Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2010

• Comprehensiveness: Obviously this can never be a complete list, so I would defer to the three experts on this point.
• Structure: Very good.
• Style: I still question whether a better image could be found, but it's certainly not a deal breaker.
• Stability: Whether or not the content of this can be considered stable will largely depend on the outcome of this discussion. Although long-winded, the previous discussion and editing pattern was constructive, and there is no reason to assume that won't continue.
• Summary: I'll check that the references back up the prose, and do a little bit of random sampling for factual accuracy in the tables. Assuming no problems there I'm close to supporting, but will wait until there is consensus from the experts that the list is as comprehensive as can reasonably be expected. --WFC-- 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this image (or a more readable version) might be a better lead image than the current one. Two of the four eruptions on the left are in our list.; Mt St Helens is the smallest of the three on the right. --Avenue (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ResMar has put it in, and I've replaced it with a more readable version (at full size). --Avenue (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some abbreviations in the volcano/eruption column such as "P2O5", "PAV F",... that should be explained in a footnote or so.

Pfft, geologists think up all the wierdest names for strata identification and the like. Not sure what to do with it, exactly. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I figured out that P2O5 is Phosphorus pentoxide. If it is too weird, it is fine with me to leave it out. However, I am not happy with the first tables' columns because it is not always clear which names refer to a volcano and which to an eruption. Sometimes there are "/" separating the two, but not always. This should be made more clear. bamse (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into it. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you changed anything. For entries that don't have a "/", I am still not sure if it is a volcano or an eruption. Also, what is the difference between long and short dash ("Guarapuava —Ventura" vs. "Sana'a Ignimbrite – Tephra 2W63" for instance)? bamse (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the weird prenames (not needed anyway, in hidden if you want it), and also standardized the dashes and "/" to —. Cheers, ResMar 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the "Date" column be renamed to "Age"?

Done. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorting of the date columns does not work.

It's geology: numbers go from 20,000 to 200 million. Sorting almost never works automatically. Will add keys soon. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added sortkeys to the biggest concern, explosive eruptions ages. Will add them to the effusive eruptions list and work out locations later. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works now, thanks. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some inconsistency in the "Location" entries. Sometimes the state/country is mentioned and sometimes not. Please make it uniform. It would be more useful if this column sorted as "Country-name Sublocation-name" instead of "Sublocatoin-name Country-name".

Will look into it. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest difficulty I see with making the "Location" entries uniform is that we know the location of some eruptions much better than others. For some, the caldera is identified, but for others, we just have a vast expanse of tuff, spread over two continents and several countries. I don't see a nice way to express this uniformly. --Avenue (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unify the heading of the 4th column among the three tables.

Done. Note the thousands/millions scale difference between the first/second and third lists. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 4th column sorting is broken (at least) in the third table.

That's cause someone wrote "at least" there :) ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we should write "at least" (or some equivalent) if that's what the cited source says. Getting our table to sort nicely is a secondary issue. --Avenue (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing, see above. Largely a non-issue now but needs some tweaking. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not sort (as it seems to be the case at the moment), make the column "unsortable" like the "Notes" and "Refs" columns not to give the wrong impression of sortability. bamse (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now sorting okay. --Avenue (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would prefer to see you explain what a volcanic eruption was before you tell me facts and figures about ash produced etc.

I've added a sentence along these lines. --Avenue (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lead image is designed to turn people off. No offence but I would like to see a brilliant eruption photo here instead.

Releveant photographs are located in the sections below. The image provides extremely important context supporting the text. Also, look at Mt. St. Helens and see how tiny it was =) ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image would not encourage me to read on. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a photo of Pinatubo's 1991 eruption, the biggest eruption that we have a photo of. I think the diagram is very informative, and is worth keeping, but I agree it's probably not the best lead image for a general audience. It's colours are a bit muted, too, which doesn't help. I'll have a go at punching it up soon. --Avenue (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram now replaced with darkened version. --Avenue (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I know ejecta leads to a dab which you probably can't do much about, but perhaps include a note to clarify what type of "ejecta" you're talking about.

In the general sense. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noted that? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replaced "ejecta" with "tephra" (which is briefly defined earlier). --Avenue (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " In comparison, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens produced only 1 km3 (0.2 cu mi) of material,[4] and the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, the largest eruption in recent history, produced 160 km3 (38 cu mi) of volcanic deposits." while these comparisons are (I'm sure) fascinating, you don't go anyway to explaining their relevance to (me) a non-expert.

As a comparison to the massive eruptive scales below? It's a bad misconception that the Mt. St. Helens eruption was a large one; it was actually very small (not small small, but small). 1 km³ of material is pretty easy to imagine in ones head; the bigger figures (millions of km³!) are not =) ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text a bit to try to make the comparison clearer. --Avenue (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your lead caption mentions "supereruption" - it's unclear what this is, from both the image or the list.

Avenue removed it. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it didn't seem to add enough to be worth explaining. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would prefer to see "Age" with same d.p. and right-aligned so it's easy to compare row to row.

d.p.? ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal places. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"~132.000" does not read well at all. Alignment would be good, but not at this cost. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've managed to get the ages to align fairly well without adding zeroes (to avoid showing spurious precision). --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Volume col, might as well just have the biggest as 8,600 and smallest as 1,000 to prevent the ugly lack of sig fig throughout the column. Plus it makes the col title a little neater.

Done. Please note however that the other two are in Ma, so it would probably be best not to change them to avoid confusion. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the LIPs are measured in millions of km³. I've changed the volumes in effusive eruptions list to km³ for consistency with the explosive eruptions list. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "1.509 [n 4]" no space between number and note please.

Done. ResMar 01:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " (map in German)" - perhaps link to German language?

Done. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 27: is " 8713–1732" correct?

Fixed. ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 35 page range needs an en-dash.

Em, it is an en-dash...? ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retrieval dates need to be consistently formatted, either DMY or ISO...

Done. Things had sprung up since my last ref check :) ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 52 has pp50–9 while other page ranges repeat the full page number, e.g. 343–364, so 52 should pp50–59. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That actually referred to paper 50-9 (i.e. the 9th paper in session 50), not a page range. I've changed the citation to use {{cite conference}} instead, and to give the actual page number. --Avenue (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "he 1992 All-American class featured 3 Major League Baseball All-Stars, 2 Olympians, one Major League Baseball record holder and a 2-time World Series champion" -MOSNUM = three, two, one, two-time...
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You have a template whose main article doesn't exist. This is borderline grounds for TFD'ing the template.
  • I was just going to change the link to go to college baseball and All-American, but I created an article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Accomplishment section seems a little weak given a number of these guys seem to have awards.
  • Do you want the last paragraph of the WP:LEAD in the accomplishments section? Do you want me to talk about other collegiate awards such as Golden Spikes Award , Rotary Smith Award], College World Series Most Outstanding Player and Dick Howser Trophy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm saying that your "Notes" column pretty much relates to accomplishments of the various players. These could be discussed, expanded upon so the prose doesn't have a weak feel about it (which, in my opinion, it does). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have moved the paragraph into the accomplishments section. The only other thing I could really do to beef it up is add the four awards above when relevant. I will do so now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Various organizations selected All-American lists of the best players for the 1991 NCAA Division I college baseball season." Is this left-over form the 1991 list?

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are only the Division I players, right? Perhaps should be made more explicit.

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The refs had some inconsistent date formatting; I just fixed it with the script.

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like pretty good work, all things considered. Courcelles 07:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In Accomplishments, I see multiple misspellings of Jason Varitek's last name as Veritek (three in the section's first paragraph).
  • Thanks--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hammonds led the National League in fielding with 1.000 fielding percentage...". Add "a" before the number.
  • Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comma needed for the number in "1000 hits".
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Both Chris Roberts and McConnell both played Baseball at the 1992 Summer Olympics." The struck word is an unnecessary repeat, and Baseball should be lower-case.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also de-capitalize Champion in "World Series Champion".
  • thanks.
• The general source and reference 6 (the same link) should have PDF indications. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"1952 when Percy Dickins from NME" NME? Help for the non music folks?

Done (although NME is the name of the wiki page) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the green cells have another symbol?

They have a better equivalent, each green cell has an explatory footnote. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Artists Frankie Laine, Guy Mitchell and Elvis Presley were the most successful act of the decade" Acts, rather? Done

"Each had four number-ones." Combine with prior sentence? Done

Note 1; "One should note that," Why not just get on with noting the fact, without this awkward intro? Done

Page for ref 4? Done

Courcelles 21:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I believe I've addressed each item. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disc nor Melody Maker are linked in the lead, why not? If they're not notable enough for a link then should their "opinion" even be considered here?
  • Ah yes, that is because I was hoping to have "...list of number one" pages for them like Record Mirror. Now fixed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "successful artists of the decade having" we've moved into the 60s in the previous para, so perhaps "of the 1950s having"?
• Frankie Lane is overlinked in the lead. Done
• "for the most (non-consecutive) weeks " why is non-consec in parentheses?
  • Because if someone asked for the record for the most weeks it would be that, however it isn't the record for the most consecutive weeks (Bryan Adams). Putting it directly as part o the sentence may read like there is something that has more consecutive weeks. I could remove the parenthesis material all together I suppose,would that be better? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's no big deal for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand the need for repeated headings throughout the table, but a single line "section" is odd when you re-order the table. No real advice here, just an observation.
• Martino's caption - needs 9->nine and a full stop. Done
• Bill Haley's caption needs a full stop. Done
• Ditto Cliff Richard. Done
• Green singles, while they have [nb], this isn't in the key so you may fall foul of WP:ACCESS. Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Believe I've addressed them all. As for the caption full stops I thought I'd finally cracked the "sentence" vs "extended nominal groups" distinction. Obviously not! (PS. I hope you light the padding on the footnote numbers to keep them in the centre, I was quite proud of that). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "spread over almost 30 years" (personal thing) would prefer "spanning almost 30 years"
• "unbroadcast" whoa, odd word. Do you mean "unbroadcasted"? Either way, it's ugly.
• "the Black Adder series" this links to "The Black Adder" so be accurate.
• "Throughout the rest of the 1980s, ..." this is the first mention of any date at all. Perhaps you need to add a date for his debut, so this makes more sense?
• "TV series" would prefer "television series".
• Why doesn't Twenty-One have an article?
• " role of prime minister " maybe reinforce it was British Prime Minister (there are many worldwide, after all).
• "1 episode"->"One episode". Plenty of these.
• Split references into "specific" and "general" so you don't have a nasty juxtaposition of bullet points and auto-numbered refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to The Rambling Man

• "spread over almost 30 years" (personal thing) would prefer "spanning almost 30 years"
  • That sounds better, so I've changed it
• "unbroadcast" whoa, odd word. Do you mean "unbroadcasted"? Either way, it's ugly.
  • To me, having the prefix un- and the suffix -ed looks even uglier(!) so I've changed it to "never-broadcasted".
• "the Black Adder series" this links to "The Black Adder" so be accurate.
  • Dropping the article from the title is grammatically accurate here (consider "when the The Black Adder series was commissioned...")
• "Throughout the rest of the 1980s, ..." this is the first mention of any date at all. Perhaps you need to add a date for his debut, so this makes more sense?
  • Yes, I've added the date of the Black Adder pilot.
• "TV series" would prefer "television series".
  • Good spot! I tend to use "television series" on first instance then "TV series" thereafter but it seems "television series" didn't appear at all here.
• Why doesn't Twenty-One have an article?
  • I don't know.
• " role of prime minister " maybe reinforce it was British Prime Minister (there are many worldwide, after all).
  • Added
• Blank cells are a no-no for me. Put something in there, even if it's a note.
  • Can you suggest anything to go in there?
• "1 episode"->"One episode". Plenty of these.
  • Please see point one of WP:ORDINAL
• Split references into "specific" and "general" so you don't have a nasty juxtaposition of bullet points and auto-numbered refs.
  • I've split the section but not with "specific" and "general", which is something that doesn't appear in any mainstream citation style.

Thanks for your comments, TRM! Bradley0110 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blank cells are a no-no for me. Put something in there, even if it's a note.
  • Can you suggest anything to go in there?
    • If you don't know what role he played, perhaps a "Unknown" with a note. For "no description", perhaps an em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for getting back so fast. I've filled out the description boxes in the film section (I'm lost for a reason for why I hadn't done it before). Regarding the empty theatre boxes, putting "Unknown" would be factually inaccurate, since the roles and directors are known by someone, just not me. I've added the comment "Some data relating to Bathurst's early theatrical career are not held in published works, though may exist in individual theatre company archives." but I don't know if this sounds a bit wishy-washy to others. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that's much better for me, let's see how everyone else finds it. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having seen all these lists, beginning to wonder if "World Science Fiction Society" is notable enough for an article now? After all, why have a bunch of FLs about awards given by a non-notable organisation?
  • FYI: World Science Fiction Society redirects to Worldcon. Ironically, the Worldcon convention and the Hugo Award are probably more notible than the society which holds the convention and presents the award. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "and which has published four " seems an odd tense to me. But I am tired. Should it be "which had published four" (as the previous clause said "was given each year..")
• "These five works on the ballot are the five most-nominated " do you absolutely need to repeat "five" here?
• "Note that Thrust and Quantum are the same magazine" a bit picky but couldn't you expand on this a touch to say one became the other, or describe why two names are given to one publication?
• Ref 11 needs an en-dash for the page range.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done. --PresN 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " Five players taken in the first round have been shortstops, with two each taken at first base, third base, and the outfield." call me British but that reads oddly to me as it kind-of implies two outfielders as well. It'd be clearer as "two each at first base and third base, and one in the outfield" (and this way you avoid repeating "taken" as well).
  • It's supposed to imply that- they have taken two Outfielders. (2003 and 2009)
    • Again, forgive me, but that reads still as if you have two each at first base, third base and the outfield, which adds to six... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we're having a US/UK problem here. There have been two first basemen, two third basemen, and two outfielders. What you're saying it reads like is what it is supposed to read like. The five shortstops are entirely separate. Courcelles 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahah, so the Five and the subsequent two, two, two are independent of one another. It's confusing to a non-baseball expert. Perhaps a minor re-write so it couldn't imply (to us non-experts) that the first clause is related to the second (and following)? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aaah, now we're getting somewhere. Read it now. Courcelles 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bingo! The joys of "English"! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You have "Phoenix, Arizona" all linked up to just Phoenix, and then you need to link Arizona some time later. This seems a little incongruous to me.
  • Fixed. Started because our article on the city is at Phoenix, Arizona, but it didn't work that well.
• "Sergio Santos (2002) was drafted as a shortstop, but later played as a pitcher." forgive my ignorance but I couldn't easily see where this is sourced.
  • Ref added
• Ref 3 has a publication date (12/01/08), could be added.
  • Wow, not the thing I'm used to missing.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. Courcelles 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The term 'National Treasure' has been used in Japan to denote cultural properties since 1897,^[1]" - [1] does not appear to back that statement.

• Added another reference which is more clear in this respect.

• "spanning the late Kofun to the Muromachi period" - Missing a from after spanning?

• Fixed by Truthkeeper88.

• "museums or held in privately." - Strike the in?

• Fixed by Truthkeeper88.

Goodraise 03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I think all have been addressed. bamse (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the Yayoi period from about 300 BC to 300 AD, metal casting, and with it the ability to manufacture iron tools and weapons such as knives, axes, swords or spears, was introduced to Japan from Korea and China. Shortly thereafter, Chinese, Korean, and eventually Japanese swordsmiths produced ironwork locally." - This passage confuses me a bit. They acquired the ability to cast iron during the Yayoi period, but they started using it only "shortly thereafter"?

• I checked the sources again and the correct order of events is: first introduction of iron tools and weapons, then local production of these. I corrected the sentence accordingly. bamse (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the Yayoi period from about 300 BC to 300 AD, iron tools and weapons such as knives, axes, swords or spears, were introduced to Japan from Korea and China. Shortly thereafter, Chinese, Korean, and eventually Japanese swordsmiths produced ironwork locally." - Does "thereafter" refer to the Yayoi period or to the introduction of the tools and weapons? Goodraise 05:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded: "thereafter"->"after the introduction". bamse (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reworded again to read: "Shortly after this event...", which is non-ambiguous and sounds better to me. bamse (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Excavated swords are typically 60–70 cm (24–28 in) long." - Could you be more specific on what swords this is referring to?

• This refers to the swords discovered in tumuli (mentioned in the preceding sentence). Since none of the national treasure swords in this list have been excavated from tumuli, this sentence is not very important. If you think that it is confusing, I'll remove it. It is mainly here for comparison. (Note that four of the five ancient swords in this list fall into that length interval. Though these four have not been excavated, they have a religious purpose just like the tumuli swords.) bamse (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "This refers to the swords discovered in tumuli (mentioned in the preceding sentence)." - That's not obvious. If the information is kept, this needs to be made more clear. Goodraise 05:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "this sentence is not very important" - If it isn't important, then it should not be in the lead. Perhaps you could put it somewhere else? Goodraise 05:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I found the value for comparison too low and got rid of the sentence. bamse (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodraise 19:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's permissible (and encouraged here) to make the lead image bigger.

• Done. Big enough or too big? bamse (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In Safari, the tables in the Statistics section, left one has "National Treasures" left justified, while right-hand one has "National Treasures" right justified. Looks odd.

• Fixed (both left-aligned now). bamse (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "(except for Remarks and Design and material) " ok, I see Remarks, but not "Design and material"

• It appears in the sword mounting table. Do you think this requires a footnote or inline explanation? bamse (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't see that, I'm okay with the note as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some Usage notes end in a full stop. Others don't. Any reason?

• No reason and therefore fixed. bamse (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Be aware of WP:ACCESS when you say that some swords are noted in yellow or green.

• Not sure what your objection is. Is it (i) the use of color at all, or (ii) the use of words to refer to colors (better to use a legend)? I ran the page through vischeck and the table colors were not a problem, i.e. they could be distinguished in any of the three color vision simulations. bamse (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also asked about it here. bamse (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a problem, because anyone who cannot see those colours (screen reader/text-only browser/colour-blind) does not receive the information intended. The simplest solution that occurs to me is to add: "(meibutsu)" to the yellow cells; "(juttetsu)" to the green cells; "(goban kaji)" to the blue cells. A legend won't help the visually-impaired if the colour is the only way that the relevant cell is identified. You could try a group note (<ref group="...) in each cell and link it to an explanation, but I still think a little extra text in each cell is a cleaner solution. --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a non-color key (†, *, ‡) to the tables which makes it understandable for anybody who cannot see colors. I went with the short key solution instead of the full-text solution suggested by RexxS, because I think that this list already is quite massive and I don't want to add much more text to it. This seems to be a common practice in other featured and not-featured lists as well. bamse (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. We should just check the characters (†, ‡) are red correctly by a modern screen reader. I suggest to show those signs to user:Graham87 and ask him if his fairly recent version of JAWS (screen reader) get it right or read it as a question mark. We never know with those unicode characters. Regards, Dodoïste (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on his feedback, I changed the daggers to ^, #. bamse (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Bamse. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you just check that saying "marked in red" in a map also meets WP:ACCESS?

• Added alt-text to the image to make it more accessible. Also the information encoded in the red color (i.e. which provinces are associated with the five traditions) is present in the prose just next to the image. Is this sufficient? I don't mind changing the color or otherwise modifying the map, but don't know how to find out if it is difficult to read for some people. bamse (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The alt-text taken together with the caption is what will be reported by a screen reader (alternative text). In this case, "Centers of sword production were located in central and western Japan. The provinces associated with the five traditions: Yamato, Bizen, Yamashiro, Mino and Sagami are located in central Japan. Centers of sword production during the old sword (kotō) period. Provinces related to the Five Traditions are marked in red." would at least be understandable. It is unlikely that all of the information available in a map can be communicated textually, but the rest of the article goes into detail, so even without images, a reader will have lost relatively little information. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Curvature: 2.7 cm (1.1 in)" vs "Curvature: 2.9 cm (1.1 in)" one of these must be incorrect. Check all.
  • Actually, rounding to one significant digit, this is right. 2.7 cm is 1.0629 in, 2.9 cm is 1.1417 in. Both round to 1.1; so it would be worth adding another significant digit to the conversion if the template will do so. Courcelles 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe that's why when you get to such small measurements it should be to more than 1 d.p... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know. (The nominator needs to use to sigfig parameter of the convert template to solve this, because it which does look odd.) Courcelles 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly I don't know how to deal with this. To me it is natural to have one significant digit for both cm and in and I don't have a problem with this issue. I am happy to add "sigfig", but to which of the many lengths should I add it? bamse (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • My issue comes from the idea that you have at least three different metric measures than translate to one imperial measure. How that's resolved is up to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is due to the fact that an inch is larger than a cm (and that there is some weird/non-power-of-ten conversion factor between the two). My problem with providing additional digits is the following. The sources provide lengths in "cm" with one digit which means that these lengths have a precision of ±0.05cm. If I provided an inch-length with two digits, such as "1.14 in.", a precision of ±0.005 in (±0.01cm) would be implied, i.e., the precision would have increased miraculously just by using mathematics (and not a better ruler). Let me know if this answer satisfies you. If not I'll add "sigfig". bamse (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some notes start with capital letters, some don't. Any reason?

• No reason and therefore fixed. bamse (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its overall length is 109 (cm?)." not sure you need that ? link, and there appear to be several others.

• Fixed two occurences (hopefully all). bamse (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jargon 10 vs 11, why the difference in italics/bold for same words?

• Typo. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for 35 and 37.

• Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Several Japanese sources which don't have language=Japanese such as 49 and 50. Check all.

• Checked and fixed all (quite a lot). bamse (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. I fixed the obvious stuff but am still unsure on what to do about "ACCESS" and cm->in. I'd be happy if you could steer me in the right direction. bamse (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a key (see above) to address the color/access problem. bamse (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tachi occurs in the lead a few times, but is linked only the second time used. How about linking only the first time used.

• Good question! The reason for this linking is, that (in the lead) the second (and later) "tachi" are different to the first "tachi". The second and later tachi are the same as described in the tachi article. The first tachi does not have a wikipedia article yet, but should be covered in the chokutō article. Instead of linking the first tachi, I added a footnote: These tachi of the ancient sword (jokotō) period should not be confused with later tachi of the old sword (kotō) period. The former, spelled 大刀, are Chinese style straight chokutō, while the latter, spelled 太刀, are curved blades., to explain this. If you want to know more about these tachi, have a look at Talk:Chokutō#Same as tachi (大刀)?, but (warning) it might be confusing. bamse (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very thorough explanation, thank you :) Jujutacular ^talk 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "In fact one of the Imperial Regalia of Japan is a sword" - perhaps a comma after 'in fact'?

• Added comma. bamse (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutacular ^talk 14:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. I replied to both of your comments. bamse (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't mentioned this before, but wikilinking "draft" twice within a couple of sentences to different articles is a little odd.

Removed

• I have no idea what an "underclassman" is.

Linked to Wikitionary

• "comprising 211 players selected." maybe that's common USEng, but in my Queen's English, I'd prefer "comprising the selection of 211 players."

Fixed

• "for 13 seasons and won 5 Italian league titles and 2 Euroleague titles." would prefer "for thirteen seasons and won five ... and two ..."

Spelled out except 13. Somewhere on WP:MOSNUM says number larger than 10 doesn't need to spelled out.

• "which concluded with an induction to t" looked to me like he finished in 1995 and was inducted in 2001, so the "concluded" thing is a little strange for me.

Removed

• What exactly is the information in parentheses?

The player trade info or the class level in college.—Chris!_c/t 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After retiring as a player, he went on to coach the Chicago Bulls, the Detroit Pistons and the Washington Wizards." Citation?

"He has been selected to three ABA All-Star Games and two NBA All-Star Games." Present tense? Is there any chance he is ever selected to any more?

"He played there for 13 seasons and won five Italian league titles and two Euroleague titles. After retiring as a player, he coached Olimpia Milano and Benetton Treviso, leading the latter to 2 Italian league titles." MOSNUM problems here. All of these numbers have the same "quality"; when comparing like to like, you ignore the rule of 10 and make everything consistent into either words or numerals.

"the Major League Baseball (MLB)" "in the MLB." Read those aloud, the "the"'s there aren't needed.

Three pictures, three somewhat boring captions. Can you make them more interesting?

Publisher and location for refs 4, 39, and 41.

Courcelles 04:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Still thinking about alternative captions, any suggestion? — Martin tamb (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for two List of NBA All-Stars links in consecutive sentences.
• Euroleague is also overlinked in the lead.
• Remove "the" in front of Major League Baseball (occurs twice by Winfield). Nobody refers to it that way. On the other hand, "and ABA" could use "the".
• Note 1: "and Sonic's second-round pick as compensations." "Sonic's" → "the Sonics'" Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is still missing "the"; without it, the grammar is not optimal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that, sorry. Fixed. — Martin tamb (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "... at the first five Olympics...";
    • Done.
  • "At the 1980 Moscow Olympics..." — Add a comma after "Olympics";
    • Done.
  • "United States led boycott" — Isn't an hyphen supposed to appear between "United States" and "led"?
    • Done.
  • "...the Soviet Union and some of her allies..." — Is "her" the most appropriate pronoun?
    • Oh, you're right, changed.
  • "... for the 1972 Munich or the 1976 Montreal Games." — "or" or "and"? They missed both Games, right?
    • They did miss both. Logically, either works, but I agree 'and' is clearer, so changed.
  • "In the women's competition in Barcelona, the Unified Team won the silver medal., and Cuba won their first of three consecutive gold medals." — No need to mention Barcelona as you just finished the previous sentence with it.
    • Doh. Should have seen that one. Fixed. Courcelles 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A nation is permitted to enter..." — NOC is more correct;
    • Done.
  • I see to many "At the .... Summer Olympics..." in succession. Could you avoid this?
    • Got rid of two of them by some rearrangement (1996 and 2000 were the ones that went away).
      • Actually, the thing that bugs me is the "At the..." in successive sentences. But it's not this will obstruct my support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This tied the former Soviet Union's record..." — This matched? This equalled?
    • Equalled works well.
  • "There are two athletes with four medals each in volleyball." — Don't know why but this doesn't sound very "encyclopedic"... Maybe "Two athletes have each won four medals in volleyball.". Also, "Cuban player Ana Fernández has won four medals, three golds and one bronze,...";
    • It was the old "anything you have to do to avoid starting a sentence with a number" thing. Didn't work that well, did it? Fixed.
  • "Five athletes have won three gold medals: four of them were members of the Cuban..." — Mind the semicolon replacemente with a colon;
    • Done
  • "... either sex..." — gender;
    • Done
  • "... with one medal of each color." — Mind the American English "color" to be consistent with "program";
    • Done the removals. Since all the dates and a couple of other things are Commonwealth style, changing program to programme was easier.
      • Good call. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On some occasions you link an NOC to the team page at specific Games, while in others you don't. Be consistent;
    • Only two were linked, and linking all countries would have make a blue mess, so I just unlinked those two. The links appear in the table anyway.
      • Good call #2. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption on Lioubov Kılıç's image should not end with a period, whereas Heather Brown's should;
    • Fixed
  • Innocent question: anything against a ToC such as the one in List of Olympic medalists in luge?
    • Stylistic choice, It saves some vertical space, but has to be manually maintained, and makes an already long/template heavy list 500 characters and a dozen templates longer.
  • "Athletes who have won at least three total medals, at least one of which was a gold medal,...".
    • Gone
• Thanks for the review! Courcelles 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Always a little nervous that the lead sentence could imply that volleyball is only played at the Olympics. Perhaps, "one of the sports" played at the Olympics?
  • Done.
• You go into the Soviet Union medalling at the first five, and then onto China winning first women's gold, perhaps mention (before Soviet Union) who won the first men's gold, and then mention the Soviet Union's ongoing success? (reading on, it turns out the soviet men won the gold in the first edition, so maybe just make that clear?)
  • Done.
• Actually, that first para is a bit of a factoid-festival with reasonably unrelated short sentences fired at me.
  • Yeah, that first paragraph was too long. Did some rearranging avoiding of short sentences.
• Suggest linking Unified team in the lead.
  • Done.
• "the IOC voted to add beach" instead of repeating IOC, could you say "the Committee"?
  • Done.
• programme vs program - be consistent.
  • Done.
• Big gap before the last para of the lead.
  • Extra line break that came in somewhere removed.
• "Cuban player Ana Fernández has" no need for player here.
  • Removed
• "while Soviet athlete Inna Ryskal has" ditto for athlete.
  • Removed
• "later coached the Polish national team.[16]" clarify it was the men's team.
  • Done.
• Sadatoshi Sugahara's article spells his name as Sadatoshi Sugawara.
  • And the IOC database says Sadatoshi Sugahara.
• Kimberley Ruddins seems to be missing an E from her first name (according to the redirect, but then not according to the intro!)
  • The IOC database gives her name as Kimberly Grace Ruddins. Our article might be at the wrong title.
• A number of the Chinese women's names redirect, any reason why you're not using the Wikipedia names? I would dare hazard a guess you're using the IOC names per registration for the Games? If so, perhaps a note to that effect would be useful?
  • Yeah, I'll add a note. Though I have to wonder where we got some of our article names from.
• Cuban Aguero seems to be missing diacritic (but then again, if you're sourcing your names from somewhere else...)
  • Done.
• Kely Fraga->Kelly Fraga (etc)
  • Covered by the note.
• You merge sexes in the Medal leaders table. Perhaps worth identifying M/F?
  • Done
• Any reason why two general references appear (to the reader) to be identical?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just the template we tend to use because the IOC rearranges their website frequently. I've clarified which link is which. Thanks for the comments. Courcelles 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure you need to force the bold lead, especially as it means a quick repeat of Oregon just so you can link it sooner rather than later.

Good point. Yes, I forced the syntax a bit, thank you. I have removed the bolding and slightly modified the next sentence to avoid repeating "Oregon". Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I might be slow (and I am tired) but are the lengths quoted the absolute total lengths or the lengths of the streams within Oregon? Like, if a stream cuts a tiny 1-foot corner of Oregon but spends the remaining 2,000 km outside, is that classed as one of the "longest streams in Oregon"?

You are not slow. I have added the word "total" to the first sentence in hopes of eliminating this ambiguity. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Total" before Length in the column header too (and then Little Mountain 5 fixed my capitalization error). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Malheur Lake is linked only once (e.g.) and as it's a sortable table, it should be linked every time. Same with anything like this.

Quite right. Thank you for catching this. I have now added links throughout that entire column. I wasn't sure whether or not to link Pacific Ocean, but I went ahead and did it. If you think that violates WP:OVERLINK, I can remove the ocean links. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Map is a bit of an issue in that it says "Major cities are shaded in pink." and (even though I think I'm just mildly colour-blind), I find it hard to see these, and I'm sure this fails WP:ACCESS by denoting something with colour only...

I should confer with Little Mountain 5 about this one. My thought is that we could simply delete the pink areas and not mention the cities at all. Would that solve the problem? Finetooth (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the cities. LittleMountain5 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The colour section of WP:ACCESS applies to text, tables, and templates - for maps apply the images section. Kmusser (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Sandman888 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the inclusion criteria (i.e. which stream is considered long?)

Any stream that flows at all within Oregon and has a total length of at least 50 miles (80 km) has been included in the list. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why 50 miles (80 km)? Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The choice is arbitrary, but it was also thoughtful and deliberate. I first intended to include all of the streams that are 25 miles (40 km) or longer. I picked 25 and not something like 23 or 27 because 25 seemed easier to remember and somehow more natural. Well into the project, I realized that the list was going to be so long that it would grossly exceed 100 kilobytes, which I consider to be the practical upper limit for Wikipedia articles. I cut back to 40 miles (64 km), and eventually, with a lot of help, compiled a complete list. The data for all of those that did not make the cut is on the talk page of the article. There are 21 streams of 40 to 50 miles (64 to 80 km) in length that flow wholly or partly in Oregon. Eleven of them appear in the sortable table on the talk page, and the other 10 are in the "new finds" list further down on the talk page. I did not want to discard the work that had gone into these additional 21, but we could think of no way to include them in the main list without making it monstrously big and clumsy. In addition, we noted that 50 miles (80 km) has a nice memorable symmetry in that the tidy 50 converts to the tidy 80. After deliberation, that's what we settled on. Finetooth (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not like (that was a bit strong) am not keen on the gallery, and they are generally discouraged unless they really add something.

I'm sorry you do not like it. I agree that galleries are generally discouraged. It seems to me that in this case the gallery contains information that is not possible to convey in words alone. Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you like about it? We've been trying to get it right for a while now... LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the model of List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, a FL, which has a similar gallery. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a gallery is used, they usually go in the end of the article, as the list of streams is what it's really about (and more important than the images). Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that galleries are often misused and are generally discouraged. I have often pointed that out to editors during peer reviews. However, galleries are not banned outright, and they can be effective if used with good reason and judiciously. I also agree with you that the usual place for galleries is at or near the bottoms of articles. However, this also is not an ironclad rule. The choice depends on the context and what the images are intended to convey. The placing of images is something that the group of editors who worked on this list gave some thought to. We tried a panel of four placed above the list, a panel of eight placed above the list, and a panel of four placed below the list, before settling on the panel of six above the list. The was the combination that looked best to us and that included images of the Columbia and Snake, the two longest streams. WP:IG has gallery guidelines; in one place it suggests looking at 1750–1795 in fashion as an example of a good use of galleries. The galleries in that article are placed where they are most useful, not stuck at the bottom as a kind of afterthought. The decision about where to place images is in part subjective, and it's natural that different people have different subjective tastes. All I can say is that the editors who worked on the list didn't entirely or immediately agree on the images or where to put them, but we reached consensus, and we don't think our consensus violates any Wikipedia rules. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other geography FLs with similar galleries are List of Pennsylvania state parks, List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, and List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the coordinates have a globe next to them, some doesn't?

They all have a globe next to them on my computer screen. I'm not sure what could cause them not to appear on yours, but I suspect it has something to do with the size of the article. Does anybody reading this know the cause or what to do about it? Finetooth (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what could cause that; they all show up for me. Probably the list's massive size. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Internet Explorer on my computer not all of the coordinates have globes - Mozilla Firefox shows them all. I suspect it is a size of the list in IE issue. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am using IE aswell so might just be a browser thing. Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• are all of the creeks really notable?

Yes. The fact that we were able to find the data, published by reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, establishes their notability. That is to say, outside experts find them notable. Finetooth (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• what's the source for cities shaded in pink and how large is "major"?

These are good questions. Thank you. "Major" is vague, and we have not provided a source. I am thinking of recommending to Little Mountain 5 that we remove the pink from the map and not mention cities at all. Does this seem like a good solution? Finetooth (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the cities. LittleMountain5 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "approx 475 miles across" across Oregon (~willow creek to pacific) or the whole length of the map?

Another good question. I don't know; I will have to defer to Little Mountain 5 on this one. Thank you for your questions and comments. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire map; I'll add a note. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleMountain5 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An extra column would certainly be possible, but it would take a lot more work; I don't think there are many reliable sources for that kind of information. (We could barely find the total lengths for some of the streams, let alone how much of them are in Oregon!) I think the map is a bit too large to move farther up... it would look odd. Thoughts? And yes, the gallery is unusual, but does it look bad where it is? We've been trying to fit the pictures in somewhere, without them all being lumped in one place. The 'remarks' section should probably be renamed to 'location', or something similar (the mouth location is also included). Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Nergaal. I agree with Little Mountain 5 about the extra column, the map, and the gallery. However, you make a good point about "Remarks", which I originally meant as a catch-all. It turned out to have only two kinds of information, source and mouth. Would "Source and mouth" be better than "Remarks"? Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly changed the column head to "Source and mouth locations". Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a whole column, why don't you add a third row to the two coordinate columns. I don't think having the exact length within Oregon for all of the streams is necessary, but if the last column is moved to the coordinates ones, then it would allow for some extra space: here you could have the exact length for say the first 20 ones (the ones above 100 miles) while for the other ones it would suffice to say either "all within Oregon" or "only partially within Oregon". If you cannot find even the length of the say first 20 ones, then at least take a look at the map, and color all the length boxes with some color for the rivers that are not completely within Oregon; even then, the first two tough should have the actual (at least approximative) length within Oregon as a footnote. The gallery is a bit unrelated as is, so try to at least add some informative caption such as "Snake River (the second longest river in Oregon) in Hells Canyon"; otherwise the pictures don't add much to the article. Nergaal (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more little thing: having some 15 red links is a bit much for a FL. Try to fix at least a few of them. Nergaal (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Changing the list in the ways you mention might be possible but, in my opinion, would not make the list more readable or useful. It is already possible to look at the map to see which streams cross state borders, and, as Little Mountain 5 has said, we know of no reliable source that breaks the stream lengths down by state. As for the gallery and the red links, we have already discussed these matters above. We like the gallery we have, and we are working on the red links, but it will take time to create useful articles on all of the remaining ones. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not to look at the map and guess which one is within the state, but to have that information provided... by a featured list! I have provided a model for the Columbia entry. As for the breaking down by state, I am sure that if you look (i.e. google) both Columbia and Snake have such sources for their length within Oregon. Redlinks: if the creeks do not deserve an article then do not link them; if they do, at least provide a redirect the the relevant mouth or something like that. Nergaal (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but is this (break down by state) absolutely necessary? We already have source and mouth location information that provide details about which state each stream begins and ends in. And—not to be harsh—we are most likely never going to be able to figure out the how much of the streams are in Oregon. (Maybe the Columbia and Snake, but what good would that do?) As for the redlinks, Shannon1, Finetooth, and I have written at least eight nice articles, and more are coming. I think all the streams deserve an article; but, as Finetooth said above, it takes time. I've redirected the forks to their parent streams for the time being. Cheers, LittleMountain5 14:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Nergaal's latest comments, I realized that I had not understood the colored boxes suggestion but thought it referred to coloring bits of the map again. I've now colored the appropriate nine boxes and added the special symbol, which I assume is to allow the key to work for people who can't see the color of the boxes. In the course of doing that, I noticed that we had not mentioned in the right-hand column that the Applegate River starts in California. I added that bit of information. Also, I noticed that the map shows the Illinois starting in northern California, but, although its forks start there, the main stem begins in Oregon. Little Mountain 5, could you tweak the map accordingly? Thanks for the suggestion, Nergaal, and for showing how it's done. The example was necessary for me to see what you were getting at. Finetooth (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice the coloring/symbols example before my last comment; I like it. (Thanks Nergaal!) Tweaking the map in progress, nice catch. LittleMountain5 22:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Illinois is now shorter. :) LittleMountain5 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Little Mountain 5. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep about the color scheme. I hate when I the editors refuse to do the work, but here is the reference for how much of Columbia and Snake are within Oregon: http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/NAV/navigwaterways.shtml. You should consider using it for other of the rivers. Another thing: I counted 12 rivers not completely within Oregon, but only 11 are colored now. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 11 are Columbia River, Snake River, Walla Walla River, Grand Ronde River, Succor Creek, Jordan Creek, Owyhee River, Applegate River, Klamath River, Lost River, and Cow Creek. The 12th was probably the Illinois (unless I have missed one), which was a minor error on the map and has now been corrected. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cite, Nergaal, for the Columbia and Snake lengths within Oregon is a good one for checking the navigable lengths of Oregon streams. Since the Columbia and Snake are likely navigable for their entire lengths within Oregon, those numbers would be correct for the total lengths within Oregon. However, none of the other nine streams on the list of 11 are navigable for their full lengths (if at all). Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]