Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2013

• took place March 30, 1992 → took place on March 30, 1992
• Three weeks earlier in a ceremony → Three weeks earlier, in a ceremony
• In the section Box office performance → are the money figures in US dollars?
• Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, History (ref 15), Box Office Mojo (ref 29), Associated Press (ref 28) shouldn't be in italics (see WP:ITALIC).

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I have fixed everything you requested.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What about "Manipulation" in the lead? Doesn't it have an article? If it won an Academy Award, it must surely be notable
• "The telecast garnered more than 44 million viewers (in North America).", the parentheses are not needed. "44 million viewers in North America" is specific enough. And is it the actual North America, including Mexico and Canada, or just the US? The Ratings section seems to suggest that it is the second, and the 40º reference does not mention the detail.

• The awards table has an empty field. It is unavoidable with an uneven number of awards, but it may be better if it's redesigned to leave the empty field at the bottom right (unless it is following a specific order)
• "Academy Honorary Award" and "Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award" are borth in special sections with a single entry. Perhaps it may be better to create a single section with a descriptive name (something like "honorary awards", perhaps), and list both awards and their recipients.
• What about Les Marshak? Again, if he worked in the Academy Awards ceremony, he should be likely to be notable already.

Apart from those details, easy to fix, this look like a good work. At last, it has a similar quality to the other lists pointed, already featured. Cambalachero (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Comment for directors: I have limited time in internet lately, so if those details are fixed, or the nominator provides a sound reason to keep them as they are, feel free to count me as a supporter, even if I did not had the time to return and do so myself Cambalachero (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Winners and nominees: "and the first film to be released home video prior to winning the award." Needs "on" before "home".
• Presenters and performers: A colon or period is needed before ref 19.
• Ceremony information: "AMPAS rehired Gil Cates for third consecutive year." Needs "the" before "third".
• The Billy Crystal alt text needs "a" before "navy" and "who" before "is".
  • "who" is still missing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I fixed it.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• LGBT in film protest: Semi-colon in the last sentence should be a regular old comma instead.

• Done: I fixed it.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ratings and reception: 18-49 could use an en dash.
• Minor, but it would be nice if the bibliography was in alphabetical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I have fixed everything you requested.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed — I added sortname for the presenters. However, I must point out that the presenters are initially listed in order of how they appeared on the telecast as have my other lists such as the 2000 and 2012 Oscars. But if you to see them in alphabetical order by last name, click on the arrows.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He was born in in"
  • Whoops, sorry
• restoring – Again, no Easter egg links please.
  • I've unlinked all the "Victorian restoration" links, and deleted the explanatory footnote. This issue is not essential for the list and seems to create more heat than light.
• "Towards the end of the period covered by this list" – Not strictly objectionable, but I think this type of self-reference is poor style, when it can be avoided.
  • Reworded
• "Cumberland (now Cumbria)" and "parts of which are now Greater Manchester" – Please avoid using the word "now" in this fashion.
  • Reworded
• "This list contains the ecclesiastical works Paley undertook during the time he was the sole principal in the practice, between 1856 and 1868." – I have a bit of a problem with the fact that I have to read through four paragraphs before being told what the article's scope is.
  • Moved to earlier in the lead
• Lead picture (St Peter's Church, Bolton): Why this one, and not one or two of those actually mentioned in the lead? I think there's also potential for more inspiring captions.
  • I had difficulty in finding an image of good enough quality to demonstrate Paley's work adequately at the top of the article. This church is notable enough to be in the lead, so I have added it. And I've expanded the caption.
• "Denotes a new church designed by Paley, or one completely rebuilt" – Why not turn this into a footnote? It's not describing a building grade, is it?
  • Done.
• The only entry in the "See also" section is redundant to the navigation template at the bottom of the article.
  • Not every viewer will be familiar with navboxes and their purposes and uses. I certainly wasn't in my early WP days. For this type of viewer the See also link provides a quick and easy way of accessing the other work of this architectural practice wihtout having to go to the bottom of the page and open the navbox. And the Sharpe, Paley and Austin article is not in the navbox - that would be redundant. I prefer to keep the See also link.
    • The navbox has a link to that article. It can even be accessed without opening the box. (By the way, why is the box closed by default? Using {{Works of Sharpe, Paley and Austin|extended=yes}} will make it by default open.) If linking to Sharpe, Paley and Austin is really so important that doing it once isn't enough, I'd have to ask why that extra link isn't placed where it's most likely to be seen, in the lead? Goodraise 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
• Note "a.": The uninitiated might benefit more from this explanation if it contrasted the described form of "restoration" with what is meant by "restoration" today.
  • See above.
• Citation 72: The title of the linked page is "Capel Garmon Parish Church", not "Chapel Garmon". (Not a unique issue.)
  • Fixed; I don't think there are now any more.
• "Brandwood et al. is the most comprehensive published account of the Sharpe, Paley and Austin practice." – This would be nice with a citation.
  • Done.
• PDF sources are inconsistently marked. Compare citations 84 and 95.
  • Fixed.
• Citation 95: "Diocese of Manchester: All Schemes" – I'm not finding that title in the source, only "Diocese of Manchester" and "manchester - all schemes.pdf" as the file name. (Not a unique issue.)
• Citation 95: How do you know this is part of the "Church Commissioners/Statistics" series? I don't find that mentioned in the source.
  • I've amended these three citations. The mother page of these is here. But this is not accessible through the link in the citation, so I have amended the citations to remove "All Schemes" and "Church Commissioners/Statistics".
• Why is the title of citation 128 in italics? (Not a unique issue. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Names and titles as well as WP:ITALICS#Names and titles for when to use what.)
  • Fixed this and, I hope, all the others.
• The citation templates you elected to use (you don't have to use citation templates at all) produce inconsistent output. Compare, for example, the positions of "English Heritage" and "The Heritage Trail" in citations 127 and 128.

• Citation 137: "Church of All Saints, Lupton (1335929)" – That's not the title of the linked page. Its actual title is "1335929". That may look stupid, but it's the title nonetheless.
  • Actually I think that the title of this (and all similar pages) is "List entry"; using this every time would I think look (and be) silly. 1335929 is the LEN (list entry number) rather than a title. The Name in the list is "Church of All Saints", and I added Lupton to differentiate it from the other similarly named churches.
    • Obviously, what the title of a page is can be open for debate. Here I'm seeing three reasonable choices: 1.) "List entry" 2.) "Church of All Saints" and 3.) "1335929" (as provided by the document using the HTML <title> tag). That you added something for good measure is the main problem I have with your approach. Unless it appears anywhere in the source material, it's not the title. Goodraise 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "National Heritage List for England" -> "The National Heritage List for England"
  • Part of the problem arising from the last three comments is that I find the Template:NHLE extremely useful and easy to use. But I take your point and have raised a query on its talk page.

First batch. Goodraise 21:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First responses. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am stuck. Please see this discussion. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read the linked discussion. However, it's not a reviewer's job to run around telling template coders what to do. This is all up to you. You can enter the information manually into the source code of your articles, or you can use whatever templates your like. You can mix templates with not using templates. You can even write your own templates, or copy and modify existing ones to your needs. It doesn't even matter what citation style you use. You can go with APA style, ASA style, MLA style, or whatever style you choose, but whatever you ultimately decide to do "under the hood", what we as reviewers and readers get to see needs to be consistent from one citation to the next. In short: You can do whatever you like, however you like, as long as the end result looks the same for all citations. Goodraise 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      But you need to take into consideration that once the "template coders" have done their job the problem is solved, and not just for this article. In fact the template isn't protected, so you could even fix it yourself. Eric Corbett 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      All I'm here to do is to check whether list articles meet the criteria, and WP:CITE happens to say that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." Change that, or remove CITE from the criteria, and I'll shut up about it. But don't expect me (or any other reviewer) to get involved in behind the scenes disputes of whatever nature. Why would I? It's not as if I care about churches or architecture, or even England for that matter. Goodraise 21:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think you've made your position very clear. Eric Corbett 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Good! That was my intention. Goodraise 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Goodraise, for your review and advice on this occasion, and previously. Your comments have led to improvements in both lists, and I have learnt more about the technicalities of preparing lists in the process. I am grateful to you for this. But I am not going to rewrite all the NHLE citations.

• The NHLE citations provide all that is required in respect of the title of the article, the title of the source, the publisher, the date of retrieval, and an online link to the source.
• Within the citation I have provided a title for the article that is accurate, it is contained in the source, and is understandable by the reader. The use of a bare number, which has no meaning to the reader, does not seem to me to be helpful.
• Are we here to provide information in a helpful manner to the reader, or to satisfy one interpretation of the MoS? The MoS itself states that it is a style guide; it does not say that it is a set of rigid rules.
• The MoS already allows for different styles within citations. For example, many articles have a mix of Harvard links to Sources, and other forms of citation.
• A general query. The NHLE citations are based on a template. An extract from the guidance states Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style. In this context, what constitutes a consensus, and how is it achieved? Writers of articles and lists on buildings listed by English Heritage are increasingly using this template because it is simple to use by both editor and reader and, as an advantage, it produces a neat display. Does this use constitute a consensus amongst those editors? And would such a consensus satisfy the guidance?
• You yourself are not consistent as a reviewer. In your review of List of works by Sharpe and Paley you allowed the use of the NHLE template without comment. Have the rules changed since then? If so, when and how? And you also allowed a mix of titles with and without italics.
• Your comment on churches, architecture, and England are not worthy of a FLC reviewer.
• I request that you close your review, with an Oppose if you so wish, and allow other reviewers to make comments.
  • --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your points in reverse order:

• Reviews can be conducted simultaneously. That actually used to be the norm when there were more reviewers compared to the number of nominations than there are today.
• I don't care about churches, architecture or England any more than I care about Pokemon, culinary nuts, storms, warships, chart positions, or a million other things covered by Wikipedia's body of lists. What I do care about is Wikipedia, and that its featured lists are worthy of imitation. If you disapprove of that attitude, then that's just one more item on a very long list of things about which I don't care.
• Did I really allow all these things? Please accept my apologies for providing such a sloppy review last time. (Note: I try never to use sarcasm on Wikipedia. I am actually sorry that I missed these things back then.)
• Curiously, what Wikipedia:Citing sources does here is to protect style diversity (between articles). Essentially, it gives you as the primary contributor to this article more say over what particular citation style should be used by that article and whether templates should be used than anyone who may want to change the style later. If, for example, I wanted to change the article to APA style without templates, I'd have to suggest and gain consensus for that change on the talk page first. Likewise, you would technically have to seek talk page consensus before introducing {{NHLE}} or any other citation template to articles not already using those templates. Of course if nobody objects, you'll get away with not seeking consensus first, but if somebody takes issue, they'll have WP:CITE to back them up.
• There's one thing you seem to forget: Nominating an article for featured list status is optional, and doing so implies (among other things) that it "complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages."

Goodraise 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The article violates criterion zero in that it does not follow a consistent citation style as required by WP:Citing sources, which the nominator refuses to correct. (Please note: I'm open to continuing the discussion now hidden in the collapsible box above if it is desired.) Goodraise 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Before jumping to any conclusions, I trust that future reviewers will read the arguments for my so-called "refusal", which have been hidden by collapsing the box above. In my opinion, while the list may not be cited according to the letter of the MoS as interpreted by one reviewer, I believe that the way I have cited the list is in keeping with the principles of WP and the guidance given to its editors. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is disagreement about what is meant in the context of this list by consensus in the formatting of citations. One opinion is expressed in the closed box above; the other in the discussion at Template talk:NHLE. If corporate authors (in this case English Heritage) are the same as "Author", English Heritage should be placed at the start of the citation, as they are in this list. The publishers of the list are also English Heritage; surely it would not be sensible to add English Heritage at the end of the citation as well as at the beginning! Ref 21 is published by English Heritage, so that name appears at the end of the citation. But this results in an apparent inconsistency between the positioning of the author of most of the citations and the publisher of Ref 21. Is there a real inconsistency, or just an apparent one? This needs to be resolved, not only for this FLC but also for future FACs and FLCs that include information about listed buildings and use the NHLE template. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding between us. As far as I'm concerned, when the author or authors of a source (or it's corporate authors for that matter) are the same as its publisher, then you can, for all I care, omit either, or include both. However, you only get to make that decision once per article, not once per citation. Goodraise 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that your concern is not about consistency, but rather about repetition? I cannot find anything in the MoS or any related pages that advises that the citations cannot be used in the way they are in this list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, my concern is about consistency. Repetition and non-repetition are both acceptable, as long as they're applied consistently. All that really matters to me is that the citations are assembled using a single set of rules that given the same input will produce the same output (call it a "citation style" if you will). Now I'm looking at citations 21 and 24. The best I can tell, they both have the same author and the same publisher, but one of them puts the author/publisher at the beginning, the other at the end. That's a difference that might be an inconsistency. Now you can either remove that difference, or explain to me why that difference isn't an inconsistency, or give me a good reason for why that difference, even if it is an inconsistency and therefore a violation of WP:CITE, should be tolerated.

Look, I'm a reasonable person and this isn't a hot button issue for me (far from it). In fact, I'm rather astonished that this turned out to be such a big deal. And I only "closed" my review (prematurely) because you explicitly asked for it. Goodraise 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not as astonished as I am. OK, I changed the order of the details in Ref 21; and also Ref 12 for good measure as it's a similar ref. (Although in fact I've no idea whether EH is the corporate author of these items, or if the author should be "Anon."). Do you require me to do the same for Refs 70, 72, 84, 96, and 129 (and have I missed any?)? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither all-knowing, nor infallible. Reviewing articles, even after all this time, is still a learning-by-doing issue for me. When I'm saying something wrong, I want to be told about it, not blindly obeyed. That said, how can you tell that English Heritage is the corporate author of citations 138, 137, and similar? Anyway, I'm satisfied. I'll simply strike my oppose and "cap" this conversation, if you don't mind. If I find myself with a couple of free hours on my hands, I might finish my review, but I wouldn't count on it. If I don't return, good luck with whoever else shows up to review.

Goodraise 19:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding, not to continue any disagreement, but rather to give what explanation I can from my point of view. For a start, I have reverted my last edit. You will have realised that I am not good at the technicalities of WP, but I do like to write articles and create lists, mainly on heritage and, when an article or list seems to be rather better than most of mine, I feel it is good to seek some recognition for it. And in the review process I usually learn how to improve my work even further, as I did from your previous review (for which I am grateful, as I think I said earlier). As my work is mainly on heritage articles, I have come to use the NHLE template, which is simple to use, and provides everything the reader needs to inform him and to link to the source; it is also IMO elegant. I have zero clue about writing templates, so I have to rely on and trust the experts. I referred above to the Template talk:NHLE and would ask you, if you have the time and interest, to read the full discussion. There you will find that the designers discussed the matters of author, publisher, etc, and for the reasons given in the discussion, came to the conclusion to use English Heritage as the author (what they call corporate author) and not to repeat it as the publisher (at one time they thought of "English Heritage staff" for the author field, but then settled for "English Heritage"). I have no idea whether that is correct or incorrect, but it is the reason why in one of the citations in the list EH appears at the end (as publisher) and, by a sort of coincidence, at the beginning of the others (as (corporate) author). Thus there appears to be an inconsistency, when in fact the apparent inconsistency is a coincidence rather than a true inconsistency. I have no power to change the template, nor am I going to get into any prolonged discussion about it with the creators. I intend to continue to use it, and will have to risk any criticism in respect of what appears to be (but is not) an inconsistency. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...had established the architectural practice..." reads slightly funny to me, talking about "the" practice...

• "the" changed to "an"

• This is super-picky but you use the word "practice" seven times in the first para, it's noticeable (in my mind) as a little repetitive.

• I've re-written the para to reduce or change the use of the word "practice". Does it read OK like that?

• "in Neo-Norman style" style not linked vs "in Transitional style" style linked...

• Linkage amended. Does that work OK now?

• " this column are the year, or years" ... reads awkwardly for me, "are the year"...

• Amended.

• Shouldn't "† Denotes a new church designed..." be in the key rather than a note?

• IMO yes. That's how it started. But it was moved from the key to a footnote on the advice of a previous reviewer. I have returned it to the key. Does the formatting of this work? I struggle with tables. If it's not OK, can someone help please?

• "218, 219" vs "218–219" in the refs.

• This is a bit of pedantry (accuracy?). These pages are details of the items of work in the form of an appendix, each item being very short. In the one case the item stretches from p. 218 to p. 219; in the other case there are two separate items, one on p. 218, the other on p. 219.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks TRM for your comments. I hope that they are all addressed satisfactorily. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He was named one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1983, and the cricket almanack Wisden described him "one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time." - Odd to introduce Wisden (the publication) after the award.

• Rephrased. Zia Khan 05:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Made his ODI debut -- Have not introduced One-Day Internationals yet.

• Done. Zia Khan

• His career-best figures for an innings were 4 wickets for 18 runs against Australia in December 1991, a match which the West Indies Lost at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne by 9 runs. - Does this mean he never got a fifer for ODIs?

• Added a short statement. Zia Khan 05:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See my copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the corrections, ironic ones! Zia Khan 05:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Malcolm Marshall, a former West Indian cricketer, who represented the West Indies cricket team." Appears to be missing a word, and is somewhat tautological. I would merge this with the later sentences, so it reads: "Malcolm Marshall, a former right-arm fast bowler, represented the West Indies cricket team in 81 Tests between 1978 to 1992. In cricket, a five-wicket haul... ...in their cricketing careers. In Test cricket, Marshall took 376 wickets, including 22 five-wicket hauls. The cricket almanack Wisden..."

• Done. Zia Khan 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that the final sentence, and quote about the leg-cutter is particularly relevant to this list, or at least, the relevance is not explained.

• Have a look now! Zia Khan 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...at the Adelaide Oval, Adelaide." I think it is safe to simply write "...at the Adelaide Oval." Similarly for the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

• Done. Zia Khan 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...at the Old Trafford," "the" is not needed: "at Old Trafford," is fine. Similarly for Headingley.

• Done. Zia Khan 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Commas needed between the venue and the location for #6 and #7 in the table.

• Done. Zia Khan 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• #3 Should presumably have a different note: that Madras is now named Chennai.

• Done. Actually, this was #4. Zia Khan 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Dale Steyn/archive1 for how to get #10 and #11, and #21 and #22, to consistently sort correctly by date. ESPNcricinfo is currently first linked in the refs by ref #2, but ref #1 would be more appropriate. Similarly for Wisden, ref #7 and ref #8. Harrias ^talk 12:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks for your kind comments! Zia Khan 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #1 is not working, check the URL

• Fixed. Zia Khan 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Italicise "Wisden" in "Wisden Cricketers of the Year"

• Done. Zia Khan 11:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "and was named as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1983" who was named, Wisden? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Correced. Zia Khan 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to re-iterate test in "His first Test five-wicket"

• Removed Test. Zia Khan 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He took 9 wickets for 41 in the match", something missing here

• Added runs. Zia Khan 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "owing to his man-of-the-match performance the West Indies won the match by an innings and 156 runs", you mean to say that West Indies won the match because he was awarded the MoM; also too many "the" in the quotes sentence

• I mean WI won because of his man-of-the-match performance. Removed one "the". Zia Khan 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean he was adjudged MoM before West Indies won the match? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did I say this? Rephrased, anyway?

• The phrase owing to implies that way —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Marshall made his One Day International (ODI) debut during the England against at Headingley": grammar fail

• Corrected. Zia Khan 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Still some confusion —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Zia Khan

• The penultimate sentence of the last para is too long.

• Shortened the statement. Zia Khan 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the the that precedes West Indies, and Lost -> lost —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. BTW, have a look at The Rambling Man's comment here. Zia Khan 11:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We'd normally use the depending upon the type of sentence. See this one for example. "a match the West Indies lost at the Melbourne Cricket Ground" sounds odd to me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, same here. Fixed, as you suggested! Zia Khan 13:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think the category "One Day International cricket records" is relevant here since he has not taken fifers in ODIs.

• Removed. Zia Khan 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments, appreciated! Zia Khan 14:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• Date for the 19th entry and Econ. for the 11th entry are wrong.
• Entry #1 has only four batsmen listed and #7 has only six. Check the last two columns once again.
• In ref #10, author=agency?
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed all. Zia Khan 23:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "represented the West Indies cricket team in 81 Tests between 1978 to 1992." This should be either "between 1978 and 1992" or "from 1978 to 1992", not what's there now.
• "described him 'one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time'". Needs "as" after "him".
• It would be nice if ICC was spelled out.
• "against same team" could use "the" before "same". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Added a note for ICC. Zia Khan

• Lead caption isn't a complete sentence, so no need for a full stop.

• Done. Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a little odd that you link "fast bowling" before "bowling"...

• Linked "fast bowler" to bowling and unlinked "bowler"!? Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "as one of the inaugural members" -> "as an inaugural member"

• Done. Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "feat only once more" no real need for "only".

• Removed. Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He never took a five-wicket haul in ODIs. His ..." perhaps merge, or semi-colon.

• Done. Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sortable table so if you insist on linking "drawn" then you need to do it every time.

• Done. Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 and ref 18 title need work (lose the hyphens).

• This is according to the source. Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Or at the least, be consistent with spacing around the slashes, either spaced every time or completely unspaced.

• Done. Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the kind review! Zia Khan 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The image could use some alt text.

Added

• If possible, all subsections under a common section could have equal, or at least similarly-sized, column widths. The "Album details" column for Burlesque, for example, feels rather cramped compared to the "Album details" column for studio albums.

Done

• If "Just Be Free" was commercially released as a maxi single (and an EP), then I don't see why it belongs in the promotional singles section. The Amazon reference cited even says that it was released publicly to record stores in the United Kingdom.

It was released by Warlock Records without Aguilera's permission, in order to promote the label, so I don't think it's an official single here (see Just Be Free for information).

• Allmusic is now "AllMusic", per consensus on the article's talk page.

Done

• The dashes in the table are all slightly off-centered. Looking at the source code, this seems to be caused by the addition of %nbsp before each em dash, creating an extra unnecessary space. I'd suggest removing that space from the tables.
• The certifications table should feature abbreviations for the chart providers rather than the countries (i.e. "US" becomes "RIAA", and "UK" becomes "BPI").

I think it's unnecessary here, per other FLs such as Lady Gaga discography and Madonna albums discography

More recently promoted lists have all applied the certification format. The examples you've cited are fairly older promoted lists. Holiday56 (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The table in the other appearances section needs a table caption.
• No need for the GER, NZ, and SWI in the other charted songs section if none of the songs listed actually charted there.
• "Walk Away" charted at number 35 in Denmark, and "Let There Be Love" charted at number 1 on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, so perhaps they could be included in the other charted songs section.

Holiday56 (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed all of your concerns. Thanks for commenting! I really appreciate your help! — HĐ (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox: Add under EP → |EPs link = Extended plays

• Done

• Format: CD, cassette → Formats: CD, cassette

• Done

• Add {{Use mdy dates|date=August 2013}} {{Use American English|date=August 2013}}

• Done

• All of her album's have been released digitally (see here)
• EP → EP details
• Singles that didn't chart should be sourced with a reliable ref.

• Done — HĐ (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Other appearances → text above the table should be removed or incorporated into the note built into the table

• Done

• Recording Industry Association of America → Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) → do this for all certification related refs (BPI, etc.)
• Wikilinks (in the article + refs):
  • Swiss Music Charts → Swiss Hitparade
  • Recording Industry Association of New Zealand or RIANZ → Recorded Music NZ

• The Recorded Music NZ doesn't have its abbreviation, so I guess it's still RIANZ. — HĐ (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • LP → [[LP record|LP]] + DVD (in compilations)
  • In ref 2 → Billboard. Prometheus Global Media.

• Done — HĐ (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! Just few minor issues:

• I suggest doing you're references in 30em, it would look better. However that is you're choice.
• ″The first single released from the album was "Under the Sheets", which Goulding wrote in collaboration with Starsmith.″ is there is source to acknowledge that sentence?
• ″In November 2010, the singer re-released Lights as Bright Lights, which included the standard version of the album and several new songs.″, source?
• I suggest doing you doing rowspan in you're years, it would look better. However that is you're choice.

 — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I added refs for the two sentences. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wonderwoman" -> "Wonderman", surely?
• "Halcyon" needs to be above "Hanging On" when the page first loads, and "I Need Your Love" needs to be above "I'll Hold My Breath".
• Calvin Harris and Ellie Goulding ideally need to sort under their surnames.
• "Under the Sheets", A Concert for Kirsty MacColl and An Introduction to Ellie Goulding need to sort under U, C and I respectively.
• I'm not entirely sure that it's necessary to highlight the one song that Goulding wrote on her own. Unlike the singles, it's immediately obvious from the table which song(s) were written by Goulding alone – why do we also need to make the cell a different colour?
• Ellie Goulding discography#Other appearances lists a couple of songs that aren't in this article: "A Day at a Time" and "You Don't Know". Any reason they can't be included?

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes that you have suggested. Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Under the Sheets" still isn't sorting right in the Release column. Using something like {{sort|Under the Sheets|"Under the Sheets"}} would work.
• "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 Soundtrack" -> "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2"
• "A Day at a Time]]" -> "A Day at a Time"
• "Life in a Day Soundtrack" -> "Life in a Day" or "Life in a Day soundtrack"
• "Your Song" † -> "You Don't Know"

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully everything is fixed now. Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that "Under the Sheets" wasn't sorting right in the Release column. Also, those two album titles hadn't been changed. I've made those edits here. Hope that's okay. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Image needs alt text

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Image caption says the picture was taken in 1974 while the original description says it was taken in 1972.

• Clarified. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Broadway theatre linked twice in the lead

• OVERLINK removed. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the actual dates of a few stage shows are unknown could you possibly rename the column.

• "Date" covers the situation here, I think, unless you can come up with a better term we can use? - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The television section says it's incomplete. Are you sure that you have included all of his major works to makes sure that criterion 3 (a) is met.

• Yes. It's his minor ones that are the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ITV – dab

• Good catch - someone has moved the pages around recently: [[ITV (TV network)|ITV]] now in place. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a few blank cells in the "theatre" and "roles" col.

• Yes, unfortunately they are either not listed in available sources, or (in the case of the theatre) it was on tour in multiple unknown venues. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't those be complete to make the list comprehensive? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideally it should be complete, but if we have exhausted all available sources then there is nothing more we can do: when other sources become available, we'll be able to update accordingly. In terms of the missing theatres, we note when the play was on a tour and often the invidiual theatres are not known. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Only complete sentences should end with a period (notes).

• I think I caught them all, thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• em dashes should be used for indicating time period instead of spaced en dashes.
  

• I think we're in line with MOS:DATEFORMAT - can you point to any I've missed here? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Vensatry: all very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, your comments have been very helpful. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This script should come in handy. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantastic - a great tool! Now changed the few that were still incorrect. Cheers for that! - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The list looks great! Just a few small things:
  • Add Knight Ridder as the publisher for Ref 2
    • Done. Holiday56 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add MediaNews Group as the publisher for Ref 3
    • Done. Holiday56 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllMusic + Billboard should only be wikilinked once in the refs.
    • Based on previous FL experience, it seems fine to link either once or in all instances for the references section. It's a personal preference of mine to link all. Holiday56 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few very minor changes to a few bits and pieces: feel free to revert what you don't like. A few brief points to be considering, although I'll have another look through a little later when I have more time:

• Recipients and roles: Shouldn't the names sort on the surname, rather than first name?
  • I'm not sure that this is the right approach since South Indian people have their first names as common name. Also in a case like Kamal Haasan, he is referred as Kamal rather than Haasan. It's best to use first name to avoid ambiguity. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - thanks for the reminder about name order: quite right to leave as is. - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure we need to bullet the names or titles in the table: separate lines should suffice (the bullets mess up the sorting too)
  • Removed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Films: you'll need to use the {{tl:sort}} template to ensure films such as The Making of the Mahatma search under the M of "Making", not under the T of "The".

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done and thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• a cash prize (INR50,000 in 2012). You mean this wasn't 50,000 before 2012.
  • It was 10,000 till the 53rd National Film Awards, from the on it was 50,000. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• ...who was honoured at the 15th National Film Award (1968) ...., in the the table you've put 1967 for the 15th and so on. Don't know how does it work?
  • Corrected. The key is sufficient to explain the on what context it's used in the table. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As of 2012 you mean As of 2013?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Mithun Chakraborty → Mithun, for the 2nd instance.
• Same for Ajay Devgn and Amitabh Bachchan

Zia Khan 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the rest. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 → |format=PDF
• All Oricon refs → |language=Japanese
• When using liner notes as sources (refs 18, 19....) → include release date (or at least year) and catalogue number
• Perhaps include a section of the table for Japanese chart positions rather than list them in the lead?

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Format and language added; refs 18-22 already have dates, and the albums didn't have catalogue numbers- they were included for free in issues of Monthly Shōnen Gangan, and weren't given any numbers. I'd rather not stick the Oricon information in the table- there are almost 50 albums listed, and only 10 charted. It's really there just to show the notability of this group of albums, since none of them have an article or are really referenced in other articles. --PresN 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

development and publishing company - should be standardised. What about developing and publishing company or developer and publisher?

Dozens of albums have been produced since, primarily through Square Enix's own record label. - Does a record label produce?

Monster x Dragon - Worth a redlink? This is literally the only video game on the list not linked.

Any more specific dates for the Square Enix Music Compilation series?

Square Enix Composers Best/Selection Black Disk - Why no length?

Any information about the composers / music included? If I'm not mistaken, Nobuo Uematsu did a lot of what's been compiled here, and there are bound to be several other composers or directors who are well represented as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm FL'ing it since I'm trying to get all of the WP:SE lists featured, but I'm not sure I would have bothered creating this article if it didn't already exist.
• Switched to developer and publisher
• Changed to published
• I guess so, thought it's a free-to-play browser game.
• Unfortunately no- I scoured everything I could find, but I couldn't even find a non-RS that would give me so much as a month.
• No length because the album won't be released for another week and a half
• Well, that's most of the composers in the company, but I added a bit about which composers are the most represented.

--PresN 18:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get an image for the lead?
• Inline citations for para #1 and the last statement of the 2nd para?
• In the Lebel column, you've linked some while others are unlinked. Any reason for that?

Zia Khan 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't able to find any free images of the albums, but I'll keep looking.
• para 1 is a summary of the table below, but added a source for the composers' works.
• Unlinked labels are those without articles.

--PresN 23:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The refs and tables look good!
• "for a prior of two years." sounds awkward.
  •  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the lead so short? It's half (or less) the size of the other lists in this series. Given that this award appears to be the soap opera equivalent of the Best Picture Academy Award, I'd be very surprised if there isn't something more that can be said about it. Items like the first winner and number of shows to win the award seem like easy additions, for example.
  •  Done. The reason is that I do not have that many facts is that the Academy Awards are way more popular than the Daytime Emmys. This is all the informations I can recall.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, when I said number of shows I meant the number of different shows, not the total number of awards ceremonies. Far fewer than 43 shows have won, by the looks of it. I still think the lead is short and that more could be done to get at least two paragraphs out of it, like in your other lists. Whatever tricks you used to stretch those lists out would be helpful here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. I have expanded the lead as much I can. It was not esay to do.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 02:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The writing in the new areas is questionable. I wouldn't consider "Also, at the time there were few categories, this one, the top actor, and the top actress etc." to be FL-caliber prose, and "It is was given to thirtheen diffrent programs" has more glitches than usable writing, even though the idea is good. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. I have removed both sentences.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "held in 1972 when the award was orginnally called...". Spot the typo? Two supporters obviously didn't.
  •  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "where this award was renamed Outstanding Drama Series and it is given in honor of a daytime drama." Remove "it is"?
  •  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Ref column shouldn't have any colors.
  • IMO, I do not see the problem. Is this a criteria from a FL? I do not recall this being one. This issue was not brought up in the previous FLs. Thanks for the comments!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • There are certain expectations regarding appearance, and I'm not certain we can say that a ref column constitutes "suitable use" of colors per Criterion 5a. It's somewhat subjective, but I don't recall seeing this in an FL before, and I don't think the look is that attractive. If I had noticed this in a previous FLC of yours, I'd have pointed it out there, but now is as good a time as any to make improvements. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I still do not see the problem. However, if we are going to resolved this, pleas tell me how to remove the colour since I have no idea how to do it? Plus, the are plenty of FLs that uses colours, for his example , this, this, this and this and my my FLs. IMO, this is ridiculous and should be resolved.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I absolutely despise this look, but since it's in other lists by authors I greatly respect, I don't see much choice but to strike this one. This is still not something I want to see become a trend at FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aaron

• Dr. John Watson respectively. → Comma after Watson

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• and produced twelve further films. → and produced a further twelve.

• Yep - done - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• and production values and → and production values that

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• and lowered the budgets, producing the films as B pictures. → and produced them as B pictures with lower budgets.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the 1970s → Comma after
• In 1938 → Comm after

• Commas after dates are a matter of personal taste, except when there is a sub-clause after the opening words. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — ₳aron 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Aaron! Much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• another recurring character, Mary Gordon, - She's not a character

• Yep: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In February 1942, following negotiations with the Doyle estate, Universal Studios acquired the rights to the films and signed contracts with Rathbone and Bruce to continue their portrayals. Universal's deal—worth $300,000—was for seven years, and they purchased the rights to 21 stories in the canon; the contract stipulated that the company had to make three films a year, of which two had to be adaptations of Doyle's stories. - Was this while the cast was doing the radio show too?

• Certainly while Rathbone and Bruce were doing it: I'm not sure how many of the others were involved as I've not got much info on the radio series - most of my sources are about Holmes on Screen - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of semi colons

• I'll see if I can remove a few! OK: slimmed down on the usage! - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Universal considered replacing him on screen with Tom Conway—as he subsequently did with the radio series - Universal cannot be replaced with the pronoun "he". Needs rewriting

• Changed "he" to "they". I think it reads OK, but let me know if it looks a little clunky. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As American films shouldn't this list use American English?

• Possibly! It's a slightly moot point, I think. The character and stories are British, as are most of the cast. I'm happy to change to AmEng if people think it appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why Hugh Hefner?

• Aside from the fact he's a film fan, there's no other reason given. I've added the film fan info. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, as always Crisco - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• took place March 26, 1990 → took place on March 26, 1990
• earned such negative reaction → earned such a negative reaction
• commented of last year's → commented on the last year's
• Ref 5: Websites shouldn't be in italics
• Ref 20: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences → Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I fixed everything you suggested.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Three weeks earlier in a ceremony held at the The Beverly Hilton...". Double "the" needs fixing.
• Background: Hyphen in "Newly-elected" should be removed.
• Gallaries have always been discouraged in featured content from what I remember. Why not just put the photos next to the awards lists like in other Oscars lists?
• Presenters: Kim Basinger's name is misspelled twice, once in each column. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I fixed everything you asked for.

—Birdienest81 (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, such a shame we can't use an image. I love the one her main article!

• I know! I've done some news searches and various image searches, but I can't find anything free to use. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jacques's" ugh. I suppose Jacques' is out of the question?!

• Sadly I think "Jacques's" is the correct version (even though it's ugly!) - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Modern times..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On that note, it would be cool if you could get an International Phonetic Alphabet spelling of the pronunciation of her name, because I imagine few would think it was Jakes.

• I'll see what I can do - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now found the translator - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]