Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2018

1. Test cricket and One Day International should be linked in the first paragraph.
   • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. It looks a bit weird with a very short first paragraph followed by two much longer ones.
   • Expanded a bit —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ashes links to a disambiguation.
   • Fixed —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Root went on to sore three centuries has a typo ("sore").
   • Fixed —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Root has scored centuries against all Test-playing nations, with the exception of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ireland and Zimbabwe. – that's a pretty extensive exception. I'd instead write "against X out of Y Test-playing nations" before listing the exceptions.
   • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. The key should not have its own section.
   • Is there a rule? —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     • Not as far as I know, but it has a negative impact on the visual appeal. TompaDompa (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. The key is not consistent in its use of periods.
   • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Much of the information in the key is unnecessary in that format. All the abbreviations in the table should be explained with the {{Abbr}} template instead (and have links where appropriate). Only the symbols need to be explained in the key.
   • Not sure what the problem is. Can you be more specific? —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     • The key is a lot longer than it needs to be. For instance: instead of explaining "H/A/N" in the key, that header cell in the table should read H/A/N, i.e. {{abbr|H/A/N|Home, Away, or Neutral venue}} (or something similar). The only things that should be explained in the key are the meaning of the symbols (asterisk for not out, dagger for man of the match, and double dagger for captain). An overly long key impedes readability significantly. TompaDompa (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
       • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 16:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. "No." should use the {{abbr}} template per MOS:NUMERO.
   • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. The reference column header in the ODI table should be formatted like the one in the Test table, using the {{abbr}} template.
    • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thanks for the review. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "hundred or more" shouldn't that really be "100 or more" or "one hundred or more" or "a hundred or more"?
• "Root made his international debut" which format? I presume Test, but it should be stated.
• "at the Headingley Cricket Ground. " we'd normally just say "at Headingley."
• "youngest English player" stick with "England" rather than "English" given the vast array of non-English England players we've had...
• "an Ashes century at Lord's when he made 180 in the second Test of the 2013 Ashes series." try to avoid the repetition of Ashes here.
• Next two consecutive sentences start "His performance..." which is repetitive.
• " by the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in " once again, I'd drop "the" here.
• "Root went on to score three centuries .." three more or three in total, so two more? A little unclear.
• "scored at 12 different venues—have come against six different " twelve (MOS:NUM "cats and dogs").
• Might be worth mentioning England don't lose Test matches when Root tons up.

"Facts" which are not unlikely to change hardly add any value to the article.

• Consistent date formats in the refs please.
• No spaced hyphens (ref 3 title)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Fixed the rest. Thanks —Vensatry _(talk) 17:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why is the word "airplay" linked to Rotation (music) instead of to Airplay?
2. female performers achieved a level of success on the country charts greater than in the first half of the decade or the new century – I would say something like "than they did in the first half of the decade or would in the following two"; we don't know how it will be in the 2040s.
3. the first time a country act had achieved this feat since 1983 – I'd mention who did so in 1983.

TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My usual "link "chart" to record chart".
• "first half of the decade or would in the following two" following two "half decades" or two decades? Mildly confusing...
• "by "Amazed" by the band" by by... repetitive.
• " Lonestar's song" why not just "Amazed"?
• "in the spring" it's probably somewhere like MOS:TIME but I seem to remember being told to avoid seasons as they vary from hemisphere to hemisphere so their timings are not necessarily universal.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. All fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "or would in early part of the new century" not quite right, nor quite what I was hoping for (you've gone from confusing but specific, to vague)... Also "Lonestar's song" is still there... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Tried again :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I trimmed the lead diff. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think the lead is too long compared to the length of the entire page. See for instance List of highest-grossing films, which is much longer yet has a shorter WP:LEAD. I'd suggest adding a "History" section (or similar) to the body. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a history section per your recommendation. Good idea, I like it better this way. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't done a proper source check, but the WP:LEAD contains a fairly large number of sentences that are not followed by an inline citation. Do the references generally verify all the sentences following the last citation, or are there unsourced statements?
  • Yes they do. The only sentences that lack a source are the last few sentences of the first paragraph, explaining that teams retire numbers. The sentences, in my opinion, are backed up by the substance of the list and the sources that show the Packers retire numbers. Let me know what you think. I haven't been able to find a source that generically says teams retire numbers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In the alt text that reads "A photo of Reggie White and other unknown Packers players with former president Bill Clinton", I would remove the word "unknown". The players are presumably not unknown even if they haven't been identified in this particular photograph, and their identities aren't relevant in this context anyway.
  • I removed it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would place the photos of the players to the right of the table, rather than below it.
  • I have no strong feelings about this, but here is what it looks like [4]. Using thumbnails, it creates a ton of white space. I also heard that putting the photos above or below makes for easier readability depending on screen size (i.e. gives more room for the table). Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That version is obviously less than ideal, but its possible to specify the height to eliminate the problem. Come to think of it, maybe it would be best to make a new column in the table so that the pictures are aligned with the corresponding entry. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved them into the table per your suggestion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The link in reference 22 (as of my writing this) is defunct. The intended link seems to be this one.
  • It worked for me, but I replaced it with your version, which also works for me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• My main issue: as of right now, I don't think this passes WP:FLCR 3(b). Specifically, I think this could "reasonably be included as part of a related article".
  • Note that this article was nominated for deletion for that very same reason and the ultimate outcome was to keep it. I feel like this discussion comes up a lot with shorter lists. In my opinion, this article provides a lot more information than what would be necessary for a larger, summary article (such as Green Bay Packers or History of the Green Bay Packers). If someone added this much info to those articles, I would cut it down significantly per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Hope that helps, thanks for the review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the AfD and gave the arguments presented a cursory read-through. After a second, more thorough read-through I stand by my assessment that the list currently does not meet WP:FLCR 3(b). I agree that this level of detail would be excessive for a larger article, but the list reasonably could be included in one (which is not to say that it should, just as the result of the AfD wasn't "keep" but "no consensus"). In other words, trimming and merging would be a reasonable option right now. What I feel is missing is information that could not reasonably be included in a larger article and the loss of which would be clearly detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. The "why" would almost certainly fit that bill, but I fear that it might be difficult to source. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I followed you until your last two sentences. What do you feel is missing from this article? I believe that it is a reasonable stand-alone list that will continue to grow and there is plenty of in-depth info that is appropriate only for this article, and not a larger one if this list were merged. Note that this list is already in the Green Bay Packers article, just with a whole lot less info. The table is not the only part of a list, a list in my opinion includes the entire article. Thus, the entirety of this article could not be reasonably merged into Green Bay Packers per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, thus a separate article is appropriate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The list includes both the table and the text, yes. In this case, however, the text doesn't add much that both (a) isn't in the table already and (b) enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. The main thing in the text that satisfies both of those criteria is the Future additions section, which I will say that I really like. The table also adds only the "honors and awards" column to the condensed one on Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers (well, besides the photos and references). So in essence List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers has one additional paragraph of quality content compared to Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers, and I don't think that's enough for a WP:Featured list. An additional paragraph or two of quality content would do wonders for the list and would resolve this issue entirely in my eyes, as would the reasons why these particular players had their numbers retired (i.e. the motivation/rationale for it, if there is an official one like there is for the Nobel Prizes). TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting. Let me see what I can do. It will probably be a few days, fyi. Thanks for the comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • TompaDompa let me know if I have addressed your comment sufficiently diff. Let me know if you have any other concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • That will suffice, yes. TompaDompa (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If and when these issues have been addressed, I'll do a more thorough review. TompaDompa (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some things needing copyediting:

• "No." should use the {{abbr}} template per MOS:NUMERO. One of the instances also has a lowercase "n" which should be changed to uppercase.
  • Added to all instances of "No." « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Nitschke, who with Bart Starr, was a five-time NFL Champion and two-time Super Bowl winner under coach Vince Lombardi and anchored the Packers defense for 15 seasons." is an anacoluthon.
  • Reworded. Just removed the part about Bart Starr. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "losing the second.His number" – missing space after period.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "retiremenet" – typo.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Use "died" rather than "passed away" per MOS:EUPHEMISM.
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again TompaDompa for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " in 1919, over 1,600 " never liked those easter egg links to seasons (especially when this is the only one I think), and "more than" rather than "over".
• "Of those 30 Hall of Famers," no need to repeat "Hall of Famers".
• "30 Hall of Famers, only six " 30/6 or "thirty/six" per MOSNUM.
• And why "only"?
• Shouldn't the link used for "retire uniform numbers" be in the previous sentence when the phrase ("uniform numbers officially retired") is first used?
• "the criteria and necessity of " missing "for" after "criteria".
• "so is usually left up to each team" usually?
• "unofficial recognition occurred in 1952" probably "took place", and any details on this?
• "Over 16 season, " missing an s.
• Ref should be Refs.
• Year ranges need whole years now (per MOS).
• "first-team All-Pro " is mentioned in the lead and the table a few times but not linked nor explained.
• Chicago Tribune is a work so should be italicised.
• As is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
• Most of the works/publishers are linked, but not all, be consistent.
• The Guardian is a work too.

That's all I have on that quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Is it also worth mentioning that Reggie White had his number at the Philadelphia Eagles retired as well as for the Packers? Seems notable enough seeing as he's the only person in NFL history to have such an honor...? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review The Rambling Man! I believe I have addressed all of your comments here. Let me know if there is anything else. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I forgot to mention, regarding Reggie White, I cannot find a definitive source that says "first" or "only" to have his number retired by two teams. I added some text noting that his college and the Eagles retired his number. If you notice a source though that says this, I can add it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man, I was finally able to find a source for the statement about being retired by multiple NFL teams. See here for my changes to the article. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Ref." column should either use the {{abbr}} template or spell out the word.
• Brantley Gilbert achieved his first number one in 2011 [...] is syntactically ambiguous ("the first of his career was in 2011" vs. "the first of the ones in 2011"). I'd rephrase it as "Brantley Gilbert achieved the first number one of his career in 2011 [...]"
• Blake Shelton spent the most weeks at number one of any artist in 2011. – I'd mention the number of weeks in the image caption.
• I'd alphabetize "A Little Bit Stronger" under L, rather than A.
• I'm not a fan of the "freely floating" footnote placement. I'd either make a footnote section or add a bottom row to the table (as is done for several tables on this page).

TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " Sid Meier developed the first game in the series" it seems odd that you don't link the first game in the series here, instead opting to link it in the second lead para...
• AmigaOS is one word (avoid the piped redirect).
• Ref 45 has a spaced hyphen. There are three more examples in the refs and one in the main article ("Beyond Earth - Rising Tide").

Otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: All addressed! --PresN 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind changing it to that but certain FLs do have similar names, e.g. List of Emma Stone performances. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know some do, but most don't (for the better, in my opinion). TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa I normally wouldn't mind, but I am a bit sceptical to change it to "screen, stage, and record" as she has starred in only one professional stage production. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right. It's not a deal-breaker. TompaDompa (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is not a particularly good photograph of Winslet. It should definitely be possible to find a better one.

Yeah, it's not ideal. Do you think this image is better? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an improvement, yes. A high-resolution headshot would be ideal. TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Also that year," – "The same year," is better.
• "earned her an Academy Award nomination" – I'd note that it was her second nomination.
• Try to find a reference for The Dressmaker that doesn't require a subscription.

Which reference are you talking about? None of them seem to be asking me for a subscription. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one (currently reference 19). TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Refers to the film's earliest release" seems unnecessary to me – what else would it refer to?

Well, there's sometimes a conflict regarding a theatrical release and a film festival release. This footnote prevents warring. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two identical references (58 and 59, as of my writing this).

TompaDompa (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa thanks for taking time out to review this. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the above comments, I don't see any issue with this being a stand-alone page and it is common for the top goalscorer of a national team to have a list for their record of goals. My recommendations follow:

• The key refers to the non-official goals scored against Luxembourg. In this regard, the article is a bit vague on when the record was officially recognized by a) Belgium and (b FIFA. The match against Japan in 2017 saw him break the national record but FIFA only recognized it later. It is sort-of mentioned in reference to the hat-tricks later but I think, for the benefit of readers, it is important to give more attention to the distinction.

• I don't think it is necessary to mention his act of sportsmanship (more suited for the mother article) or to make mention of his most recent goals and appearances. The context of his most recent goals is obviously important but I would rephrase it to say something along the lines of "On (date), Lukaku scored twice against Tunisia... which took his overall tally..."

• And maybe just start that same sentence as a new para for ease of reading.

That's about it from what I can pick up. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Liam E. Bekker Hi Liam, thanks for your comments, much appreciated. I've tried to add more detail and rejig what was there around the Luxembourg goals. Oddly I can't find anything which directly supports the fact that FIFA changed their mind on the hat-trick being unofficial other than, say, his 2018 World Cup profile which clearly includes the three goals in his post-WC record there... I'm getting a bit "can't see the wood for the trees" on moving stuff around, perhaps you'd be kind enough to take another look and see what you might suggest? The sportsmanship is fine in my opinion and I've clarified it to note that he basically denied himself a chance of a hat-trick in doing so. And the most recent goal (which has changed twice since you reviewed the list!) is also relevant in my mind, and is standard across most lists of this type. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man, my concern with the recent goals was from a maintenance point of view - namely that it would need to be regularly updated - but that's pretty much the norm on all football pages so it's no big issue. Regarding the changes made about the record, the only changes I can suggest are some small word tweaks as follows:

• ...when Lukaku scored his 31st goal in a match against Japan in November 2017. FIFA, however, did not initially recognise the record... (I say initially not because they have since recognised it but because they have no choice but to recognise it now because he has gone past the record anyhow).
• (re hat-tricks and as the FIFA dispute with Luxembourg is already mentioned) ...Lukaku has scored two hat-tricks during his international career, including the treble against Luxembourg and another in a 9–0...

These are both stylistic suggestions so you're welcome to chop and change as you see fit to try and get it to flow. I have no other concerns. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liam E. Bekker I've tried to work those suggestions in, so hopefully I'm done? If not, feel free to tweak further yourself, I'm not precious about it! Thanks again for your review comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is {{dynamic list}} really the right template? {{complete list}} seems more appropriate to me.

   It makes sense! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. According to reports, radio and television broadcasting has gained popularity in Romania in recent years, resulting in increasing revenues for the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Company (SRR). – the attribution is vague and the text has MOS:RECENT issues. The relevance of this is also not immediately clear to me.

   I removed this from the lead. Since information on the chart's history/records etc is hard to find on the internet, I thought of expanding the lead with a fact about the overall airplay situation in Romania, but it was indeed a little too vague. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. Recent years – again, MOS:RECENT issues.

   Reworded for the better (I hope). Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   the label repeatedly had one of each year's most radio broadcasts with different songs from their catalogues is a bit confusing. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Is it clearer now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   It's better, but not entirely clear. If the point is that they have had at least one song each year, I'd write "the label has had songs reach number one every year." TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I changed the sentence again, but your suggestion would be wrong, since what I want to say is not that their songs reached number one on the year-end charts, but rather that they were ranked (maybe) in the top 10 that year. Hope my correction does it now, otherwise I may get some help from another user. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Would "Every year, the label has released songs that have gone on to be featured on the list." be correct? The current phrasing is a bit trivial. TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4. For 2012 and 2013, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website were taken into consideration. – I'd like you to explain this to me in more detail.

   Media Forest is the one who provides mesured airplay data to Kiss FM, who weekly publishes the chart. They also yearly publish a year-end chart, which however wasn't the case in 2012 and 2013. For these years, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website have been taken into consideration in this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5. {{dagger}} is preferable to "+" because it allows for WP:ALT text. Similarly, the {{hash-tag}} at the bottom of the table should have "current number-one song" as alt text.

   Done... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. There should not be column headers in the middle of tables, see MOS:DTT.

   Worked on the table in accordance to the table presented at MOS:DTT. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7. What is the purpose of the "No." column?

   It is useful for knowing how many number ones there have been in a chart's history. Also, it is listed by Wikipedia at MOS:DTT, so I think it should remain. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8. "re" in the "No." column is unexplained.

   I've added Abbr templates to all "re"s existing along with an explanation of the abbreviation. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9. Should the "Weeks" column not be called "Weeks at number one"?

   Yes, indeed it should... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10. The "Weeks" column does not sort two-digit numbers correctly.

    I do not really understand your point here. To me, they are sorting correctly... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem seems to have been with the mid-table column headers. Anyway, it works now. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11. The 19 February 2017 edition of the Airplay 100 was either not published or not archived. – was it not just preponed to 17 February?

    I really don't know, but I think it's the safest to say it was not published or archived. I can reword it if you want me to. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12. Why are some entries in the table followed by a reference and most are not?

    These are third-party sources from Unsitedemuzica.ro, a reliable source that reports about the chart almost weekly starting with October 2016. These have been encouraged in the past FLC of this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13. The default sorting of the "By artist" table is odd to me. It seems to be by number of Number ones, and then alphabetically. To me, weeks at number one is a more logical tie-breaker.

    The "By artist" table should remain a list of the artists with the most number ones (as used by several other record chart lists). The "Weeks at number one" was just some extra information on these five artists with the most number-ones, but it was somehow redundant, since they're not all part of the artists with the most weeks at number one. I would avoid, however, to do such a listing, since that could change weekly and could result into errors. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14. There should be some text for the "By song" table which explains that it counts the total number of weeks at number one, unlike the first table which counts consecutive weeks at number one (because otherwise the reader is likely to think the table redundant).

    I've added a note on the subject matter. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that merging this list and Airplay 100 (Romania) should be considered, considering the latter is a stub. TompaDompa (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a national chart, the Airplay 100 is worth of having its own article, even if a stub, but we can discuss that with other users if you want to. I also think that this list is somehow big and should not be merged into the Airplay 100 article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reached number one can be easily changed to Issue date. The charts are issued on sunday so e.x. 26 February 2012. Issue sounds more formal than reached.
2. Weeks at number one I'm personally not a big fan of columns that are way too big. The current could easily fit 10 numbers, but the maximum ist two. I would recommend an abbreviation like Wks.. It looks better and the top of the table won't be unnecessary wide. --Lirim

I now use the 'upright' parameter for images! Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider an image in the lead?

DONE! Is it okay like this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of its launch on 26 February 2012, the Airplay 100 is broadcast each Sunday" => "Since its launch on 26 February 2012, the Airplay 100 has been broadcast each Sunday"

DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The chart was preceded by the Romanian Top 100—which was also based on airplay data and had a similar compilation[4]—and replaced it after its cancellation in 2012" => "The chart replaced the Romanian Top 100, which was also based on airplay data and had a similar compilation, in 2012"

DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the 2010s, more than 70 singles reached the number-one position on the Airplay 100" => "During the 2010s, more than 70 singles have reached the number-one position on the Airplay 100 as of [whenever]"

DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Moldavian musical project Carla's Dreams with six number ones, followed by Romanian recording artist Andra and Smiley with four each" = > "Moldavian musical project Carla's Dreams with six number ones, followed by Romanian recording artists Andra and Smiley with four each"

DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Are You With Me" by Lost Frequencies (pictured in 2016) was 2015's most plays on Romanian radio and television." => ""Are You With Me" by Lost Frequencies (pictured in 2016) was 2015's most played on Romanian radio and television."

DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " For 2012 and 2013, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website were taken into consideration" - I don't really get this bit. Where did the data for other years come from if not from such lists?

Media Forest is the one who provides mesured airplay data to Kiss FM, who weekly publishes the chart. They also yearly publish a year-end chart, which however wasn't the case in 2012 and 2013. For these years, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website have been taken into consideration in this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you clarify this in the article, as otherwise people will be asking (as I did) where the information for 2014, 2015, etc came from......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I tried to clarify this. Is it understandable? Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I have responded to your comments. Many thanks for your time! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.

  I'm always confused about when the caption alone is sufficient, and what to put as alt text. Should the alt text be describing the physical features of the people, or just say "image of ___"? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  What the alt text should be depends on the image and why it's used. In these cases when it's a photograph of a person used solely because it's a photograph of that person to go along with the text that mentions that person in a different context than the photograph was taken, I'd just go with "A photograph of [person]". In an article about a film character, where there's a screenshot from the film which shows the character, I'd be more inclined to describe what the character looks like, rather than "[actor] as [character]". TompaDompa (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes complete sense. Thanks! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of the references in the reference list give error messages.
• Per WP:FLCR 5(a), there should be a minimal amount of WP:Redlinks. There are a tad too many for my taste. Just remove the links.

  Sorry, but I don't think four links (five including repetition) is unreasonable under 5(a). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "along with the special" would be better as "as did the special".
• "while the following two series" would be better as "whereas the following two series".
• "Each episode is standalone; there are 19 episodes in the show's first four series, and a fifth series has been commissioned." The use of a semicolon here is odd as the clauses are completely unrelated, content-wise. See if you can move the standalone part elsewhere in the WP:LEAD
• "Black Mirror has received positive reception from critics" should not be followed by a comma.
• I would remove the quote that describes the show and just leave "the show explores the side-effects of technology".
• "The following table lists [...]" is clunky. Try summarizing the contents of the table instead (e.g. "XX [entries] have [met the inclusion criteria for the table]").
• The "people" table would be helped by a column that describes who these people are in relation to the show (actor, writer, etc.) and perhaps one for which episode(s) they received the nominations/awards.

  I think an episodes column would feel redundant with the above section, and be a bit unwieldy. I've added a "Role" column, though. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Something is amiss with the IGN Awards table, where the rightmost column seems to be formatted incorrectly.
• The link in reference 22 (as of my writing this) should be archived as I have a feeling that it might get dead within a year or so.
• The link in reference 71 (as of my writing this) is dead.

I might go through the list more thoroughly at a later date, but this should at least be a start. TompaDompa (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I've responded inline to some points, and believe I've addressed the rest (in this edit). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things from the WP:LEAD:

• It should be clarified that the Award ceremony for "USS Callister" has not yet taken place. The verb tense ("has been nominated" rather than "was nominated") is a bit too subtle to make this clear (I'll admit that at first, I thought the changing tenses were a mistake).
• The last sentence has three commas which could be reduced to one by rephrasing it to "[...], winning two of each."

I haven't looked much at the contents of the list or the sources, but I assume that the facts and sourcing are in order. TompaDompa (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've fixed those issues in this edit. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, "19 episodes" is a numeral, but in the first body prose (the section 'Episodes' under 'Statistics') it's written out as "nineteen episodes". This might not be a problem, though. I noticed it for whatever reason.
• Reference 47 has an American-style access date

I had to look hard for any inconsistencies; the list is very good. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both (nice catches). Per MOS:NUMERAL, integers 10–99 can be words or numerals, but I assume consistency is desirable, so the list uses words throughout now. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• "against Sunrisers Hyderabad" – the linked article seems to suggest that there should be a definite article here.  Done
• "has scored two centuries" – century (cricket) should be linked. Assume that the reader is not familiar with cricket terminology, and link all terms in the WP:LEAD.  Done
• "This does not includes players like Doug Bracewell and Siddharth Kaul, who have being not out in the innings they have played, due to which their batting average cannot be calculated." – this is ungrammatical and (at least to me) confusing.

•  Done I have changed the phrase and I think that it makes sense now.

• "among bowlers who have bowled more than 20 overs" – over (cricket) should be linked.  Done
• "The best bowling average is Doug Bracewell's 10.66, though among bowlers who have bowled more than 20 overs, Farveez Maharoof has the best average: 19.25." – is it customary to consider bowlers who have bowled more than 20 overs separately?

• Not really. If the general feeling is that it is redundant, then I have no problem in removing it.

• I'll leave judging whether it is appropriate to include or not to someone more familiar with cricket than I am (which is not exactly difficult). TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mishra has the best bowling figures in an innings: he claimed five wickets against Deccan Chargers in a 2008 match, while only conceding 17 runs." – add the bowling average so the reader doesn't have to calculate it for themself.

• Bowling average has nothing to do with bowling figures in an innings, so I don't think that it is needed.

• Well, that shows how much I know about cricket, I guess. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dinesh Karthik has taken the most catches as wicket-keeper for DD, with 30, while also making the most stumpings: 15." – link Caught and Stumped.  Done
• "The first list includes all players who have played in at least one match for DD and is initially listed alphabetically by their last name." – Remove this from the WP:LEAD and add some text above the first table summarizing its contents instead (I'd suggest writing something about the number of players, which should make it clear that the list is exhaustive). There's no need to explain that the table is sorted alphabetically by default (and the footnote further explaining this can also be removed).  Done
• "The second list comprises all those players who have captained the team in at least one match, arranged in the order of the first match as captain." – Remove this from the WP:LEAD and write some text above the second table summarizing its contents instead.  Done
• "Many players have also represented other teams of the IPL, but only the records of their games for DD are given." – this is self-explanatory and should be removed.  Done
• "To sort these tables by any statistic, click on the icon in the column title." – this is unnecessary and should be removed.  Done
• "These statistics are correct as of 2018 Indian Premier League." – Rephrase as "Statistics updated as of the 2018 Indian Premier League." and place the text in italics above each of the tables instead.  Done
• "These statistics do not cover practice matches or matches abandoned without a toss." – place the text in italics above each of the tables instead.  Done
• The key should not have its own section. Place the parts that apply to the first table in the same section as the first table (above the table), and the parts that apply to the second table in the same section as the second table instead. The reader shouldn't have to scroll up from the second table all the way up to right below the WP:LEAD to check something in the key.  Done
• Much of the information in the key is unnecessary in that format. All the abbreviations in the table should be explained with the {{abbr}} template instead (while retaining the links). Only the symbols need to be explained in the key.  Done
• The "Uncapped players" table has been removed, so there shouldn't be a key for it.  Done
• "This doesn't includes illegal deliveries like no-balls and wides." should be "This does not include illegal deliveries like no-balls and wides."  Done
• "The BBI has not been provided for those bowlers who have not taken any wicket while playing for DD." – explain BBI and remove "those".  Done
• I don't see what the flags add to the reader's understanding of the topic and suggest that they be removed. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the entire "Nationality" column (it seems beside the point of a list concerning a subnational team), but the flags should definitely be removed as they add nothing but visual clutter to the table.  Done
• "Van der Merwe currently plays for the Netherlands, but he was a South African during his stint with the DD." – replace "currently plays" with "later played" per MOS:CURRENTLY and replace "was a South African" with "played for South Africa".  Done
• I would suggest replacing the asterisks (*) with {{hash-tag}} so that WP:ALT text can be added.

• The asterisk sign is used extensively in cricket to denote a not out score. It's better to keep using it.

• Okay. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "No." column for the captains should be removed.  Done
• The "Total" row for the captains should have its values calculated in the cells, not simply entered.

• I don't know how to do that, and I could not find anything on H:TABLE. It will be great if you can tell some page which talks about the syntax to do this stuff.

• I fixed it. It's mostly so it will be easier to update in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Portal link should not be placed in the bullet list.  Done

TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your extensive review. Highly appreciated. Bharatiya29 14:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking "cricket team" is incorrect, just cricket is fine.  Done
• "is a franchise" singular then followed by a bunch of plurals, perhaps there's an elegant way to deal with this (our US readers simply can't stand this kind of thing).

 Done Made it all singular.

• "They played their first Twenty20 match" do they play any other kind of cricket?

 Done Removed Twenty20.

• "thrice" archaic, try "three times"  Done
• "DD have reached the IPL playoffs thrice, and have topped the group stage table twice.' realistically, most of this is meaningless to our readers, what does it really mean in the context of the tournament?

DD has never been in the IPL finals, so those two league stage top finishes are the major highlights of their history. I think that it doesn't harm to give some intro about the team's performances.

• CLT20 is never used as an abbreviation so why abbreviate it?  Done
• "The leading run-scorer for DD is Sehwag, who has scored 2,382 runs." repeat of runs and score here in such a short sentence.  Done
• "128 runs not out " we don't normally say "runs" in this phrasing.  Done
• "batting average" and "wickets" are pipes to redirects.  Done
• "claiming 90." slightly controversial language for those outside cricket.  Done
• "best average: 19.25" -> "best average with 19.25"  Done
• "claimed five wickets against" could link five wicket haul?  Done
• "Statistics updated as of the 2018 Indian Premier League." could say when that ended as it's 2018 for a while yet.

Changed it to the last match DD played.

• Avg doesn't seem to sort correctly, both times I get a – at the top.

Both of those dashes are different.

• Surely bowlers with a null average should sort worse than those with a real one? If not, you never get to see the best bowling average at the top of the sort.  Done
• Most of the St column should be dashed because most of the players didn't play as wicket keeper.  Done
• Morkel has a diacritic missing.  Done
• Pieterson isn't spelt that way.  Done

Enough for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Prior to this, Azerbaijani players had represented the Soviet Union national football team. They played their first official international match..." the "They" here could be confused as the last team mentioned is the Soviet national team. - Done
• Could you add dates when the team formally became members of UEFA and FIFA? - I've included the years, I don't have exact dates though.
• "233 international matches since their debut, winning 45, drawing 62 and losing 127" I think that adds up to 234? - Done
• Image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop. - Done
• I had to look this up - earned is far more common than earnt (although the latter is technically also correct, but it reads REALLY odd to me). - Done
• "UEFA European Football Championship" drop "Football" from this. - Done
• "Statistics sourced from: [5][13][14]" remove space. - Done
• Awkward question: how do we verify the players who are still "current"? In the same way with the Wales list, I don't think it's possible to definitively say who is retired so all active players are classed as still eligible. Luckily the RSSSF list helps to denote who is still playing.
• Don't use hash for No. - Done
• And why isn't that column sortable? Again similar to the Wales list, the number and cap columns are essentially sorting the same thing so it seemed unnecessary to have them both sortable.
• You don't need Azerbaijan national football team as an external link, it's already linked in the lead.- Done
• What makes eu-football.info RS? Not to say it isn't but I've not seen it before. I'm unsure of the publisher of the site but I know it is used in a number of football articles and WikiProject Football includes it in its recommended links
• "FIFA recognised match" should be FIFA-recognised, or alternatively, "not a match recognised by FIFA".- Done
• Avoid spaced hyphens, e.g. ref 5 should use a spaced en-dash in the title, not a spaced hyphen.- Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks very much for the review, I think I've addressed all of the issues above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Explain "caps"/"capped" at first appearance.
• "Winning" caps seems like an odd phrasing to me. I'd be more inclined to say "reach", "obtain", "acquire", "accumulate", or "achieve".
• Rather than "achieve double figures", I'd say "score 10 or more goals".
• "If number of caps are equal" – I would add "the" between the first two words.
• "Statistics correct as of" – I would say "updated" rather than "correct".
• Instead of having "Statistics sourced from:", I'd move the references to the section heading (i.e. directly following the words "Azerbaijan national team footballers with at least 25 appearances")
• I think I'd make a bullet list for the three matches that aren't recognized by FIFA. I'm not sure how it would look, but I'm not entirely happy about the way it looks right now for some reason.
• RSSSF should be in all capital letters.
• If you're going to use "=" to denote a tie, this needs to be explained in the key. I'd suggest simply removing it (I don't particularly like the way it looks).
• "Iran U23's" - I think it should just be "Iran U23".
• Explain the "XI" in "Cyprus XI". I'm assuming it refers to the First XI.

TompaDompa (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thanks very much for your review, it's much appreciated. I've addressed all of the issues above I believe. I've maintained the use of the = sign in the table as I think it's important to show that the player is in equal standing, especially when the table is sorted in other columns and the order is changed. Kosack (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. TompaDompa (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]