to be consistent with the rest. The tables are sortable so all grounds should probably be linked.

• Done, although what's wrong with Kensington Oval? Links to the correct one. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant it's listed as Bridgetown for one century and Barbados for the other, best to be consistent. --Jpeeling (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Refs 4, 5, 7 and 8 need fixing.

• Done, but might need to be tweaked a bit... Aaroncrick (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 7 could be titled better/consistent with other refs.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 9, 10, 20, 27, 39, 42, 58 don't link to where they should.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor quibble but reference titles have incorrect dates for ref numbers 13, 16, 25, 29, 38, 48, 51.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other

• Alt text could be improved, in the second image they're not playing cricket they're facing each other/talking. On the third image you assume the person will know what an Australian ODI uniform looks like.
• Caption in second image could link Warne and 2006-07 Ashes, there needs to be a ref for the 576 runs scored. Third caption date differs from table.

• Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jpeeling (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the WC final in 2003 shoudl be mentioned. Isn't that the highest score in a WC F ?? Also the 145 against Zim in 1998 equaled the Aus record at the time I think YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems to meet the FL criteria, assuming that Jpeeling's concerns are resolved satisfactorily. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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