Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2012

• Comment

Lead section:

• Would move current third sentence to become the first sentence. Yes, Goldenspikesaward.com states the award is given to the "top" player but the quote from the third sentence addresses it so much better (if quotes aren't desired, leaving the ref would suffice).

• I'd rather stick to the current format. Even though the criteria is "official," but we know that the award is given to the best amateur baseball player, not necessarily one who meets the criteria. Take Bryce Harper as an example, who threw self-destructive temper tantrums and challenging umpire calls at the NJC World Series.[2] That doesn't really satisfy the "exemplary sportsmanship" part of the criteria, yet he still won the award in 2010. For that reason, I'd rather state that it is given to the "best" amateur player and then go into the criteria (which is unofficially secondary to being the best). —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (I didn't notice any inconsistencies with spelling but in case there are, "honours" would be British English so make sure whatever is selected, it's consistent.)

• "Honours" is only used once, but thank you for bringing this up, as previous discussion suggested that since baseball was invented in the US, then American English should be used. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason would be "strong national ties to a topic" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Zepppep (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "...Jennings and Buster Posey were voted the top rookie" -- make it "rookies"

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "...a few years after" -- be precise, otherwise if it's not, might be considered trivial and could be left out

• I'd rather stick with "a few", but I would be willing to change to "several years after" as a compromise (provided these terms aren't weasel words. I really don't want to have to say "three and two years, respectively", since it would severely clutter the sentence. And I don't think it's trivial; clarifying this would help, as most players aren't expected to win the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year as a college award, since this would mean directly going to the majors from college (Horner is the only exception in this case). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sentence is cluttered IMO (see below on how to fix, and thus avoid this). I would phrase the part about Jennings and Posey perhaps as: "Jason Jennings and Buster Posey won the GSA and were later voted Rookie of the Year, in 20XX and 20XX." "Later" might still seem a bit ambiguous but it's tied to "rookie" so therefore lets the reader know it came in their first MLB season, and since the players are linkable, the reader can click on the links if they want to know more. I think this is more specific than the current iteration. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Only one winner (Horner)..." -- might suggest changing it to "Only Horner..."

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have this be its own sentence as it seems a bit of a run-on currently. Additionally, there's too much to try and weave together between this mention and the Jennings and Posey mention. Lastly, since Horner seems to be setting quite an act to follow, I believe it would be fine to give him his own sentence. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Horner shouldn't have his own sentence, especially when it is only the Rookie of the Year that is being discussed. Horner's sentence by itself would just read "Only Horner achieved the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year." For me, that's too short to be a standalone sentence, given the fact that I'm trying to compare and contrast Jennings and Posey with Horner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "...the 2005 winner, won the award" -- redundant. Also, look to combine that sentence with the next one as the way it currently reads, the validity of the mention might be a bit tough to discover (also, try to word it in a way that removes "switched positions to"). Is Gordon the only winner to have won the GSA at one position and then a GGA at another? If so, state it. Also, how long had he been playing outfield before he won the '11 GGA? If he had been playing OF for a few seasons it might be giving too much weight to his defensive skills and perhaps lessening the possible real reason he won the GSA -- for his offensive numbers?

I'm not too sure if Gordon is the only one to win the GSA and GG at different positions. Even if he is (which I'm guessing is true), I still can't put that statement there as an absolute fact (i.e. stating how he is the "only player"), since I have found no sources supporting the claim (making the claim original research). He won the GG in only his second season as an outfielder. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a source can't be found, I would have perhaps put it this way: "Alex Gordon won the award in 2005 and then entered the Majors as a third baseman before winning a GGA in 2011 as a leftfielder. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the sentence slightly to that wording. However, I kept the two sentences separate, since it would be an overload of information if I amalgamate the two sentences together. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winners section:

• Change "college" to "school." (This is the wording on a current FL, List of Heisman Trophy winners.)

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Change links from athletic dept. of a school to baseball program of a school. Detected 3 instances of this. I know at least one, Florida Gators, has a dedicated article for its baseball program (Florida Gators baseball).

• Done. Changed to Florida Gators baseball. Is that it, or would you like me to include #Baseball for colleges that don't have specific articles? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would make the link as relevant as possible, particularly if the athletic dept. for a school has a long article, it could prove quite helpful to the reader (the reason we do all this stuff, right?). Zepppep (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Provide a definition of "active" (look to use definition from another FL, Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award).

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Provide location in reference markup for those references where the location may not be in the newspaper name per Wikipedia:Citing sources. For example, #10 is from AJC.com (Atlanta Journal-Constitution). Use "location=" in reference mark-up. Zepppep (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. The problem was the "newspaper=" part did not show up when I used "work=ajc.com", so I utilized "publisher=ajc.com" instead. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about #20? Reader isn't informed where The Times Daily hails from. Is #11 a reliable source? I recall reading somewhere about making the newspaper/publisher linkable when appropriate in the reference markup, as exemplified at Wikipedia:Citation templates, but I can't recall where I read it. I do believe it is not required, however, but it may be something to consider. (I prefer it because it allows the reader to easily click on the article link concerning that book/publication/organization should they so choose.) Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added location for ref 20. And yes, even I acknowledge that ref 11 does appear a bit shady. It's mostly focusses on local coverage from the Phoenix area (perhaps that may be why it's not so well known). I'm not sure now; the article was written by one of the website's 3 official editors [3] and the info given in the article is factual (i.e. it's the only website I could find that stated Horner being the only player to achieve those three honours in one year). —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose having a citing a source is always a good thing, but are you doing it mainly to avoid possible OR contention or more so to verify the fact? Are you thinking it's likely to be challenged? Zepppep (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to avoid potential OR. I simply can't put two and two together and say, as Horner won x and y (and happens to be the only one to appear on both lists in the same year), he's the only one to achieve this. Here, I actually needed a source to confirm he did both. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 19, 22 and 23 need location info. Essentially any newspaper where the location isn't in the name, the location should be provided. Zepppep (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "ten members of the National College Baseball Hall of Fame have won the Golden Spikes Award" is that the right way round? Were they in the HoF before winning the Golden Spikes Award?

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In total, seven...." In total is redundant.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "a few years " a bit loose.

• Changed to "several," but that also sounds kinda loose. And I don't want to list out respective years. Is there a better alternative? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Majors " what is this? Is that MLB?

• Fixed. Changed to MLB and wikilinked it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The award is presented annually at Studio 42 of the MLB Network" this probably didn't exist in 1978, what happened "back in the day"?

• I tried Googling it, but so far, I haven't been able to find any sources stating where the award was presented back in the day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Denotes player also won the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year" you're actually denoting the year with this...

• Done. Removed all existing "denotes."

• What I meant was, you're using this symbology on the year of the award, not the recipient, so strictly the key should say "year in which player won... the same year", but that's not great either... You don't have to have colours, you could just use the symbols... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Removed all colour and moved symbols to player's name col. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Denotes player also won the Dick Howser Trophy in the same year" ditto.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 8 does not

• There isn't any punctuation before or after ref 8. It currently reads "he was the first overall MLB draft pick[8] and proceeded to win." I never use a serial comma, as I always utilize Canadian English (which is similar to British English). —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I made clear what my point was. Refs are supposed to be positioned after punctuation, currently that ref does not. Therefore, as you don't use the serial comma, it would be best to move it to the end of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it was my fault more not being clear enough. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "...also achieved the Rookie of the Year Award" achieved doesn't sound right, perhaps change to received.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments' Sorry to be tardy to the party. It seems that many issues have been addressed so far.

• It is too bad there's no free image of the trophy, but is there a logo we can get a non-free rationale for?

• There's a logo available on the main website and on Baseball Almanac. Unfortunately, I have no experience on how to add a non-free rationale image and have only added two images to WP during my tenure here. Could someone with more experience in WP media help? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I've just uploaded the logo using Upload Wizard. Can someone delete the duplicate image of the file, as I thought the first attempt of uploading had failed. Guess not. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Symbol used for ROY in that same season only applies to Horner. I wonder if it makes sense to use it. It's very rare for a player to go from college to MLB that quickly. Maybe it should just be ROY at any time, to include Jennings and Posey.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Giants2008, I'm concerned about the "fanster.com" source. A more traditional RS would satisfy this. Although, the website's "About" page does quell some concerns. I'll think on this source more.

• I found a Braves Encyclopedia source that comes very close to verifying the claim made. However, it only states that Horner "still holds the distinction of being the only player selected College Player of the Year and a major league Rookie of the Year in the same season." The only problem is: it doesn't specifically mention the Golden Spikes Award (it's only implied, as the Baseball America College Player of the Year Award didn't exist back then) and doesn't mention him being first overall draft pick. Should I replace the Fanster.com source or leave it for now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. See above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Alex Gordon won the award in 2005 and then entered the MLB in 2007 as a third baseman.[12][13] However, he switched positions and moved to left field, where he won a Gold Glove Award in 2011.[14]" - while this is true, I'm not sure why we're highlighting this, especially since other GS winners have won GG awards. It seems slightly off-topic, while the Dick Howser trophy, in contrast, is the bullseye of the target. In fact, I think the Dick Howser Trophy, which covers the same ground, should get a little more emphasis than second to last sentence in a decent sized paragraph.

• Done. Replaced Gordon's info with single-game achievements of several award winners and delved into the fact that the Dick Howser Trophy is considered the college baseball equivalent of the Heisman Trophy). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I like this better. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The award is presented annually at Studio 42 of the MLB Network" - that's only a recent development. Where was it presented before the MLB Network existed?

• As previously addressed in The Rambling Man's resolved comments, I haven't been able to find any sources stating where the award was presented back in the day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad, failed to read that. In that case, can we at least say when it began to be held at the MLB Network studios? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the table, on Ben McDonald's row, "LSU" --> "Louisiana State" for uniformity

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlink album per WP:OVERLINK
• Same goes for singles
• "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications". Isn't it studio albums?
• Same goes for other headers, along with their captions
• Don't have bold text in references

TBrandley 21:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed albums into studio albums, and don't understand why you say "overlink" if they are linked just once. Done with the third one. The last one is unnecessary and such bolding was added in the previous nomination for clarity, so i will keep it. Thanks for your comments. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no I meant overlink, as it is a common term, and thus, shouldn't be linked. As for bolding, see MOS:BOLD. Cheers, TBrandley 21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm Okay, i have no problem delinking them :) As for the bolding, i consider (and several users on the previous nomination) that it is better with the bolding, regardless of the guideline. Additionally, the guideline does not forbid the use of the bolding in references. Apart from that, as the references are grouped together, i.e. several references for various albums are grouped together by country, they need to be bolded, so you can differenciate which internal source supports which album, and if the album's name is bolded, this is achieved better. Same with singles. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. List looks good. Cheers, TBrandley 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "fifteen compilation albums"? Infobox says 8.

• Updated

• "His 1994 release, Animal Nocturno, garnered international success and spawned the singles "Mujeres" and "Primera Vez".[6][7][8][9]" are four citations really necessary for this single, short sentence?

• Leaved two refs, one for "international success" and the other for the singles.

• "Latin Songs" chart is overlinked in the lead. And sometimes the Billboard is part of the link, sometimes it isn't.

• Fixed.

• Image caption in infobox should not have a full stop.

• Done

• "Arjona released his thirteenth album" his thirteenth "studio" album.

• Fixed.

• Can we have refs in numerical order? E.g. [17][9] and [17][6] could be [9][17] and [6][17].

• On it.

• "CD – cassette" why is this separated with an en-dash, not a simple comma?

• Good, better with a comma :)

• Why wait until the fifth usage to link RIAA?

• Fixed.

• You link Warner in the albums table but not Sony... why?

• Fixed. thanks.

• "Platinum+Gold[25]"? I would expect a space between the + and the classifications, and does this mean Platinum and a bit more? Or just Platinum (but was gold before)? I don't understand this classification.

• AMPROFON uses that format. It certifies Platinum + Gold to an album that has sold enough copies to reach platinum status plus an additional number of copies equivalent to gold status. As an example, Platinum is 60,000 and gold is 30,000 copies. If an album sells 95,000 copies, it is certified Platinum + Gold.

• I see "^" in the table keys, but I don't see it being used.

• Removed

• "Exitos a Mi Manera[35][34]" etc, see before about ref ordering.

• Done

• "Te Quiero" line of the table has a missing cell at the end.

• Fixed.

• Where are the first two promotional singles referenced?

• Removed them, no reference covering them. Although they have both music videos.

• Neither singles tables have captions.

• I think i fixed it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think i have fixed all. Thanks for your comments Rambling Man :) Always welcomed. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are release dates referenced, and which territory are they relevant to?

• The release dates are the first ones with physical releases. They are relevant to the United States.

• I don't understand, where is the reference, for instance for the release date of Animal Nocturno? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OMG Thanks for the tip. They were all original research, never noticed. I removed them and left only the year, as appears on Allmusic. From Si El Norte Fuera El Sur onwards, the dates are those from Allmusic and/or iTunes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is "Déjame Decir Que Te Amo" and "Jesús, Verbo No Sustantivo" and "Vida" and "Marta" referenced?

• The first two, i didn't found reliable enough sources. Although, they had music videos and such, so i don't know. "Vida" and "Marta" have their own articles, so they don't need to be referenced.

• That's not true. What if those articles aren't referenced either? The facts here should be referenced independently. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, i wrote those articles and they are both GA. They are completely referenced, but i have no problem adding a source to it. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This list shouldn't rely on sub-articles to reference it. Imagine if you applied that to all list articles, some could end up without a single reference based on the idea that other "articles exist"....! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes you're right. I was just following the discography manual of style, but I understand your point. I will add them tonight :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added the references. Anything else? :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Despite this decision, Arjona returned to music..." returned to music is redundant already established he left the music industry

• Is not redundant. He left the music industry but then he returned. How would that be redundant?

You've already mentioned he left the music industry in the previous sentence, so it doesn't need to be repeated as by returning he obviously returned to music. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I still don't get your point and, as far as I read, it may be obvious that he returned, but if I say "he left", the most obvious thing i'd write is that he returned despite the fact that he left, as said before. So i don't catch up the "redundancy" you talk about. Otherwise, I'd like to as you to fix it if you want, ans I'm not able to do so and the copyeditor agreed it was the best way to express it. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Here is the bit I'm referring to: and its commercial failure led to his decision to abandon the music industry. Despite this decision, Arjona returned to music and released Jesús, Verbo No Sustantivo in 1989. I've emboldened the two uses of music for emphasis. The point is you establish that he abandoned the music industry in the first sentence. Therefore it is redundant to mention that he returned to the music industry, as the subject matter is music. Also the onus is not on the reviewer to fix issues, that is the job of the nominatorr, I've explained the issue, the only words you have to remove are to music nothing else needs changing. NapHit (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now i see it. I will remove them as i, now, understand your point. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• refs that are PDFs need to include the parameter |format=PDF

• Although the {{cite web}} template does indicate that the file is PDF by default (and by the fact that i consider it needless), I will see if it's worthy to add the parameter. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I added it and, weirdly, it looks good :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are release dates referenced and which territory are they relevant to?

Album's have wiki links, which in itself is a reference. As for territory, the album releases are relevant to the country which they were released in first. This is how many other FL's have approached these points.

Done, added country and source.

• "the top-40" etc, not sure you need a hyphen here.

Done, removed hyphen.

• Don't use RIAA in the lead without expanding it first.

Done, expanded.

• Can you make table captions unique please?

Done.

• Is "3rd compilation album" necessary?

Done, removed.

• Where is Numb referenced?

It's wiki linked.

Done, added reference.

• Where is Hush referenced?

Removed, seeing how it didn't chart.

• Where are the music videos?

Moved to Usher videography, linked in the 'See also' section of the discography. It was requested by a user who thought the discography was too long.

• Replace spaced hyphens in the references with en-dashes.

Done.

• Allmusic->AllMusic.

Done.

• Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.

Not sure what you mean. If it was the bolding then i've un-bolded the text.

CAPITAL LETTERS indicates shouting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In this discography, music videos are included as well." – avoid WP:SELFREF. Combine this into the first sentence.

Removed sentence, as the music videos were moved to Usher videography.

• "It ranked as the top solo album and second most successful album of the 2000s decade." - a bit subjective to cite a Decade End Chart. Precisely mention that it was number two on that chart.

Done, changed the sentence.

• Check for consistency in wikilinking in the references. Some publishers/publications are linked ones, while others are linked multiple times.

The ones that are linked more than once are the refs that use templates, so the publishers are automatically wiki-linked. I've gone through the refs extensively for overlinking, and besides my first point, could not see any.

• Why is The Hollywood Reporter publisher in brackets but the Billboard ones aren't? They're both magazines. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed brackets.
Thanks for the comments, I think I've addressed them. Rayman^{95 (talk)} 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "Nine compilations" could be changed to "Nine compilation albums" – to keep it consistent with the infobox and the name of the section.

Done.

• "break-through" → "breakthrough"

Done.

• "...his first US number-one hit "Nice & Slow." – Perhaps "first US number-one hit" could be changed to "first number-one hit on the US Billboard Hot 100". This would keep it consistent with the rest of the lead, which uses "Hot 100" multiple times.

Done.

• "while the second single" → "while its second single"

Done.

• "its three US singles..." → This phrase implies that "Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)", "Lil Freak" and "There Goes My Baby" were only released in the US, despite the fact that the articles for the former two singles indicate that they were released in countries outside of the US – "Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)" in the UK and "Lil Freak" in Canada. The phrase may also confuse readers into thinking that "OMG" and "More" were not released in the US.

They were only released in the US. Other charting positions come from digital downloads from the respective countries. "Hey Daddy" has no information saying it charted in the UK on its main article, neither does "Lil Freak" in Canada. I changed "other singles" to "international singles" as this denotes that both "OMG" and "More" were released everywhere, including the US.

Just because a single did not chart in a territory does not necessarily mean that it was not released in that territory. Check out the release history sections for both articles. The lead for "Lil Freak" even reads: "...was released as the second single from the album in the United States and Canada on March 2, 2010." Holiday56 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the sentence so it doesn't sound like the single's were released in specific territories. How does this sound: "The album was preceded by five singles: "Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)", "Lil Freak" and "There Goes My Baby" peaked in the top 25, forty and 25 respectively on the Hot 100 chart. The album's two other singles, "OMG" and "More", achieved worldwide success, as the former topped the Hot 100." Rayman^{95 (talk)} 21:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The album was preceded by five singles" means that all five singles from Raymond vs. Raymond were released before the album; two of them were released after the album, however. "The album produced five singles" would be a more appropriate phrase. Holiday56 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Albums and singles

• "selected chart positions, sales and certifications" → "selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications"

Done.

• The AllMusic link used as a reference for Billboard 200 and Canadian Albums Chart peak chart positions redirects to the Usher's biography and discography page instead. You can replace the link with either the proper AllMusic link or a link from Usher's chart history on the Billboard site.

Done.

• "The ARIA Report" → "The ARIA Report: Issue 969 (Week Commencing 22 September 2008)"

Done.

• The Hung Medien references currently look like this:

{{cite web|url=http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Usher |title=australian-charts.com – Discography Usher |publisher=Hung Medien|accessdate=November 10, 2011}}

They should be altered to look like this:

{{cite web|url=http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Usher |title=Discography Usher |work=''australian-charts.com'' |publisher=Hung Medien|accessdate=November 10, 2011}}

Done.

• "Long Play" → "Longplay"

Done.

• "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" in the studio albums section → "List of studio albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications".

Done.

• "List of compilations with selected details" → "List of compilation albums, with selected details"

Done.

• "List of extended plays, with selected chart positions and sales" → "List of extended plays, with selected chart positions and sales figures"

Done.

• "Chart Tracking" → "Chartverfolgung"

Done.

• Chart Stats is not published by the Official Charts Company. For a more reliable reference published by the OCC, use this page.
• "The Official Zobbel Homepage" → "Chart Log UK: U2 – Utopia"

Done.

• Fix an inconsistency regarding the way Zobbel entries updates are formatted. For "Lil Freak" and "There Goes My Baby", the title is listed as "Chart Log UK: New Entries Update"; for "First Dance", the title is listed as "Chart Log UK – 3.04.2010 (wk12)". Either include the issue dates (like the way "First Dance" is referenced) or not.

Done.

• "Scroll down to Usher" isn't necessary.

Done.

• "SUI" → "SWI"

Done.

• "Can U Get Wit It" → "Can U Get wit It"

Done.

• References are needed for the UK chart positions of "Can U Get wit It" and "Lemme See".

Done.

My bad. The UK #91 position for "Can U Get wit It" is already referenced in "Chart Log UK: U2 – Utopia". You can restore the position; just update the Zobbel reference to indicate that is being used to reference both "There Goes My Baby" and "Can U Get wit It". Holiday56 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Usher is not a featured artist on "Same Girl"; he and R. Kelly share lead artist credit.

Done.

• "DJ Khaled featuring Usher, Young Jeezy, Rick Ross, and Drake" → remove serial comma, to be consistent with the rest of the article.

Done.

• "Somebody to Love (Remix)" → "Somebody to Love" (Remix)

Done.

• "Enrique Iglesias & Usher" → "Enrique Iglesias and Usher"

Done.

• Add will.i.am as a featured artist on "What's Your Name".

Done.

• Usher is not a featured artist on "Same Girl" and "Dirty Dancer", so perhaps they could be moved up to the singles section (i.e. "No Air" on Chris Brown discography and "Princess of China" on Rihanna discography, both featured lists). Either that, or a new section could be created for them.

Done, moved to lead artist section.

• The link leading to Drake's article should be updated to Drake (entertainer).

Done.

Promotional singles

• "List of promotional singles, with selected chart positions" → "List of promotional singles, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name"

Done.

• "Papers" is listed as a full single on its article, but only as a promotional single on this article – any reason for this?

On its main article, it is noted as a "buzz single" so a promotional single. Also, on its album page Raymond v. Raymond it is not list as an official single.

Other charted songs

• "List of non-single songs, with selected chart positions" → "List of non-single songs, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name"

Done.

Album appearances

• Perhaps a change to "other appearances"? An album appearance can refer to any song that has appeared on an album, which technically means all of Usher's singles could be included.

Done.

• "List of non-single songs with album appearances by Usher" → "List of non-single album appearances, with other performing artists, showing year released and album name"

Done.

• "The Christmas Song" → "The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)"

Done.

• "If I Ain't Got You (Remix)" → "If I Ain't Got You" (Remix)

Done.

• Dirty Money should be added as a performer for "Looking for Love" in the other appearances section.

Done.

Soundtrack appearances

• The soundtrack appearances section should be made a sub-section of the album appearances section. Soundtrack albums are still albums.

Done.

• "List of soundtrack songs, with performers and source film" → "List of soundtrack songs, with other performers and source film"

Done.

• "Movie" → "Film"

Done.

Notes

• All Billboard API links are dead. They need to be replaced with Billboard.biz links; this search engine will be helpful.

Done.

• "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles – Issue Date: 2012-06-09" → "Bubbling Under Hot 100 – Issue Date: 2012-06-09"

Done.

• Remove "XML" from the reference for the Bubbling Under position of "Fed Up".

Done.

• Why not use a more easily accessible reference for the Bubbling Under position of "Here I Stand"? ([6])

Done.

• "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles – Issue Date" → "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Songs – Issue Date"

Done.

External links

• Usher's AllMusic link in the external links section needs to be updated (new URL).

Done.
Holiday56 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday56 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlink studio albums per WP:OVERLINK
• Same goes for live albums, singles

TBrandley 01:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, could you be a bit more specific please. Rayman^{95 (talk)} 07:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlink above terms per WP:OVERLINK. Regards, TBrandley 13:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead? Rayman^{95 (talk)} 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Regards, TBrandley 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Done Lead is too short, would merge in the subsequent section to meet WP:LEAD.
• Done "the National Assembly. The National Assembly," avoid such rapid repetition.
• Done You don't need the hat note saying "See also" when the page you link to has already been linked to in the main article.
• Done "2nd" -> "second", "4th" -> "fourth".
• Done Not sure about the staggered "See also" bullets.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could add an overview of the history of the position, including notable events that relate directly to the chairmanship (main oppose reason).

I'm on this one now (I'll be finished tomorrow; I need to gather my sources) --TIAYN (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start work on this article when I find the time. --TIAYN (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be okay to withdraw the nomination in the meantime then? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done "was the scholar Nguyễn Văn Tố, and he was not..." -> "was the scholar Nguyễn Văn Tố, who was not..."
• Done "On 3 March 1946 the National Assembly, under the chairmanship of Nguyễn Văn Tố, the National Assembly..." no need for the second National Assembly
• Done "While he was never member of the Communist Party... missing an "a" between never and member
• Done "and became the first chairman..." -> and was the first chairman
• Done "when he became Chairman of the State Council was established" not sure what this means, doesn't make any sense to me

Still at a loss as to what this is trying to say, its grammatically incorrect and makes no sense, needs fixing or removing. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that comment, It know says; "when he became Chairman of the State Council, a newly-established post." Better? --TIAYN (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries reads a lot better now. NapHit (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done "and he was succeeded..."
• Done "who became from a minority background, and he was the first chairman since Trường who was member of the Politburo" -> the became should just be came, could expand on the minority background bit, I take it he came from a minority race in Vietnam? without it explicitly stating that I'm not certain though.

NapHit (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done with 84.58% in favour - with a majority of 84.58%
• Thanks That's it, methinks. I did a copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done "is a permanent body which controls the activities of the National Assembly when its not in session." "its" → "it is", to avoid a contraction.
• Done Photo of Nguyen Sinh Hung could use alt text.
  • Minor, but the alt= is showing up to the readers, at least to this reader. It looks like you doubled up on the the alt= parameter in the infobox. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done --TIAYN (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done. There are still twin alt=, and I can still see one in the alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done --TIAYN (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Done History: Capitalization of Chairman is inconsistent here. It should be one way or the other.
  • Still see one capitalized Chairman by Nguyen Van An's name. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done --TIAYN (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Done Don't think there should be a hyphen in "newly-established".
• Done Looks like Nong Duc Manh held office until 2001, not 2002 as this section says.
• Done Refs 10 and 12 need publishers and access dates.
• Done Ref 15 needs a link, or we're going to have a hard time with verification. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done "and another non-Communist Party member. While he was never a member of the Communist Party, he was a committed revolutionary." The repitition of the fact that he isn't a member of the Communist Party makes this section a little clunky: perhaps look at merging the two sentences, or at least changing their formation to remove the repitition.
• Removed the word Nguyễn Hữu Thọ, a Southerner," – If a "Southerner" is a specific term for a group of people, link to a relevant article (or at least a red link that is likely to be created). There is also no mention of why his being a Southerner is relevant to this article, as no such descriptions are applied to the other chairmen.

• Okay, I've just done a bit of reading around, and found that in 1976 North and South Vietnam "reuinfied", which might be worth mentioning in the article to prevent the sort of confusion I had!

• Done "Nguyễn Hữu Thọ, a Southerner, succeeded Trường in 1981, as chairman, but he was not a member of the Politburo." Also, the comma after 1981 is not needed in this sentence.
• Done I'm a little concerned that all the definition of the position, as provided in the lead section is all referenced to the Vietnamese government. Is there an independent source that can be used in that section at all?

• "This is a complete list ..." I know it's not the first sentence, (it's the third) but I'm still not keen on this phrasing... sorry.
  • Not sure if it's the wording, or the position of the sentence. Assuming it's the latter, I've moved it to the end of the first paragraph. I included it to demonstrate that the "comprehensive" criterion for an FL was met. Or would you prefer it to be phrased differently? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is good for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "are in Gothic style" perhaps a personal pref, but "are Gothic in style" would seem better to me.
  • It might seem to read better for "Gothic", but IMO it would not do for all styles; it is Decorated in style, or Perpendicular in style, etc. would read oddly. So maybe for consistency, it's best as it is. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okeydokes, was just a personal pref in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Liverpool is overlinked in the lead.
• "Almost all the ..." -> "Most of the..."?
  • Both fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've possibly asked this before, but why is Chapel in Lady Chapel capitalised?
  • It depends I guess on whether you recognise this as a title (like Buckingham Palace, or the John Smith Chapel), or a description (like south chapel) with the word "Lady" capitalised in reverence to Mary. But the article on Lady chapel uses a lower case "c", so I've changed it for consistency across articles. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What's a mortuary chapel and why haven't we got an article on it?!
  • It has two meanings: a small chapel in a cemetery where bodies are kept prior to burial; or a chapel in or associated with a church used for burials of the members of a (usually wealthy) family. The word mortuary redirects to morgue mainly in the context of a hospital, etc. so I've not linked it. Rather I've added a footnote giving a definition of the term in the context of the list. Why no article? Not for me to say. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "This is a Roman Catholic Church " -> "This is a Roman Catholic church "?
  • Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for the trouble you've taken (again) over the review. Not sure if you will be happy with all my responses. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No probs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop.
• Should the caption be "Bookseller/Diagram Prize"?
• "at first decided by" initially decided by.
• Infobox, I think the "last awarded" usually is used for defunct awards.
• " there has been controversy. There have been two occasions when" reads a little awkwardly to me, repetitive and not that engaging.

• I don't know how to reword the phrases.

• I reworded

• "The latest winner was Cooking with Poo by Saiyuud Diwong." perhaps "The most recent winner, in 2012, was Cooking...."?
• "but it was expanded to books outside of the fair" it was later expanded?

• but other books outside of the fair were also included <- is this better?

• I reworded--GoP_T^C_N 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Bookseller open suggestions " opened.
• "receives a considerable amount of press coverage" -> "receives considerable press coverage"
• "for the person who spots the" replace "spots" with "nominates"?
• "but he later changed his mind and now creates" -> he later reconsidered and...
• "A follow-up book is to be released in October 2009..." it's 2012?
• "enough that in 2004, " put a comma in front of in.
• Check that all "Notes" which aren't complete sentences don't end in a full stop.
• Multiple page refs should be pp. not just p.
• Page ranges should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
• Be consistent, is it "The New York Times" or "New York Times"?
• Be consistent, is it BBC News or BBC?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done all except noted. Please check the notes section whether my edits were correct.--GoP_T^C_N 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the idea of an award...was proposed by a member of the Diagram Group, to provide entertainment" – replace with "...Diagram Group in order to provide entertainment"
• "the winner was voted for by the public instead of decided by Bent" – replace with "...instead of being decided by Bent"
• "'odd titles' and NOT 'odd books' – don't SHOUT and instead use italics (...and not 'odd...)
• "Bent did not offer a prize in 1987 and 1991" – add comma after 1991
• "Bent has also expressed his dislike of people voting for ruder titles saying that he himself would not have voted for the 2007 winner," – comma after "titles"; no comma after "winner"
• "winner of the 2008 award was controversial as Parker did not write the book himself but used an automated" – comma after "controversial" and "himself". Also, the word "stating" would sound better than "saying."

—Bloom6132 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done all I hope. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• sort keys are not visible at the moment, would remove the shading as there is no benefit to having it
• "The following is a list of previous winners of the award." don't think this is necessary, obvious what it is
• Some of the notes, in the notes column have full stops while others don't, be consistent
• ref 14 does not direct to a page saying Midnight children won the award
• ref 22 Mantex co has two full stops after it
• ref 23 is not formatted properly, its an academic journal, so you need the author, and journal info
• ref 26 why is the full book information used when its below in the further reading section? remove the info and turn further reading section into a bibliography

Further reading still needs to be changed to Bibliography. NapHit (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, the general reference does not appear to be from a reliable site, would replace with something else
• ref 42 needs an access date
• ref 37 has no publisher
• really don't think we need four external links, especially one to twitter, two should suffice
• would prefer if categories were organised alphabetically, this supposed to represent wikipedia's best work after all
• Images need alt text

NapHit (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done all. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A nomination should have three paragraphs IMO. Many paragraphs are small, and are detracting from the readability of them. Perhaps merge some.
  • Actually, the featured list criteria don't say anything about how long the lead must be, although in general we don't like leads that appear stubby. WP:LEAD doesn't seem to say that all leads must be three paragraphs either; in fact, it says some should be of a lesser size if the article is short. On a glance, I don't have an issue with the size of this lead, although I agree that merging one or more paras would lead to a more attractive appearance. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This issue does not appeared to be fixed. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lede has three paragraphs now; wasn't that the issue? -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, good now. TBrandley 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a thumb and a description to the lede image
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Lede image should have alt text to describe what is actually in the image
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "aired" clarify that it was the original airing by making it "originally aired"
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The second paragraph of the lede shows a lot of "The first season consists of 22 episodes, which premiered on November 2, 2003 and concluded on June 6, 2004. The show's second season premiered on November 7, 2004 and concluded on April 17, 2005". All of the sentences are very simlar, making it weird/awkward to read.
  • Changed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ref should come after punctuation, ref 2 currently does not, just move it to the end of the sentence
  • That ref is citing the statement in the middle of the sentence. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that, but, it should still be at the end of sentence. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "has been nominated for a variety of different awards including twenty-two Primetime Emmy Awards (six wins for the series, including Outstanding Comedy Series in 2004), eight Television Critics Association Awards (three wins), three Golden Globe Awards (one win), three Writers Guild of America Awards (one win) and three Screen Actors Guild Awards." Why is there no reference for any of those awards? They have to be referenced
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "and was cancelled by Fox". When? Could you clarify please?
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "new season consisting of 10 to 13 new episodes". Remove "new" from "new episodes"; it's repetitive with "new season"
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Add plainrowheaders to the top of the series overview table
  • plainrowheaders is optional, and I've chosen to leave it out as it's more consistent with other List of...episodes lists. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did it myself, due to the next edit. Other FLs were promoted before the updated guidelines were created. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• series overview table does not MOS:DTT, need to add row and colscopes to ensure it does
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did it further. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It makes more sense to place "network" under originally aired in that overview table
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "DVD release date" Missing an "s" at the endSmall text
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Episode list" → "Episodes"
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 2003–2004, 2004–2005, 2005–2006, should be written as 2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06, as per WP:YEAR
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't need sentences based on what is already in that table for episodes, and is already above. You can add some parts of that (like The series' final four episodes were shown in one two-hour block against NBC's coverage of the 2006 Winter Olympics opening ceremony) to the lede, and remove from the episode list itself
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This issue doesn't appear to be fixed. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed that information. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• NBC, should be "National Broadcasting Company (NBC)" only on its first use, as per MOS:ACRO
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 59, hyphens should be an en dash, per WP:DASH
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why does it say that "Amazon.com" and "Amazon.co.uk" are the work, when they clearly published the information
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• How is "dvdloc8.com" a high-quality reliable source?
  • So this is the only website that lists Region 4 dates. Should I remove Region 4 entirely? -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, don't remove. But, is there anything at EzyDVD or JB Hi-Fi. Cheers, TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cited JB Hi-Fi, though it changed season 1's region 4 date. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref. 3: Change "Huffington Post" to "The Huffington Post", then link it
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref. 4: Link "The Huffington Post"
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ABC Medianet is the publisher, not work, for references
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Change Metro to work, then link Metro
  • Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• TV.com doesn't provide anything that isn't already in the Internet Movie Database. Perhaps replace with epguides, since it has production codes that IMDb actually don't have TBrandley 15:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More replies are furthermore listed above. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "22-episodes" no need for hyphen.
• Is "cancelled" with two l's USEng?
• "on Netflix' streaming "Netflix's"

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • All fixed, thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Six years after the series..." would prefer show or sitcom to series
• ref 24 to 33, hyphens in date ranges should be en dashes
• ref 68, is there a better source than Metro for this, its not exactly the most reputable source

NapHit (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • All done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

I'm no good with tables and sorting etc, so I will focus on everything else

• Don't worry. I make sure I have scope rows, per MOS:ACCESS, table captions, per MOS:DTT, etc. Cheers! TBrandley 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

• "The series aired nine seasons and 202 episodes..." -- "The series aired for nine seasons and 202 episodes".
  • Done. TBrandley 22:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Mulder became a recurring character, after legal dispute between Fox and Duchovny over payment. -- "Mulder became a recurring character, after a legal dispute between Fox and Duchovny over payment.". IMO, this sentence ends rather abruptly. Payment of what? Was the payment not enough, too much...etc
  • Not done. It doesn't further explain from in the reference itself from BBC. TBrandley 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might I suggest then adding "issues" after "payment" in that case. Clearly there were issues right? Finishing with "payment" just sounds like there is a word missing and sounds weird. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. TBrandley 23:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "It was primarily filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia for it's first five seasons, but it transferred to Los Angeles, California for its remaining seasons." I would alter slightly as there is some repetition of "seasons". "Series' one to five were filmed primarily in Vancouver, British Columbia and transferred to Los Angeles, California for the remaining seasons." Something like that.
  • Done. TBrandley 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Episodes are approximately forty-three minutes" -- "Each episodes is approximately forty-three minutes long"
  • Done. TBrandley 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Various cast members have been praised by critics" -- Who were the cast members?
  • Done. TBrandley 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your concerns you've added so far. Cheers, TBrandley 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Consistency needed re formatting. For some reason, the Harvard formats for the sources within the reflist do not have periods, but everything else does.

• Refs 67, 65, 61, 58, 47, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37

Not essential, but nice to adopt some kind of consistency. More to come tomorrow -- Cassianto^Talk 23:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is because the cite news template was used for those. The should use that as they a news sources, rather than just web ones. TBrandley 23:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied/addressed new comments. Thanks, TBrandley 23:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah OK, all correct then :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 23:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "along with R. W. Goodwin, Howard Gordon, Frank Spotnitz, Vince Gilligan, John Shiban, Kim Manners, Glen Morgan, James Wong, Michelle MacLaren, Michael W. Watkins and David Greenwalt." - That's a long list. Perhaps just the more important executive producers?
  • Done. I removed some of the ones that have only executive produced a few episodes. How's it look now? TBrandley 23:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a copyedit, be sure to double check.
  • Thanks! I'll look. TBrandley 23:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think the asterisk is clear enough. Perhaps a dagger and colour?
  • Done. I can't add a color due to the template though. It would also make it look very awkward anyway. TBrandley 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing! I've addressed all of your concerns, and hope you can support now. Cheers, TBrandley 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • "aired for nine seasons and 202 episodes" - "nine" -> "9" per WP:MOSNUM
    • Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the Fox network" - why not just "Fox"?
    • Well, many pages, including other FAs and FLs use it. I'd personally like to keep because it makes it look neater. Cheers, TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The series aired for nine seasons and 202 episodes, and centers on FBI special agents" - could be "Aired for 9 seasons and 2012 episodes, the series centers on..."
    • Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files." - I would write: "who work on paranormal cases, the X-Files"
    • There called "X-Files", and per Triangle (The X-Files), an FA, I'd like to keep it the same. Also, "the" isn't part of the name. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the two have developed a close friendship." - This seems to be out of place. You state that she debunked his theories, but then they are friends. They can be still friends no matter if one disagrees with someone else's works
    • Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", among many other executive producers." - redundant, as you already stated "along with"
    • Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each episode is approximately forty-three minutes long, without commercials," - I would write "Each commercial-free episode is..."
    • Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all for now. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review! I addressed all of the above comments. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be nice if the main image was related to the actual show, not the production aspect. Chris Carter would be appropriate for The X-Files#Production, but not this I feel.
  • Well, I don't really see anything wrong with it. Also, in List of The Simpsons episodes, an FL, which just came out of FLRC
• ”…and are broadcast in both high-definition and standard” tad puzzled. Suggests that the episodes are broadcasted in two different resolutions, simultaneously? Anyway, it was never broadcasted in true HD, rather upscaled. Perhaps change to available or something like that.
  • Done (by Drovethrughosts). TBrandley 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove titles from season tables.
  • Films? TBrandley 15:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Titles as in "The X-Files season 1 episodes", "The X-Files season 2 episodes", etc, on top of the tables. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The titles are there per the new MOS:DTT guidelines. Regards. TBrandley 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Codswallop. The tables don't even meet MOS:DTT, as rowscopes aren't correctly used. Bit excessive having titles and headings which more or less construe the same thing. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The captions were mandated by The Rambling Man at my FLC for List of Grey's Anatomy episodes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with lemonade about MOS:DTT, from looking at the season 1 table it doesn't have any colscopes, but I believe the captions are fine as they are recommended by the same MOS. NapHit (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRM said could, that's not really the same as a requirement – rather a suggestion. It didn't really affect the user's decision to vote; by that stage the list was on course to be promoted. I'm not saying remove them because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just that if they serve a purpose, they should be put on each episode list. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Lemonade. I've added scope rows to the table, per MOS:DTT. But, still keep the table captions per the above, and MOS:DTT. FL director Rambling Man has also listed it as a concern on quite a few other FLCs. TBrandley 18:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rowscopes cannot be added manually because they are templates, I should have explained earlier. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K then. TBrandley 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace 1999–00 with 1999–2000, given it is in a different century.
  • Done (by Drovethrughosts). TBrandley 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Should Amazon and Blockbuster be used as citations for release dates?
  • Yes, they are huge companies, that can't really lie. Amazon.com is used in almost every FL for region 2 dates, while Blockbuster.co.uk is a huge company, used on List of The Simpsons episodes; an FL. How are they not good? There also on List of Grey's Anatomy episodes, a brand-new FL. There isn't really anything else for those. TBrandley 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is Gamehead a reliable source?
  • It is really the reliable source I could find for that. It's a store, so. TBrandley 07:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review. I've replied, and fixed all issues possible, as seen above. Cheers, TBrandley 15:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues have been now addressed. Hope you can support its promotion now. Regards. TBrandley 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would provide a link to paranormal
  • Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it standard for episode lists to be written in present tense, despite the fact the show no longer runs? seems odd reading someone serves as an executive producer, on a show that has not had a new episode in ten years
  • Done. Wow; how could I miss that! Thanks, TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Each commercial-free episode is approximately forty-three minutes long, without commercials..." I'm aware another reviewer suggested this change but there are too many issues with it. Firstly, commercial-free implies (to me at least) that when aired the episodes were not interrupted by commercials, which I'm sure was not the case. Secondly, you repeat without commercials when its not needed. Personally I would revert to the previous wording, much clearer and no ambiguity.
  • Done. I agree, personally, too. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ref should come after punctuation, ref 9 currently does not, just move it to the end of the sentence
  • Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• likewise ref 10
  • Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Recently been told not use semi-colon for bolding. In this instance you use it make key bold. Discussion is at FLC talk page, would use a caption for the key instead of this
  • Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nielsen ratings table does not meet MOS:DTT, need to add col an row scopes
  • Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ref 11 just redirects to a paywall (I assume the link is behind the paywall), would add a note saying subscription required
  • Done. Added a note. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Bibliography should be ordered alphabetically
  • Done. By book name. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I've addressed/commented to most of your above issues. Cheers, TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mulder is a believer in the paranormal, and the skeptical Scully has been assigned to debunk his work." is that correct? My understanding was they are FBI agents who investigate incidents, not sure how she can debunk his work when they effectively work together. I'd like to see source backing this claim up or reworded if it can't be
  • Not done. It doesn't need to be sourced, since its from the actual episodes. Don't see why is should be changed.

I don't think its clear enough, I would change to something along the lines of what is in the second sentence of the second para in the main article. NapHit (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've changed it up a bit. So, done. How's it now? TBrandley 20:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would perhaps consider adding a sentence in the nielsen ratings section. Firstly to clarify what it is for readers who are not aware of it. Secondly to explain its relevance and importance

Don't any elaboration on this, a sentence in the lead about nielsen ratings, to provide context for the reader would suffice. NapHit (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops, sorry. Done. I've added a sentence now. Hope its okay. TBrandley 18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 9 is not published on iTunes, the computer software; it's published on the iTunes Store, the online digital media purchase center.
  • Done. Is that all? Cheers, TBrandley 17:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Aired for 9 seasons and 202 episodes, the series centers on FBI special agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files." -- The first part of that sentence is ungrammatically correct, because it is written in past tense, while the rest of the sentence is written in the present tense. Would read better as: "Having aired for 9 seasons and 202 episodes, the series centers on FBI special agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files."
  • Done. TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Gamehead doesn't look like a RS.
  • As noted above, it is the most reliable source I could find for that. TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok; well if you can find something else, please replace it.
• Why isn't the viewership for some S8&9 episode available?
  • Yeah, I am not really sure. But, there are none. Think it could be due to is notably of those seasons. TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. I've replied above. TBrandley 17:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Need refs for production codes.
  • There DVD set, but I don't fell referencing that is needed. TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't feel it is needed? They need to be cited.
      • Done. I have referenced the codes. Cheers, TBrandley 18:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Standardize similar column widths; the tables look messy right now.
  • What's the issue? Where is it? TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at List of Grey's Anatomy episodes (sorry for citing my own article, it's just TRM made me do it there). The column widths for S1 episodes should be the same as the column widths for all the other season's episodes. Same goes with the other columns of the the tables.
      • K. I did. Done. I have fixed the issue. How's it now? TBrandley 19:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The last two sentences of the lead are really odd, particularly the last one. A definition of a nielsen rating does not belong as the conclusion of the lead of an article unrelated to Nielsen ratings. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. TBrandley 23:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]