Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2009

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:41, 15 November 2009 [1].

---

List of India women ODI cricketers

Nominator(s): -SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all six FL criteria. The list provides a detailed view of the womenwho have played One Day International cricket representing India. It is comprehensive as of today, with a likely addition rate of about five to eight players every two to three years, and changing statistics for another five to eight players. The intro provides a summary view (with links) of ODI cricket and the Indian team. Other parts of the lead summarize the team's performance and that of the key players. One table provides the detailed view of all players while the other details the captains' performances over the years. I will be happy to address comments/suggestions/questions etc promptly. -SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from nominator -- Just addressing some issues that are very likely to come up:

• Sorting by last names is not used because of the different formats of names in India. Most importantly, the last name of some of these players isn't even part of the most common name.
• The ndashes behave a bit oddly in some sorts. It doesn't happen always and not with all columns either. This appears to be a problem with other featured lists too and I haven't been able to find a solution yet.
• The extra title bars in the middle and at the bottom are just for clarity. They do not affect sorting etc.

cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Superb. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - but just a lot of little things that can easily be fixed... Alt text needs to make it clear that the players in the photo are female. Done. The caption is incomplete (no verb?) so no need for a full stop. Done. "two representative teams" perhaps just me but what is the need for "representative" here, particularly in light of the detail that follows? Done. "The women's variant of the game is very similar to the men's version, with minor modifications to umpiring and pitch requirements." - interesting indeed but I thought we avoided discussing items in the lead that don't appear, in greater detail, in the main article? I believe this fits in with criteria #2, "...that introduces the subject...", especially to a reader without any knowledge of cricket. If consensus is that this shouldn't be part of the lead, I can remove it. Same for the next sentence, although I will admit that it makes the lead more interesting. Difficult. Same response as above, I believe this fits in with criteria #2, "...that introduces the subject...", especially to a reader without any knowledge of cricket. If consensus is that this shouldn't be part of the lead, I can remove it. "formed.[4]The" space required after the reference. Done. "The team's first series win was against New Zealand, in 1995.[8] The team is selected..." - odd follow-on, when the team won a series followed by how it was selected. I've rearranged the paragraph with selection at the start, progressing to games played and then the wins. "by a panel of former cricketers" - male, female or both? The BCCI guidelines don't say, but both panels since the rule was put in place were all-women. I have included the "retired women cricketers" in the panel composition as it is supported by that ref. "captain Jhulan Goswami.." - current or former? Clarified as current. Jogelkar has a dash for 4WI while Basu has 0. This is the case for several other players. Why? Dashes were used for players who did not bowl, while 0 is used for players who bowled at least one ball. Joglekar was an error, typed in a dash as I probably didn't think a keeper would bowl. "Batsman remained not out" - would we say "Batswoman"? Just checking... Convention is to use batsman. Cricinfo and BBC use that term. Also this was discussed at WT:CRIC -- here and here. Jain seems initially out of order in the captain's table, if the original listing is supposed to be chronologically. Fixed, an error with Chopra, don't know why I screwed that up. Don't think you need a total for years started and ended - not logical for me. Removed, I provided it for context for the game stats, but agree that it seems odd. Dates in the references need to be in a consistent format - you have a mix of ISO and human-readable right now. Fixed. The only place I've left the readable format is in Note 1 as I think it needs to be readable there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, hope I've addressed your concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Jogalekar's BBM is "0" while Basu's is – - inconsistent. This was a dumb error, I was trying to fix the Joglekar error above, and entered it on the wrong column. Fixed now. Al Khadeer's Cricinfo profile indicates she's bowled at least one 4WI. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed Al Khadeer. There were a few other transcription errors that I did not catch while checking in my sandbox or in the article, and I have fixed them now, makes me feel like an ass. I'll contact the other editors who have already commented and let them know. Sorry for the trouble folks, there shouldn't be any more data errors. Please let me know if there are other concerns and/or changes you'd like to see. -SpacemanSpiff 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support nice work, and an inspiration to the cricketing community who are attempting to recover some ground here at FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Only a couple of quick ones from me since the prose in the lead looks reasonable to me (though I'm not a cricket expert and can't judge content as well as some others). First, there could be a sentence or two in the lead on the team's captains, since it has a seperate table; even a brief mention of the number of captains would be helpful. Second, I've seen reviewers say that proper names should not be included in alt text, meaning this needs further revision here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text changed (didn't know the proper nouns rule), thanks to User:Juliancolton for tweaking it further. I've added mention of the captains, split it to two sections -- number of captains along with the number of matches, most successful captain with the other stats summary (had to split this way instead of placing the no of captains along no of players as the stats would then be out of place). Thanks for the feedback, let me know if there are any other comments/concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: Looks good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [2].

---

List of Governors of Delaware

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The next in my series of governor lists. This was formerly featured, but was long ago defeatured for having been left behind as standards improved. The only current issue is, no one seems to know how many governors there have been. Most sources say 73, including news sources; however, the state archives (which, for a state as historically rich as Delaware, are embarassingly deficient) say 82. It's just a matter of how you count repeat governors. This article so far goes with 73. -Golbez (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments I will try to do a more complete review later today or tomorrow but one right that pops out is your use of color. Per WP:COLOR, "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information." Mainly, I'm looking at the first few governors who are listed as having no party, but have a color next to the name column.—NMajdan•talk 12:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I now see Note 2.—NMajdan•talk 13:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I think I'll just get rid of those shadings; they're being difficult to source. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The 2nd sentence in the first paragraph seems a bit awkward to me. Another editor might be able to offer better advice on how best to restructure, but I do think it needs work. Also, I'm not a fan of of paragraphs with less than 4 sentences. I don't think there is anything in the MOS against it, so its just a personal preference. Would it possible to expand the first and third paragraphs in the lead or combine them? Combining paragraphs in the lede would, I think, lead to information overload. There's a lot of numbers, years, and references in the 2nd and 3rd grafs, and I think combining them would make the whole situation harder to keep track of. --Golbez (talk) Any source that has the url field populated also needs the accessdate parameter populated. Specifically, #2 & #3 under General. Use one format for dates in the references; some use Month DD, YYYY and others use YYYY-MM-DD. Fixed these two. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) What makes reference #11 (http://www.50states.com) reliable? Found a better one. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Biographical Directory of the United States Congress only needs to be wikilinked once. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —NMajdan•talk 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All in all a very good list. There are a few comments though.

• As a follow on from NMajdan's comment about colour above, the lieutenant-governors parties are only given by the shading.
  • My general thought on this has been, the list is of the governors, not the lieutenant governors. Their party is mentioned for help, but should be considered slightly extraneous information. For the details of their terms and party affiliations, that's what the list of lieutenant governors is for. If others continue to disagree, I'll find something to deal with it.

One way round it would be to have a general note saying that most Lt-Governors were of the same party as the Governor, with specific notes against the 3 or 4 where that wasn't the case. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put that in, that's not a bad idea. --Golbez (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the lead would it be desirable to wikilink the various Delaware constitutions that are mentioned (assuming that there are articles for each - I haven't checked)?
  • That's a good idea, though the articles for the constitutions are pretty weak. On a side note, to be frank, Delaware's lack of historical presence online is embarassing. They are the first state, they have a very old history, yet they had zero resources online for me to use for this list. Even the old Constitutions, I had to find through Google Books.

I am happy with the changes you have made here, and you're right about those articles. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the other offices held table the governors name column is sorted (incorrectly unfortunately) but the names are not sortable in the main table. Is there a reason for this?
  • Because several use rowspans to illustrate they had more than one lieutenant governor; last I checked, rowspans break the sortable table.

Oh yes that's a very annoying restriction if that could ever be fixed then a lot of tables could be improved throughout Wikipedia. The sort order on the "other offices" table still needs fixing though. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is it possible to put in a short explanation of the "No parties" attribution? Was there genuinely no partisan politics or was it a constitutional restriction (or perhaps a gentleman's agreement)?
  • I can't really source it at all, except that no source supplies party identification for the first nine. So I have no explanation. My only guess is, yes, that early in American politics there were at best loose factions rather than organized parties. There was no constitutional restriction. --Golbez (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Boissière (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're mostly right, Golbez, historians date the beginning of the first political parties in the United States to 1792, when the split between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson led to the development of the Federalist Party and Democratic-Republican Party. Between 1787 and 1792 there was a split between two other groups (not parties) who called themselves Federalists (not quite the same as the later political party, these are people who supported ratification of the Constitution, hence the Federalist Papers) and Anti-Federalists (who opposed ratification), but that split was not really the creation of the party system. It might be helpful to add two notes, if you can find the sources, one for all of the people without parties explaining that parties did not exist yet, and one for the last two that gives their affiliation in the ratification debates. My guess is that in the latter note both of them were supporters of the Constitution - Delaware is known as the First State because it was the first to ratify the constitution. End history lecture. Geraldk (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Yet another fantastic Gov list from Golbez! Reywas92^Talk 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A great list, and I only have one query. Is it common for partial terms to be referred to as "halves", "thirds" etc? The notes accompanying these fractions are without exception excellent, and if that's the convention then it's fine by me, but it just strikes me as a little odd to use fractions. WFCforLife (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the system we've come up with to signify which governors shared elected terms amongst each other. I don't know if it's 'common' outside Wikipedia, it's just an illustrative tool others came up with here. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's more personal curiousity than something which detracts from the list. I'm supporting even if you don't do this. But perhaps a (less cumbersome) note to the effect of "1/2 signifies that Governor was one of two governors to serve during this term, 1/3 signifies that governor was one of three governors to serve during this term." would be a useful addition? I think fractions are a clever solution, but if it's a wikipedia-devised system then I think we should explain it. WFCforLife (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. We have a standard note for the Terms column; I forgot to place it in this one. :) Adding it now... --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. WFCforLife (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text comment The alt text is decent, but some of it is too short and non-descriptive. For example, what is a "nineteenth-century man"? I'm not asking for every detail, but a little more on their appearance would help. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit to not understanding quite how to implement alt text for maps and simple portraits; I merely copied the style from my most recently promoted list. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I improved the alt text a bit. It's not the best, but it does the job. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [3].

---

List of Louisville Colonels managers

Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, and while there are many baseball related featured lists, few involve 19th century teams. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I missed that one in the caption. It's no longer a dab link. Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Use non-breaking spaces where appropriate (i.e. 38 wins). Note a does not have brackets around it yet note b does. Looks like one is using {{note label}} and other other {{ref label}}. May want to ensure you are using these correctly. As I continued to read through the list, I noticed another a reference in the WS column of Jack Chapman. Clicking the unbracketed a in the lead takes you to Jack Chapman-WS column and vice versa, but neither take you to the actual a footnote. You say the number of regular seasons games managed may not equal the sum of wins & losses due to ties. Why don't you add a tie column? In college football (of which I'm most familiar), the winning percentage is calculated a bit different due to ties since ties are considered half of a win. Are you sure it is not the same for this? Why is the # column not sortable? If I change the sort order on another column, the only way I can go back to sorting by # is to reload. Sorting by Seasons doesn't work either as apparently there were three coaches in 1889. —NMajdan•talk 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I found all the non-breaking spaces and fixed the ref labels. I also made the # sortable; it seems to be working. As for ties, baseball records work differently than football. Team records do not show the ties, and the ties do not count in the standings or in determining the winning percentage. Similarly, none of the reliable sources for managerial records include ties in the record. In baseball ties work (or worked, I think they changed the rules a couple of years ago to avoid ties) as a result that doesn't count, although all the player stats from the game do count. So ties aren't really relevant to the manager's record and adding them would just clutter the list. Rlendog (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Mm40 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments, Mm40 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) "…with each team winning three games and one tie game." can be taken out of the note because it is already said in the lead. Twice in the lead, references are out of order. The ones with the lower number should come first. (e. g. "by John Kerins.[12][3]" should become "by John Kerins.[3][12]") The above is also done in the table entry for Jack Chapman. Per FLs List of New York Mets managers and List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, there should be a "total" row at the end of the managerial table. In ref 7, two "p"s are needed because multiple pages are being referenced. I've also made some minor fixes of my own. After these issues are resolved, I'll gladly support. Mm40 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I took care of everything. On the "backwards" references, I had them the way they were becauce the first ref (with the higher number) was the primary reference, but it does look better this way. I actually don't think totals are a good idea for active manager lists (and not all manager FLs include them), since they can easily get stale and it is hard to tell when they do, but they are a good idea for defunct teams like this one. Rlendog (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note on alt text The alt text is well done, except for one detail: phrases about the provenance of the image are unnecessary (e.g. "black and white photo"). The baseball card phrase is fine though. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Also, the "#" is over-explained—there's a footnote about it as well as a row in the key explaining it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I think I have addressed them. I admit I am surprised about the alt text comment (this is my first FLC since that became an issue). I would have thought that whether something was a black and white photo or a color photo would be important in describing the image. But I am fine taking it out. I guess I have some work to do on a couple of other lists that included this in the alt text. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The Colonels' first manager was Denny Mack. Mack...". Try to reword to avoid this needless repetition. Another example: "managed the team in 1882, his only season managing the team". "he led the Pirates with its former Colonels stars to three consecutive league pennants...". This confused me when I read it. How about "he led the Pirates, with the former Colonels stars, to three consecutive league pennants..."? Now that I think about it, the meaning of pennant in this context won't be obvious to non-baseball fans. Perhaps a link to Pennant (sports) will help? "with each team winning three games and one tie game." The with+-ing sentence structure is often considered awkward by prose reviewers; see this for further details. To fix this one, try ";each team won three games, and there was one tie." Fred Clarke photo: The Library of Congress link isn't working for me. Without that, it becomes difficult to verify that the photo is in the public domain. Jim Hart photo: I see no evidence on the New York Public Library page that this was published before 1923, and the site's terms leave it unclear as to whether this is a true public domain image. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I addressed the phrasing comments. As for the photos, Jim Hart died in 1919 [4] so the photo must be earlier than 1923. The Clarke photo is more difficult, but the same photo is used in List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers, and was at the time that article was at FLC.[5][6]. That FLC noted several problematic photos, but this was not one of them (see image review of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners). So I am pretty sure the description of the photo being in the public domain is accurate. Also, Clarke would have been 51 years old in 1923, and this does not appear to be a photo of a 50 year old (although I realize this is not proof). Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I followed a search from the LOC site to find this photo. The link is here. I think this confirms that the photo was indeed published in 1903 and is thus a free image. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Clarke photo is okay in that case. As for the Hart photo, the standard for public domain status is publishing before 1923 (in this case), not merely creation. There's no guarantee that a photo of someone deceased before the cut-off date was actually published before that date. Unfortunately, many uploaders don't know much about the details involved in whether an image is PD or not, and it frequently leads to issues at the featured content processes. Also, one image review won't necessarily catch every problematic image, and FLC image reviews are nowhere near as thorough as FAC reviews to begin with. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I admit that I am not an expert on these issues and I don't have a problem removing the photo if it is problematic. But I'll take one more crack at sparing it. The card the photo is on is signed, purportedly by Jim Hart. So (barring a fake signature) the photo must have been published before Hart died. Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) On 2nd thought, I just removed that photo. It would be good to include, since few baseball fans know what any of these managers looked like, but I suppose I can't prove that the photo was published before 1923. Rlendog (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. By the way, the Hall of Fame link now works properly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "when it was considered a Major League from 1882 through 1891" - de-capitalize major league
• An explanation of "player-manager" in the lead would be nice so that readers don't have to leave the article, especially since this is from the era when player-managers were both relevant and common.

All in all, well done. Clarification of these two issues will allow me to support this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks! I took care of the capitalization issue. For the "player-manager" issue, I did not want to sidetrack the narrative with a defintion (which is relatively self-explanatory) so I added a comment that Clarke played as a Colonels' outfielder while he served as their manager. See if this works. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perfect. Wholehearted support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like they just changed that link on me. I updated it. Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The HOF is going through a site revamp right now; thus, every link from that site at the moment is now dead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [7].

---

Premier League Manager of the Month

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay this list is the partner to Premier League Player of the Month, which is currently pretty well supported at FLC. The reason I'm bringing it here now is because I believe the other list may have been promoted had there been closures, and also I know I'm going to be busy in a couple of weeks so hopefully, by nominating this now, it will be wrapped up or not require much work by then. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Quick question - when you sort by year, is it possible for it then sort the months either in ascending or descending order? Otherwise I'd combine the year and the month so it sorted properly forwards or backwards chronologically. Also, that lead image caption is going to be out of date in, what, two or three weeks? Not sure it's worth it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is (Help:Sorting#Secondary key). That's why they are seperate, and also Struway2 commented at the Players FLC that it was clearer with them separate. Wrt the lead caption, I don't think it makes a difference seeing as the rest of the article will need updating, but I'll remove it anyway. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what I meant was, when you sort by year, could the months automatically sort into the right ascending or descending order? Otherwise it's a little odd.... (or it could just be, once again, my browser...) A little like sorting Olympic medals tables, 1 gold is worth more than 100 silvers, so when sorting by total I'd expect to see gold winners above silver and silver winners above bronze. You get my drift? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand now, do you mean you want be to put in a sortkey like {{sort|1993.1|[[1993–94 FA Premier League|1993]]}} etc. for the years so they have a underlying month attached to them. Also do you also want me to do this for the players FLC? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's it. An example, if I list per descending year, I want to 2009 September, followed by 2009 August then 2009 July. Works? And yeah, do it for the other list too. Surprised I didn't notice it there, but it's been a long week. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - All redirects can be fixable. You can use User:Splarka/dabfinder.js to find them, which finds redirects and dabs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done. There are no dabs and replacing redirects is "an unhelpful exercise". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ehh... I just thought that some people would might want to know what GBP is before clicking the link. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That one is fair enough and I've fixed it. I didn't know what redirects you were talking about because you can obviously identify them with that tool. Not having the tool I thought you might have been talking about player names redirecting to diacratics or fuller names, and I didn't really fancy clicking on them all to find out. If there are any examples like the GDP please point them out, and apologies if I was a bit "bitey" in my original reply. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my comment not having enough clarification. After checking the article again, the only redirects left are the names of players and cities, so ehh... I won't support the nomination, as I only had one comment. I will probably come back to review the article again, so I'll just leave this open. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Kenny Dalglish has only won the award twice as far as I can tell, not three times. Houllier and Thompson's shared award in the main table should be linked to/from footnote 2. I think footnote 1 is a bit clunky. I'm not sure if this goes too far the other way, but I think "Each year in the table is linked to the corresponding football season." would be sufficient. (edited WFCforLife (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)) Once you have sorted the main table it is impossible to get back to the default position without leaving or refreshing the page. I understand the reason behind counting Thompson and Houllier's joint award twice for awards by nationality and multiple winners, but am less sure about awards by club. My reason being that the manager of the month award has gone to Liverpool F.C. eleven times. I won't oppose if you disagree with this conclusion (there is an argument about consistency), but in either case footnote 2 should explain how the award has been counted in the smaller tables. Hope that helps. WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC) All done.[8] For the last point, I was being consistent with requests at the Premier League Player of the Month FLC, because originally I was counting them as half an award which reviewers disliked. I have explained the method in the footnote though. Thanks a lot for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I agree that counting it as half an award would have been wrong. FWIW I've cross checked the smaller tables with the big table, and as far as I can tell they are all consistent now. Here are a few things I spotted on closer inspection. Some of these things may in fact be right and the questions more for my benefit, but it's worth asking anyway: Does Barclays Manager of the Month need to be bolded? It is the official name, just like Premier League bolds Barclays Premier League later in the lead. Per Wikipedia:BOLDTITLE#Abbreviations_and_synonyms: "If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, ... each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Were Hughes and Bryan Robson players when those photos were taken? Could they possibly be replaced by free players of themselves (or other winners) while they were managing? Yes, but there are no other free pictures available: [9][10]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Is there a reason not to wikilink seasons in the prose? Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_be_linked: "avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia" Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "Eight managers have won awards in consecutive months Joe Kinnear, Kevin Keegan, Roy Evans, Ferguson, Arsène Wenger, David O'Leary, Paul Jewell, and Rafael Benítez. Stuart Pearce also won consecutive awards, but one was at the end of the 2004–2005 season, and the other was at the start of the 2005–2006 season." I agree that the fact that Pearce's awards were in different seasons should be mentioned, but the way it's phrased makes it seem as if the article is deeming his consecutive awards as a lesser achievement. Reworded to sound less condescending. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I think that's everything. WFCforLife (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Hopefully I've addressed those points adequately. If not let me know. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• All those responses are fine to me. As I said, some of them were for my benefit more than anything else. In that case I'm happy to support, with the caveat that if someone disagrees with your responses to my second set of comments, appropriate action is taken. Well done, it's a pretty good list! WFCforLife (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Take a quick peek at the archived Premier League references, because they all say "Manger of the Month". Don't understand this? It is a Manager of the Month list, so surely that is the correct thing for them to say. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "Manger" not "Manager"! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Stupid me. Thanks for politely pointing out my stupidity TRM. Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC) How about moving "Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson" to the bit that mentions him in the second paragraph, and starting the third with just "Ferguson has been Manager of the Month the most times..."? Done Comma before "winning a Manager of the Month Award in each of those spells. Done No need for two Premier League links in the lead. Done Colon after "Eight managers have won awards in consecutive months". Done Giants2008 (17–14) 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Nice list that meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra comments (pathetic, as they may be...)

• Caption has 'twenty-four', not convinced why this shouldn't just be 24.
  • I feel as it is directly along side the prose, it is comparablie quantity. If not it is just my preference - WP:ORDINAL: "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words"
    • No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and I suspect it's missing a "the"...? Done
• Not sure (probably discussed) that the next version of MOTM needs to be in bold. Perhaps italics?
  • I have no idea what you are talking about. Being fairly slow today. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You have two bold titles in the lead. I'm just wondering if the second "bold" name for the list could be better (i.e. more MOS-compliantly) done in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Per MoS: "If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, ... each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Note to self: re-read MOS periodically..................... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Can you "prove" the managers who are current are, well, current? (once again, I had someone query this before on the PL hat-tricks list I did...)
  • You've said this before, but seeing as they all walked up and down the touchline for the latest Premier League fixtures three days ago I just don't see the point in raking out a source from each club website stating that they are the current managers. I waste enough time on here as it is... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I know I know. Sorry. It annoyed me too. I just wanted to put it out there so no-one could accuse me of not passing on the message. As they say, don't shoot the stoopid TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • No need to apologise, I thought I'd put in a bit about me knowing that this wasn't really a desire of yours. Obviously I forgot, and it made it seem as I was getting at you, which I really wasn't. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I suppose you could change it to something unambiguous, such as "Managers who have managed in the Premier League during the 2009-10 season". As annoying as the comment was (I also fell foul of it at a recent FLC), there is a valid point; content tends to get updated less frequently once it becomes featured, and by extension "current" is that bit more likely to be out of date. WFCforLife (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately lack of updating featured content won't be a problem here, as I'm going to have to update it every month. I see the point, but if we can have "most recent recipient", why can't we have "current" whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
              • There's nothing unfortunate about the list remaining up to date ;) I agree with you, I'm happy with "current", just trying to explain the other POV. WFCforLife (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Any suitable link for "caretaker manager" should it be a tricky one for non-English readers? Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text comment The alt text is pretty good, but phrases such as "An upper body photograph" should not mention that the picture is a photograph; just say "The upper body of". Similarly, "A head-and-upper-torso photograph" could be "The head and upper torso of", and "A photograph of a grey haired, bald man" could be simply "A grey-haired, bald man". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [11].

---

Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

One quick point before I look in depth - I would suggest that the current title is confusing and that the word "club" should be replaced by "opponent".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Second paragraph of the lead says "Luton" or "Luton Town" a lot; consider some creative re-wording or pronouns. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "first-team" → first team "First-team" is, to the best of my knowledge, the correct British usage. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) As far as I'm aware, "first-team" would only be used if the term is functioning as an adjective (e.g., "the first-team squad"). I've never seen it used in such a manner when functioning as a noun. Do you perhaps have access to a British source (like BBC or something) that would show the usage? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Note: I was just looking on BBC Sport and found several references ([12], [13], [14], and [15] to name a few) to "first team", whereas references to "first-team" ([16], [17]) all seem to be describing nouns ("first-team football", "first-team coach", etc.). Wiktionary doesn't make any mention of "first-team" as a noun either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) In that case, I am proven wrong. It's now changed. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "Luton have drawn more matches" - link "draw" to Draw (tie) Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Per MOS:BOLD, don't use bold as an indicator, like it is here in the table. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Why some abandoned teams in the first column? Are they notable enough to be redlinked, even if they don't have articles yet? No, because they did not appear in fully professional leagues. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) What do the table headers mean? "P", "W", etc. Definitions given in key. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Hope these help get you started. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Sorting isn't working properly (I'm getting 83, 87, 9, 90, etc.). See Help:Sorting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Odd, it was fine before... it was only the second and third columns respectively oddly enough, so I don't know. Oh well; I've forced these two columns. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Believe it was because of those colspans. They are good because they help the clarity of the header, but they add text to the column. Any columns containing anything that's not a pure number will sort as text, which means that 80 will come before 9, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) No space between list entry and indicator symbols. Indicator symbols at cap height, like daggers, should be superscripted to avoid crowding. This can be done with a simple find and replace. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Superscripting was done, but the spaces are still there. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) No longer. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Rather than saying fifth tier of Football in England, you could rearrange the sentance to say ...fifth tier of English football. You could then link either fifth tier or English football to English football league system. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Also rather than say football authorities you could just mention The FA. No, because there were two separate points deductions: 10 from The FA and 20 from The Football League. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) As KV5 says above, lots of mentions of Luton in paragraph 2. Sorted. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) And again per KV5, the abreviations need to be expanded in the key. Sorted. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Notes column doesn't need to be sortable. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) What makes Statto a reliable source? Statto's data comes from Tony Brown, whose Soccerdata company published "The Definitive Luton Town F.C." along with more than 100 similar books. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Under references, change bibliography to general, and notes to specific. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Thats all for now. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support with all comments addressed. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I know we don't need to repeat the history of the club in detail here, but I wonder if it would make sense to state why they left the league in 1900, as it usually isn't voluntarily... Bedfordshire is overlinked. Are play-off game(s) included in this list? Maybe just worth clarifying that a "blank" in the "Last" season cell means that the league fixture is yet to be conducted this season. Otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Cheers. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 10:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Comment Have a look at List of India women Test cricketers - there's a funky way (it would seem) of doing a colspan heading without messing up the sortability. Consider it for the separation of Home, Away and Total columns? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Notes column looks really silly with cells only on some lines - could it be changed so that every line has a cell in this column?
• Columns with numbers in (including seasons) should be centre-justified

Looks good other than that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks alright now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Provisional support – Assuming the Statto site tis found reliable, it appears to be a very strong list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• As stated above, the data for Statto comes from Tony Brown, a prominent British football statistician; this is confirmed here. I also said above that Tony Brown's Soccerdata company published The Definitive Luton Town F.C. and many other books of that ilk; this can be confirmed here (and his publication of The Definitive Luton Town F.C. here). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • No one seems to be making an issue of the site, so in the absence of knowledge of soccer data sites, I'm forced to lean on the views of the others here. Switching to full support. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Should the unlinked clubs (Abertillery etc} not be redlinked? Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've left them unlinked because I don't think they'd be notable (only ever rose as high as Southern League Second Division)... Still, what's your opinion on 'em? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Clubs which have played in the Southern League are generally considered notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • As are clubs which have played in the FA Cup, which they all have, except possibly Treharris, assuming it's a different club from Treharris Athletic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. It's done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This FLC is flagged as still needing reviews so here are some further comments. In my view the list is largely there with just a few niggles

• You shouldn't use italics to denote the defunct clubs for both MOS and accessibility reasons. You should denote these clubs with a superscripted character (e.g. asterisk).
• The fact that you haven't wikilinked the season when a club was only an opponent in one season looks a bit odd and arguably is not correct because the column is sortable.
• Some people might quibble that their relegation last season wasn't directly due to the points deduction (i.e if they had played a bit better they could have avoided it) which the lead implies. Perhaps adding the word "largely" might be an idea.

As I said above this is almost there. Boissière (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, OK, done. On the second, yes, the column is sortable, but it will always be next to the same season directly to its left in the "first" column, which will be linked; that is why it is as it is. Thirdly, if my memory serves, without the thirty-point deduction, Luton would have finished 15th; therefore, it was the point deductions that relegated Luton, as had they not been there, then Luton would not have been relegated. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not coming back to this sooner. I am happy with the changes made for my first point. The other two are not a big deal (for the second item I understood why it was done like that - my point was that it just looked a bit odd for occasional black seasons amongst a sea of blue - but as said it's not a big deal). Boissière (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Why are some seasons unlinked? "Win%" column needs to be explained in the key. "Luton Town Football Club is" You use singular here, but later on I see "Luton Town have" in the key. "The season given as the "last" designates the last season that included a league match between Luton Town and that side." Does last mean "final", or "most recent" (just clarify in the key). The alt text you wrote for the picture was excellent. In the future, you don't need to be quite so detailed. One thing that strikes me as unnecessary: "he is clearly the goalkeeper". Doesn't matter that it seems clear; it's unnecessary detail and can be construed as original research. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) OK, sorted. For rationale for the unlinked seasons see above – per WP:OVERLINK, if the team has only met Luton during one season, the link isn't given twice. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Mostly good, but the singular/plural inconsistency is not sorted yet – "Luton Town Football Club is" but "Luton have", unless you are using "Club" as singular and "Luton Town" as plural? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I was under the impression that "Luton Town" or "Arsenal" would be plural, while "the club" or "the team" would be singular. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks – very sorry to come so late to this; I had been meaning to do a review for some time, but have only been around intermittently recently. Little is needed to improve this: as well as being very encyclopaedic and ideally suited to an online environment, this sort of list is endlessly fascinating for stat-heads like me. Did you know you have never won a home game against Wigan Athletic in five attempts, but you've won 13 of 15 against Torquay United at home? (Oh – we don't have an article on bogey team.) The ease of finding facts like that makes this very powerful. Anyway: Lead First sentence is a bit awkward; needs at least a comma after Bedfordshire, and could possibly be split into two sentences: Luton Town Football Club is an English football club based in Luton, Bedfordshire. It competes in the Conference National, the fifth tier of English football. or Luton Town Football Club is an English football club based in Luton, Bedfordshire, which competes in the Conference National, the fifth tier of English football. In my view, ...for the 2009–10 season... doesn't "work" with ...competes in..., if that makes sense. Having said that, it would be a shame to lose the link to 2009–10 in English football in the lead. Watford sentence: won the most league victories is tautologous: try won the most league matches or recorded the most league victories Key All fine there. The table itself All colours and symbols are in the right place. I would use AFC Bournemouth rather than to denote Bournemouth to denote that club, as AFCB is their official name and there is another club operating under the "Bournemouth" name (a non-league club). Sorting works correctly.

In summary, very close to being able to support. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Support – everything looks good. First sentence flows nicely with the extra comma. Nice work. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

All done, except for the first sentence in which I have merely added a comma. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [18].

---

World Series Most Valuable Player Award

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Second MLB award nomination. Second paragraph needs to be referenced, but I'm not that good at finding sources. Copy-edits can go directly to article. Thanks! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: Looks in good position, and it meets FL Criteria. Good Job.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Only, thing that I see that needs to be addressed is the subcaptioned part of the pictures like the first one is done. This must be accomplished by the nominator. Have a nice day.BLUE_DOG^TN 01:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comment - Images along the right margin are missing alt text. Geraldk (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Finished alt text. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) A couple more minor things: there's a missing asterisk on the 1997 color box, and the first image on the right column says that the inaugural award was 1956, but that was the second award. Geraldk (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Geraldk (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding link changes

User:TMC1982 has changed the team links several times to link to team seasons instead of the franchise page, in opposition to consensus. I have attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, but I would appreciate the help of reviewers, as this may cause a stability issue in the article that could cause it to fail FLC. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone fixed it! :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment – While copy-editing, I ran across a sentence that is in no way cited by the given reference: "Eleven of the thirteen World Series MVPs to have won from 1997 onward are still active in MLB—Scott Brosius and Curt Schilling are the World Series MVPs from that period that are not currently active." If it's important to have the active players noted in the table, consider citing their Baseball-Reference pages in the table and removing the cite in the overview section. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC) The reference is just like the one for the HOFs. It doesn't show the HOFs who won the World Series MVP, but it does show the HOFs. In this case, the reference doesn't show the active players directly, but does show who is active by indicating it with a +. Sorry Geraldk, KV5, and Giants2008 for not replying so swiftly. If I do have time to edit, I'll definitely try my best to write the alt text, reply to the talk page section about team page linking, and to resolve the sourcing problem brought up by Giants2008. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (Sorry it took me so long to come back) It does indicate active players, but only a few of them. Most of the active players in question are not included on the page, since it is merely a brief summary. Speaking of the HOF page, I took a look at it and saw that the Hall of Famers were listed on multiple pages, with only one cited here. A full list is avaliable on one page here. Consider using this page as a replacement for ease of verification. If we can make it easier to verify a fact, why not do it if the source is of similar quality? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Changed BHOF ref. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Any progress on sorting out the other reference yet? Giants2008 (17–14) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Too much change on the article in these past two days. How about http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/rosters/alpha/A.html? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC) If you want to use a page like this, it should be noted in the reference that the reader needs to click on the appropriate letter to verify the status of a particular player. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Did your original suggestion. Hope you support already! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Good list overall that meets FL standards. Once the ref fixes were made, my lone remaining concern was stability, but the page activity appears to have settled down in the last day or so. The only other thing I would suggest is that the Cole Hamels and Hideki Matsui photos be swapped to have the most recent winner in the lead. This may be the Yankees fan in me, though, so I won't withhold support over it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold

I really don't think those historical overview bits need those long long headers. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I didn't add them, so I don't really know how to handle this... I don't mind the huge headers, but if they bother most reviewers, then I would boldly remove them. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I'd say go for it. EVERY other MLB list just has that stuff in the lead. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Worth noting Larsen's perfecto was the only no-no of any kind in postseason history, not just the only perfect game. Would need a new ref, since the current one only mentions perfect games and only in the WS, but worth noting. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Where did you find this information? I think that there could be at least another no-hitter in the World Series... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I just know it. One bad source, a better one, another, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC) The Mariano Rivera image could use a rewrite for it's caption. It was the first of two consecutive, it was the 2nd of three consecutive championship teams (98, 99, 00). Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Changed. We have a great Schilling image, why not use {{multiple image}} for the shared RJ/Schill WS MVP? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Since Schilling's picture is him wearing a BoSox uniform, not a Dbacks one. But I don't know...if you want to do that, then go ahead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Paul Molitor (1993) is the only one to have not won the World Series MVP between 1961 and 1980." What does "one" refer to here? Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Maybe an explanation of what "Mr. October" is supposed to mean? Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The alt text needs work: "A black-and-white picture " Phrases like this are unnecessary. "A Hispanic male wear a baseball helmet" Should be "A Hispanic male wearing a baseball helmet" Alt text should describe only things that can be verified in the image. For example, "A white male in his sixties, facing to the left of the image, wearing a Oakland Athletics cap, a blue jersey, with the lettering "FINGERS" and a number 34 below it on the back, on a grass field." is pretty good, but "Oakland Athletics cap" cannot be verified (describe the appearance of the baseball cap instead). Another example: "A gray-haired white male in his sixties, wearing a Los Angeles Dodgers uniform, sitting in the bullpen with a white fence in the background." "Los Angeles Dodgers" cannot be verified, and you don't say what kind of uniform it is. Here's a better version: "A gray-haired white male in his sixties, wearing a baseball uniform with the word "Dodgers" across it, sitting in a bullpen with a white fence in the background." Avoid trivial details: "A tanned male in his fifties wearing a PokerStars.Net cap and shirt, holding a baseball with both his hands." "PokerStars.Net" is an unnecessary detail (just say "black baseball cap" or something similar), and "with both his hands" is also unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I tried my best to fix all the alt text comments. Could you be able to preview them, and fix what is left? It would be great if you do! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Will do my best to address this tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Question Is the Win–loss record really needed in the key? Couldn't this link be piped through the "record" in the stats sections where needed? --Torsodog^Talk 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [19].

---

Ashley Tisdale discography

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this article has finally met the FL criteria for discographies. I nominated this article for a peer review few weeks ago and I managed to improve this article the best I could. Decodet (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments Compare your list to David Bowie discography in style and format.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The billboard references are dead--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The lead should be expanded--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The references should be more specific, one reference for each country in the charts and not just a general reference at Chart positions.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) expand the infobox with the relevant parameters from {{Infobox Artist Discography}} like EP= and Video= --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Create a column for the singles saying which ones got certified instead of Singles Certifications hanging around under the table--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The Other Work table isn't closed--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: I removed dead references, expanded the lead and the infobox, put a reference for each country in the charts table, and created a column for certifications on the singles table. Thanks for your comments. Decodet (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC) You have a cite error.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Convert the external links in Albums certifications to references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Add Alt text to the image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Provide the General references you used for the Songs and Albums names, like all music...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) An External link to her official site would be beneficial. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Corrected everything. Decodet (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Wikilink Certifications the first time in Studio Albums and don't in Singles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You should have the title column of all the tables the same width. I suggest making it wide enough to stretch "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" since its the longest title in the Tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You have some Overlinking with the Singles Charts like Billboard hot 100 and so on. delink repetitions... Arrange the sections like the Infobox, so Extended plays comes before singles...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Other Work should be other appearances and should have a lead sentence or explanation of why it's not her album ...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Under the first certification header type (sales thresholds).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You don't need the EU charting in other releases, since it never charted there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You should have ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country." for the Studio Album section and make it consistent with the rest of tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Type out acronyms the first time their mentioned in the references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) http://www.allmusic.com/ is generally used on most Discographies as a general reference. Could u add it here as a general reference too?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Type the author and change the date format of "Fabolous Tops Billboard 200; Jackson's "Ones" Now 2009's Second-Best Seller" reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Have a consistent date format of the refence so "2007-02-14" should be "February 14, 2007"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Publisher of "Ashley Tisdale Chart Archive on Finnish Chart" should be added. I know its in the title...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Look through the references and add any missing authors dates or publishers.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Done with everything again. The AllMusic reference was already on the article as a US charts reference. Decodet (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Re-add the removed information like "(with the cast of High School Musical 3: Senior Year)" and so on... It would just go under the title of the songs...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The lead should be expanded maybe 2X with more information about who the heck this "Sharpay Evans" thing is and her other releases. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) ""—" denotes the release did not chart." Sometimes it means it wasn't released. Make a distinction through a sign...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Done with everything. About the lead, I tried to expand it the best I could. Since Tisdale has not a longer career, there are not many notable and non-trivia informations to put on the lead. Thanks for your help! Decodet (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The image, what is she performing? Where? Please improve the alt text as if you were describing the image on the phone to someone.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Done. Decodet (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC) ""—" denotes the release did not chart." It could also be not released...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: I've put that part on the table several times but someone is removing it for some reason. Restored again.Decodet (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC) In the history it says "When a released song does not enter any record charts, the reasons vary and listing all of the reasons in the tables is unnecessary since there are those releases have their own articles" so it's ok if you don't add not released..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You have inconsistencies in the dates of the references. Sometimes it's "2009-07-07" other times "September 27, 2009".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Zobbel.de isn't reliable and you misspelled the "de".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) You should indicate when a link is a pdf through |format=pdf The "Other appearances" section, could it be retitled to Soundtracks? Since they mostly are...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) She perfomed in some of the soundtracks as Sharpay Evans so please indicate this...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Everything correct. About Zobbel.de: that's the only reference I've found for her peak positions in the UK. I mean, she did not reach the Top 100 with any solo release so it's difficult to find a archive for her peak positions. Decodet (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support After all the improvements and efforts the list is imo of Featured quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'll leave the reliability of Zobbel.de for other reviewers to comment about.

1. What's the difference between singles and other appearances? Shouldn' "Kiss the Girl", "Headstrong" and "Overrated" be in the Singles table? The same goes for Sharpay Evans section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: "Headstrong" and "Overrated" are not official singles. The first one was released as a radio promo and the second as a digital promo. "Kiss the Girl" is a soundtrack single but it's not one of her main singles. Decodet (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please indicate this in the list somehow. Either through a note or an intro sentence... Why are the notes over sharpay Evans? Why not after it?

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate IRMA.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Done. Decodet (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• What makes aCharts a reliable source?
• If "He Said She Said" was never released, why is it included in the discography? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: aCharts is a good archive for multiple charts according to WP:CHARTS. About "He Said She Said", just removed it from the videography section. Apparently someone added it yesterday and I did not note it. Decodet (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Acharts is usually discouraged, due to their publishing of multiple deprecated charts and lack of third party coverage. For Australia, use http://australian-charts.com/ and for Ireland use http://irish-charts.com/. Simple to change. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Kiac (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Opening sentence doesn't include her EPs or video albums. "As Sharpay Evans", why aren't these included in the infobox? 'Billboard 200, - why the '? "in its first week" need to clarify which "it" you're talking about. "certified single" - needs clarification for non-music experts, or at least a link to music certification or whatever is most pertinent. Singles table appears to be in expanded font size. Why? Remove spaces between refs and text/punc. Why do notes go [A] [B] [C] then [*]? US or U.S.? Any reason why [D] comes before [C]? And where's [B] gone? This is categorised as a videography but the title is discography. Problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Decodet (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Not quite. Notes moved out below... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) ""—" denotes that the release did not chart." - can you prove that it was actually released in each of those situations but did not chart? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Why are her compilation appearances not shown in the infobox? Music videos table is missing some lines on the right hand side. Videos are pretty much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Done, thanks. Decodet (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Not quite. Those you've done I've capped, those you haven't I haven't. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I guess you're talking about the music videos. Some of the videos have unknown directors. About references, I didn't find any, only to "It's Alright, It's OK". For example, MTV does not list the director for "He Said She Said" and "Not Like That"/"Suddenly" videos are not available on the site but the Scott Speer is confirmed as the director of the three videos in her documentary DVD. But I'm still trying to find reliable references. Decodet (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC) No, I'm talking about all the comments I haven't hidden, for instance, the key which says releases that didn't chart. I don't see any proof anywhere of releases that didn't chart. Perhaps they weren't released at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Ok, I understood. I've put ""—" denotes albums that did not chart or were not released in that territory.". I guess it's better and more detailed. Her compilation appearances are freatured as 'Soundtracks' in the infobox and her videos are referenced. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments "she recorded several tracks for Disney compilations albums" - What are Disney compilations albums? "Her second studio album, Guilty Pleasure" - Add a comma here. "in the US on July 28, 2009, the album debuted at" - Make it "in the US on July 28, 2009. The album debuted at". "was first released in June 2009 and was released in the US on July 28, 2009" - Where was it released in June 2009? "was first released in June 2009 in some European countries" - That seems a bit vague. Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) But the album was released in June in UK, Spain, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Denmark, Irland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland and Hungary. I think it's an extensive list to cite all. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I see. If it's that many, then perhaps substitute "some" with "several". It sounds less lax. Goodraise 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Done, thanks. I guess everything is solved? Decodet (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC) "Album details" would appear to be a better column descrition than "Album". What about the same column in the extended play section's table? Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) No references are provided for the "Album" columns. Several sections are completely unreferenced. What is a featured video? "Tisdale made guest appearances in few music videos of other artists." - Why don't you say "in two music videos"? Is the exact number unknown? Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) What makes aCharts a reliable source? Because of these issues, I have to oppose this nomination at this time. Goodraise 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Comments : About several sections being unreferenced, there are general references in the references list which proves albums release dates, compilation albums appearances and singles releases. About aCharts, it was replaced with reliable references. I worked out in most of your issues. Thanks for your review. Decodet (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Right... Forgot about the general references. My mistake. Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Not all references provide a publisher. (Providing the name of the website/work is no substitute for providing the name of the publishing entity.) Goodraise 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Provided publishers for all references. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) There's still several missing a publisher or using an incorrect one. (For example: The publisher of ref. 24 should be Hung Medien and the publisher of ref. 32 should be Warner Bros.) Goodraise 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, you're right, I noticed few with incorrect publishers. I corrected all I've noticited. Did I miss something? Thanks. Decodet (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC) There's still more to be done. I stopped fixing them after finding three. Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Found four and fixed them. I check every single reference and now I guess it's everything OK because I did not notice anything. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Reference 30 provides too little information. I'm not used to use that kind of reference so what do you thing is missing? Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) It appears to be some sort of video. The documentaion of Template:Cite video may be of help. Goodraise 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Decodet (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) The name Billboard is inconsistently italicized. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Some of the references give content descrpitions instead of their actual titles. I didn't know we have to use their actual titles, sorry. But some of them are not specific. Example: Ref 25 title is "swedishcharts.com - Swedish Charts Portal". Is that what we really have to use? Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) You don't have to use what is given in html between <title> and </title>, but giving a discription and placing it in quotation marks isn't acceptable. For that particular reference I'd use "Search for: Ashley Tisdale" or simply "Ashley Tisdale" (changing capitalization is fine by the way). Goodraise 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I fixed the references as what I understood from what you've said. Are them really fixed or they still with mistakes? Decodet (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Non-English references aren't marked as such. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) What makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I guess WP:CHARTS says Chart Stats is a good archive for UK chart. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but that's no answer to my question. (If you don't know how to respond, try reading this.) Goodraise 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I read the entire article. Chart Stats is the only site I've found for Tisdale's chart history as Sharpay Evans in UK charts. If you think this reference is not reliable enough to be used in featured article,, I can easily remove it as well the peak positions. I'm going to try to find another reference meanwhile. Decodet (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) It's not that I think that it's not reliable. It's that I can't tell why it would be. I've just taken a closer look and found that the three references that give The Official Charts Company as publisher link to websites that don't appear to be published by that company. Please provide the correct publishers of those websites and (if not obvious from the publisher) explain what makes them reliable sources. Goodraise 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Those sites are archives of the UK chart published by The Official Chart Company, since the main site does not archive it. I guess they are reliable because they are the only archives I've found for UK chart. Also, I checked few featured discographies and all of them uses Chart-Stats as the UK archive. I know it's not a good reason but that made me think it's reliable. So, should I put 'Charts-Stats' and 'Zobbel' as the publishers? Decodet (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC) No, the publisher of the website named Zobble would be Tobias Zywietz. As for Chart Stats, I can't tell who is the publisher of that site. Anyways, let me make this clear: I'm not saying that those sites are unreliable sources. It's just that I can't give this nomination my support until I understand why these sources should be considered reliable. Goodraise 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Chart-Stats cites their sources for all archive. I guess it's fine to use that one but since it only archives the Top 100 (and most of Tisdale's entries are #100-#200), I tried to find an alternate archive and I found Zobbie. Also, I'm actually used to follow the full UK charts every week in some forums and these two sites show the same positions I've seen in forums. I'm not 100% if they are reliable or not, but I guess their pages about Tisdale chart history are at least reliable. Decodet (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Chartstats.com is clearly an amateur site, and is used as a convenience link. The problem is that the official site, www.theofficialcharts.com, doesn't provide reasonable archiving: it has slightly less than two years of data available, and, since it provides no search facility by artist, has no method of sourcing a discography column: each and every peak needs an independent link to substantiate it, and all of those links go dead in 100 weeks or less. In fact, it doesn't source peaks at all: a link to a song with a given number on a given week doesn't source the concept that it wasn't higher on a different week. Because of that, I can't describe the use of chartstats.com as ideal, but it seems to be the best of a group of bad choices. None of the other archives are better in terms of having a recognized publisher, and the only archive that is published by a recognizable publisher isn't usable. In terms of being reliable in the traditional sense of "can be trusted to provide accurate information", I'm not aware of any problems with chartstats.com. Zobbel has its own set of minor problems, primarily in that it mingles multiple album charts: the rankings for compilation albums can't be distinguished from the rankings for standard albums, and the user of the database has to remain aware of what chart the album qualified for before quoting the rank. I don't think that issue would affect this article. That chart confusion is the primary reason I've never added Zobbel to WP:GOODCHARTS, and no one else seems to have felt compelled to add it. I don't think it would be reasonable to deny this article FL status solely on the basis of using Zobbel. Decodet's reasons to use it are sound, and he doesn't have a feasible alternative that I'm aware of.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) This is way out of my normal area of editing, so please excuse if this is a stupid question, but are there no print sources listing this kind of information? In any case, not opposing is the best I can do for an article using sub-standard sources. Sorry. Goodraise 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think UK chart is published in any print source such as a magazine or newspaper. I think it's only published online. Decodet (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Please see my answer at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ne-Yo discography/archive2, where this same issue has been raised.—Kww(talk) 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC) As you have said on that link, I guess it would be really difficult to find the number of the issue, the exact page, article, etc...and we would have to do that for each charted song (and some of them charted few years ago).Honestly, I don't think Charts-Stats can be easily replaced. I guess it's the best source for UK charts, since it's used in most discography articles. Decodet (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC) After going over the current versions of WP:V and WP:RS, I find myself back at my original position. The websites do not seem to fit the definition of reliable sources as given by said pages. To quote policy, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Using decent sources is the least I expect of "our very best work". Goodraise 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) At this time, I have to oppose this nomination, mainly because of sourcing issues. Goodraise 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I guess there is nothing I can do to change your decision. But I've been searching and tons of featured discographies uses Chart-Stats as the main reference for UK charts. Rihanna discography, Duffy discography, Hilary Duff discography, P!nk discography, The Ting Tings discography, Tokio Hotel discography, Ashlee Simpson discography, Depeche Mode discography, Eminem discography, George Michael discography, KT Tunstall discography, Lily Allen discography, M.I.A. discography, Nirvana discography and Yeah Yeah Yeahs discography are some of them which I can use as examples. Decodet (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Even if 200 featured lists used the source, it would still fail WP:V and WP:RS. That's all that matters. Goodraise 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You obviously have the right to oppose, but I will point out that I think you are using the letter of the policy to defeat its spirit. Decodet could go through the effort of sourcing each of these chart positions to an individual physical copy of Music Week, and your argument would disappear, because Music Week is an unimpeachable source in respect to the British music industry. In the course of doing so, he would have taken references that are trivially simple to verify and converted them into references that can only be verified by people with access to physical copies of the magazine. Making information more difficult to verify isn't the point.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Right now, the information is impossible to verify using the sources given. Why should I (or any reader of this prospective featured list) trust this no-name source? My oppose is perfectly in line not only with the letter of our policy, but also with what I think is its spirit. Goodraise 03:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) sorry to butt-in. but does this mean you are going to go through every other feature list discography that uses it and nominate them for removal because they use it? because at this rate not a single discography will be able to include uk chart information Mister sparky (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Don't worry, your bronze stars have nothing to fear from me. All I want is to improve the encyclopedia. (However, if a discography is up for FLRC anyways...) Goodraise 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Done: Switched Charts-Status.com and Zobbel references for physical references of ChartsPlus journal, which publishes weekly the full UK chart. The official site helped me with the issues numbers. Decodet (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Goodraise 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Still missing two video directors.
• That table is formatted incorrectly (missing one cell).
• 2006 featured video is not referenced anywhere.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no known directors for "Kiss the Girl" and "Be Good to Me German version", so I've put "Unknown" in the director table. I did not find any reference for the 2006 featutred video. All I've found is the video itself in some not-reliable sources, such as Youtube. About the table, I did not find out what's incorrect with it. Decodet (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by IMatthew 16:47, 7 November 2009 [20].

---

List of 125cc Motorcycle World Champions

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that is close to being at Featured list standard. NapHit (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments The point system mentioned at the prose is the current point system. I believe that in the older years the point system were different. I haven't had time to confirm this and find a reference, but I think it should be noted that the point systems weren't always the same. Other than that, it's a great list, good job on completing the list of champions to complement the previous FLs (250cc and MotoGP). — Martin tamb (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted this, added a sentence to clarify. Thanks for the shout-out, still got the 350cc, and 50/80cc to come yet, as well as an overall list of winners. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Great list, meets FL criteria. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text while limited looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "historically, there have been a number of different points system's." Remove apostrophe from last word.
• Why is there an empty Refs column in the table? Having a large empty row makes the appearance less appealing. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Done NapHit (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Other than the couple of addressed comments, I found the list to be very good when I first read it. With no further comments, I see no reason not to support. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Made a few tweaks, but otherwise another good list motorcycling racing list. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nice. I only noticed one thing, and that was "Great Britain riders". It just sounds wrong, but I'm not sure if it is. "Riders from Great Britain" is ok though. Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a reason why Gilera aren't included in the constructors table?
• I count 14 individual Italian winners, lead and table say 13.
• The key may need some clarification that the rider won the other championship in the same season.

--Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I count 13, done the other requests. NapHit (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I also count 14 individual Italian winners (Bianchi, Cadalora, Capirossi, Dovizioso, Gramigni, Gresini, Lazzarini, Locatelli, Pagani, Pileri, Provini, Rossi, Ruffo and Ubbiali), fixed the lead and the table. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Slightly confused - you say that sidecar is discontinued but then link it to Superside which, as far as I can tell, is very much not discontinued. Would a link direct to sidecar be more appropriate? "125cc is the class in which young riders first participate in Grand Prix motorcycle racing. "125cc" refers to ..." Two sentences starting like this is not brilliant prose, and it looks even odder since one of the two 125cc's is in quote marks "Grand Prix Road-Racing World Championship" is this the formal name of the championship? It's only mentioned once. If it is the formal name then perhaps it should appear earlier in the lead. It is the official name of the championship, but I don't think it needs to be mentioned earlier seeing as before it is mentioned talks about the sport in general not the championship itself. NapHit (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "The driver's championship and constructor's championship are separate championships..." do we need that last (and third in the sentence) "championship"? Or could you remove the first one? "Results from all Grands Prix count towards the championships; in the past, only a certain number of results were counted." You should make it clear that the first part o the sentence is relevant to the championship today. 80cc is in the table but not mentioned in the lead at all. "Each link goes to the article ..." - "Each year is linked to the article..."? Worth being clear what "margin" means. And perhaps note in the lead who won with the largest margin. Do you mean "rider" instead of "driver" in the Multiple winners and By nationality tables? That note needs some context, date, referencing. Ref 3 has odd spelling of January. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done all requests. NapHit (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Just a minor comment, are Morbidelli and MBA the same constructors? Perhaps a note should explain why are they considered the same constructor or a note that explains Morbidelli's total win of 5 includes 2 wins as MBA. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or probably you should split MBA and Morbidelli as two separate constructors, Morbidelli with 3 wins and MBA with 2 wins. From Morbidelli's article, it mentions that MBA (Morbidelli-Benelli-Armi) bikes was produced in a separate factory and was helped by Benelli. In my opinion, they were two different companies producing different bikes. MBA was more like a joint venture between Morbidelli and Benelli. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've split Morbidelli and MBA win totals, because all the reference I found does not recognize them as the same constructor. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, seems to be a well constructed list, also well researched, no obvious blatant errors that I can see. --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by IMatthew 16:47, 7 November 2009 [21].

---

Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and all concerns from the previous nomination have been addressed. In regards to the discussion on the HURDAT source, there is an article available on reading it located here. All comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comment - What's the point of the "preceded by" and "followed by" box at the bottom of the page if it does not list to the preceding and following articles? Geraldk (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC) It generally does link to the preceeding and following years timeline, and there is talk of 1988 AHS getting a timeline though i believe nothings been done yet.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The 1988 AHS does have a timeline, I've linked it in the box Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Also, where in the article is the explanation of HURDAT data listed or linked? From a readers perspective, it would make sense for the references that use it to have a note explaining what the data is that they will see and a wikilink to an explanation of it. Geraldk (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I believe it is linked to the references using Hurdat though ill doublecheck that later.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Added a link specific reference just after the first use of the HURDAT reference. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season" - needs a reference; I don't know, and many readers will not, what an "average" or "below-average" season is. "making the 1987 season the fourth to do so since 1967." - wording is awkward, and should also have a reference Both are referenced by the reference at the end of the paragraph i would put Refname there but ive been shouted at by a certain JC on IRC and told its redudant. I think theres an article explaing what an average season etc is so ill find it and wikilink it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know what a JC is, and I don't use IRC, but WP:V says that any statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged need a citation. The first one isn't being challenged, per se; it's just a matter of knowing if the facts are legitimate. The second one is being challenged, so it needs support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Wow thats a rarety some one who doesnt know who User:Juliancolton is. Anyway im digressing as i said it appears they are both sourced to the first source in the article, which is the seasonal summuary written by the hurricane specialists after the season.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I know who Juliancolton is; I've just never heard him called that before. JC is someone else to me, and I don't think He uses IRC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Ah right anyway lets not digrese :). "a pre-season storm, Tropical Depression One, led to the season's starting on May 25" - reads awkwardly to me; suggest a pre-season storm, Tropical Depression One, opened the season early on May 25 Reason why the "related article" is in a box instead of a hatnote? I think both a hatnote and a related article box is redundant now sicne its linked to in the first sentance - i will take them out later.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) October 10 is missing a local time. Sorted Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I think me and CB have caught evreything but if not let us know ASAP. Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless im going blind they all have it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You apparently are going blind, most didn't have it :P I've added the alt text to all images now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the alt text link in the toolbox one more time. The Hurricane Emily pic does not have alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was asked to look at the satellite images' alt text. It looks good, except please omit repetition of the caption and/or details that a nonexpert won't know (typically these are the same thing). The phrases I saw that need removal from alt text are "Tropical Storm Dennis" and "Hurricane Arlene". Eubulides (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I'm comfortable supporting now. A couple minor notes, though. For the June subsection, it's a little odd that the explanation that there was no activity looks like it's in the June 1 sub-sub-section. I don't know if there's anyway to fix that within the bounds of your project's syntax for these timelines, but wanted to point it out. Also, I can't figure out why, but in the wikilink to HURDAT in the ref, the preceding parenthesis is part of the title link, rather than simply enclosing the link, such that the title reads, "Atlantic Hurricane Best Track Database (". Anyone know how to fix that? Geraldk (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• File:Eye of Hurricane Emily 1987.jpg requires alt text.
• Ref. 4 is not actually a reference. Remove it or incorporate it into the article in another way.

Image licensing seems fine. Sources look good. Goodraise 17:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Added the alt text and changed ref. 4 to a note. Thanks for the review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season" - What does that mean?
• "This season had fourteen tropical" - Make it "The season had fourteen tropical"
• A few more internal links would be nice in the lead.

Goodraise 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Links added, specified what a below average season is and made the minor fix Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing and alt text seems fine. Sources look good. I can support this nomination. Good work. Goodraise 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
" - swap pipe for semi-colon! Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) "Exact time unknown" - no need for small font, just less accessible. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "$80.3 million (1987 USD, $154.2 million in 2009 USD)" Use {{inflation}} instead so that you don't have to constantly update this figure.

I cant figure out how to add it in and make it look tidyJason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Added the template Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• AST needs a link in the timeline. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

its already linked Jason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:34, 7 November 2009 [22].

---

Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was sitting on this nomination for a little while given the FLC nomination freeze, but Dabomb has now lifted that (hence my starting this up while 30 Rock (season 3) is still going). Yes it is a short list with only 10 award winners so far, but IMO it meets all the criteria including comprehensiveness. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5
Toolbox comments from KV5 2 dablinks: Aaron Hill and Depression. Fixed. I caught one Aaron Hill link but missed that 2nd one. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ELs all fine. I won't comment much on the quality of the alt text, but it's there; someone who knows better can check it out. Will return with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comment - Could explain more about the voting process. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) A reply would be much appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Whoops, sorry about that. I'm not sure what else to expand on. The candidates are named and a fan vote names the winner. What would you like added? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC) According to this MLB source, it says that "The 30 Club beat reporters from MLB.com, [and] the official website of Major League Baseball" are the voters, not the fans. Also on this other MLB source, from looking at the voting numbers, it appears that 1st place votes are 5 points, 2nd place is 3 points, and 3rd place is one. Huh! To reply to the message you left on my talk page, it's okay, as long as the matter will be resolved. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Wow, weird, it was definitely a fan vote originally. I'll fix that section up. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC) There we go, fixed. I really do apologize. As far as I can tell the 05 and 06 awards were clearly fan vote and the 08 and 09 awards clearly with this voting structure. The 07 awards are the only unclear one currently, as the two comeback winner articles focus more on the Players' Choice Award than this. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Woot, found the source. 05-06 was fan vote, 07-current is the beat reporter vote. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would probably comment again tomorrow (no school tomorrow!). Thanks for fixing up the voting section! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – The quote in the first sentence is crying out for a cite. Done, it's the same first cite but I'll stick it on again just to be clear. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) For the first entry in the table, link the word batting to batting average for the benefit of non-baseball fans. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Carlos Pena: "and was released on August 16th, 2006." Drop "th" in the date. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "and won the Rays first Silver Slugger Award." Apostrophe needed at end of Rays. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Cliff Lee: "going 22–3 with a 2.54 ERA and won the Cy Young Award." In this sentence structure, "won" should be "winning" instead. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Nomar Garciaparra: Another th to remove in August 5th. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Chris Carpenter: Dash needed for won–loss record. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The National League table sorting for name is sorting by first name, not the usual last name. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Dunno why it didn't have sortname. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - no major issues that I see. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Images: Licensing looks fine and alt text is provided. Goodraise 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sources: Sources are formated properly and seem to be reliable. Goodraise 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) What is a "shortstop"? Linked. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) What is "fielding"? We have no article on it. If this was a serious question, not just a request for a link, it's the act of a defensive player (fielder) going after a ball to try and get an out. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) It wasn't a "serious question" or a request for a link. It's an accessibility issue of the article. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Well what else can I do? I'll link to this article, but you can only link to so many things. Yes, it would be useful to know what "fielding" is when reading about baseball. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC) What is a "fly ball"? Linked. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "hitting ... 108 runs batted in" - This seems grammatically incorrect. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "and made the 2009 All-Star Game" - Does that mean he played in it? Yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "He also underwent major hamstring surgery in August 2004 having torn it from the bone, appearing in 83 games in the 2004 season." - This sentence appears to try to say too much. I don't understand it. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) More later. Goodraise 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "pleading guilty to assaulting his girlfriend." - Does that mean he was on trial? As the NYT article says "[he] pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend by choking, bruising and scratching her and tearing out clumps of her hair." Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "and was elected to the 2007 All-Star Game" - That means he played in it, right? Yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "converted 41 saves in 41 chances" - What does that mean? Linked saves and save situations. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "First place votes are worth five points, second ..." - This is too abrupt a change in the line of thought from the previous sentence. Touched up to connect to the discussion of the two voting styles. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "Six players were elected to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game" - They were elected to play in it, right? This goes to your other two posts as well. GENERALLY you play in the ASG when elected. I'm not sure, but I believe all these elected All Stars played, yes. But the sourcing I provide is simply to the ELECTION to the ASG, because that is what indicates some level of performance (being elected president shows your popularity, even if you are shot the day before election day and never actually serve as president). Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) This goes for the other two cases as well. I don't have an issue with what you say, but how. They were't elected to a baseball game, they were elected to play in a baseball game. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Ah, but no, they were elected to the game. There is absolutely no guarantee, other than for the starters (and even they can get injured and replaced) that you will play in the All-Star game. Your election just gets you there, it's the game managers who get you in. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) We're talking past each other here. "Six players were elected to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game" makes no sense. They don't become the game, they only play in it. This has nothing to do with whether they actually get to play. Goodraise 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) But that's what I'm saying. They aren't necessarily elected to play. They are elected to the game. The same way you are elected to the presidency, but whether or not you actually serve depends on your surviving to inauguration day. I assume the sentence you'd rather see is "Six players were elected to play in the Major League Baseball..." but that would simply be an overgeneralization. Albert Pujols didn't play in the 07 All-Star Game, he's the best player in baseball, and his own team's manager was the NL ASG manager. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "They are elected to the game." What does that mean? Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) They are on the roster, available to the in-game managers, and will forever be known as a 19XX/2XXX All-Star. Again, Albert Pujols was named an All-Star in 2007 but did not play one single inning offensively or defensively. The honor is in the title, the playing is a whole other thing. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I see. That needs to be clarified to the reader. Goodraise 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Not to sound sarcastic or anything, but should I define baseball as well? This simply isn't confusing as a reader. Six players were elected as All-Stars. Period. That is a fact. If you want to get into the eccentric details of the All-Star game that belongs at those articles, not here. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If you write the sentence "Six players were elected as All-Stars." into the article, then you have to explain what an All-Star is or at the very least link it. Anyone familiar with baseball may know what an All-Star is, but our articles shouldn't assume that much knowledge on the part of the reader. Goodraise 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Major League Baseball All-Star Game is linked. And I changed it slightly to "named" since not All-Stars are elected (the managers name some). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC) With this, we're back at square one. A person can't be named or elected to a game. It doesn't make sense. They aren't baseball games, they're baseball players. Goodraise 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) ...Yes they can be... "Named to the All-Star Game" returns 5.8 million hits on Google. I can change it to "Named to the All-Star team" if you want, but you absolutely can be named to a game, just like being named to a committee even if you aren't a committee yourself. There's a "to" in there, it's not saying they are named an All-Star Game, it's that they are named to it. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I never doubted that, among baseball savvy people, it is common to say so, but to me, as someone who isn't, the phrase sounds plain wrong. As for your suggestion, that would be acceptable, as long as "All-Star team" is explained and/or linked. Goodraise 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Done and done. This may have been my longest indent ever. :p Staxringold talkcontribs 04:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "Carpenter (NL) and Hill (AL)." - Could you convert this construct to prose? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Why are the positions given in acronyms? This is a common practice on all the baseball lists to keep the tables uniform sized without wasted space. The alternative is a "key" for the acronyms with the links at the top, but it's larger, messier, and for a table this size a key looks rather silly. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) It's in violation of the MOS. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Huh? And I quote directly from WP:MOS#Acronyms and Abbreviations: "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data." That's precisely what is being done here and being done in dozens of other articles. Like I said, I can add a key if you want but it seems very odd. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) The MOS says to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", which the article doesn't. I'd also like to stress the may in your quote. Using acronyms for width reduction is not warranted in this case. Goodraise 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and did it. I understand, as you said in the Family Guy season 5 FLC, "The name of this page isn't Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/every Featured List in the Simpsons series/archive1," but at some point it becomes silly. Plenty of lists have used this abbreviation style. 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Following the MOS is silly? I beg to differ. Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The MOS explicitly says the way it was was fine. I changed it to make you happy, but I quoted direct policy from the MOS page that speaks to this issue going to other way. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "The MOS explicitly says the way it was was fine." I assume you mean the passage "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data"? This does not mean that you don't have to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence" nor does it mean that it's generally fine to use abbreviations in tables. Goodraise 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) So the MOS directly stating it may be useful to abbreviate in tables doesn't mean one can? Whatever, it's been changed. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) That's right. The law may state that it's sometimes fine to shoot people, that doesn't mean I can run around doing it. If the MOS states that "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data", then that means that "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data", nothing less and nothing more. Goodraise 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) But this is the stated situation (in your example a case of self-defense where you can shoot someone), it reduces the width of a table of data. What is a situation where you see such abbreviations as acceptable? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Okay, lets assume for a second that it was the stated situation, then the sentence "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data" still doesn't free you of the need to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", which could happen in the prose preceeding the table. It is only an exception from the general rule not to use abbreviations when they aren't necessary. Goodraise 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose for now. Goodraise 12:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I've stricken my oppose. Will give a new recommendation once I get the chance go over the article again. (I'm a bit busy right now.) Goodraise 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose for now. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) One more comment: The position columns currently differ in width. Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed, for some reason it decided to copy my early guess of 14% rather than the 9% I set for the final size. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to support this nomination. Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "most overall points" - "most points overall"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) What do they actually win? The award. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Any money? A trophy? Or is it just the title? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Prize money and trophies are not mentioned in any of the press releases. I doubt there's any real "prize" (that's not common with baseball awards), and as for a trophy if there is one I can't find any sourceable info on it (even in the official MLB press releases on the award). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Six players were elected to the..." do you mean six winners of this award were elected... because "in their winning season" could mean something very different... I mean in their award winning season, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "an intestinal parasite" - just the one? Perhaps "an intestinal parasite infection"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "in just 80 games" to non-baseball players that's a lot of games. Perhaps you could lose the only and add a "out of a possible x games" instead to give us all the context? Apply this to other instances of the "just x games"... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "was traded to the White Sox" by whom? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) First instance of Tigers, spell out Detroit Tigers (once again, for us knuckle-head no-knowledge types) - once again, apply this to other instances of just the nicknames... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The software engineer in me is screaming out about the two-digit year format you have in your references.. any chance you'd change them to include the century? Just for me? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed to avoid Y3K problems. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note MM-DD-YYYY is not a format used on Wikipedia; please use YYYY-MM-DD or a format with the month spelled out. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CITE#HOW: "There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent." Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• WP:DATE#Dates: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose." I find absolutely no policy that says what you are saying. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That citation style note doesn't really apply here, except for consistency. I was referring to the references, which are not prose. "11-01-2009" is a prime example of why we don't use these formats (is it November 1 or 11 January?), because they are ambiguous.
  • Also, see "Do not use date formats such as 03/04/2005, as they are ambiguous (it could refer to 3 April or to March 4)." This applies here, as MM-DD-YYYY is the same as MM/DD/YYYY (or DD/MM/YYYY), but with hyphens instead of slashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• How is YYYY-MM-DD any less ambiguous on those dates than MM-DD-YYYY. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Regardless, I changed the style. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Why no ref in the second paragraph?

• For all these baseball lists, information that in the lead simply summing up what's said in the table generally isn't ref'd. I'll find one for the Carpenter 04 Comeback win, though.

• Why no lead image?

• What would it be? I know of no trophy (and certainly no trophy image) and all the winners are listed below. If someone had an image of one of the players clearly pre-Comeback (like when sent down to a minor league team or walking off the field injured or something) that might be useful, but beyond that dunno what to use. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why do the ESPN refs say "ESPN" twice in a row?

• They don't, one is the work and one is the publisher. This is Goodraise's work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Major League Baseball" and "ESPN" only need to be linked once in the refs.

• This is how I've done up several baseball lists before it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's right. BUC (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't but why not err on the side of slightly overlinking so someone browsing the site can easily check up on the refs rather than underlink and cut into that simplicity? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• There's no right way, as long as it's consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if this list is long enough to be a FL. But if it has gotten this far in prob is.

• WP:FL? criteria 3 (Comprehensiveness) requires only that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" (which it does) and "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists" (which it does). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• For example, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers or List of Tampa Bay Rays seasons. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "and won the Rays' first" weren't they still the Devil Rays back then?

• Right you are, fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW "sponsorship agreement between MLB and Viagra" lol is that because the winners are generally old! BUC (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's partially a play on the term "comeback". Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:34, 7 November 2009 [23].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag

Nominator(s): Abeer.ag (talk), Hometech

I am nominating this for featured list because it certainly meets the FLC criteria. Its been in FLC before but failed to pass because of lack of reviews. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Prose is like a bunch of dot points strewn together, particular with the repeated "He/His" sentence starts. Also the 201 in Galle needs a special mention, as it was named the Wisden Performance of the year, and carrying his bat, which broke some record(s). Also, is it uncommon to have only 3 victories in 15 centuries? This may be a reflection of most of them being on pretty flat pitches, or India's bowling being toothless (usually both) resulting in a stack of draws. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• What should I say about the Galle innings?

As long as there are citations for that :P SGGH ^ping! 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CEntury on debut? Only one century in the second innings, none in runchases. Why is this disparity not mentioned? It's a very famous part of Sehwag's record. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• • He has 3 centuries in innings 3 or 4. Its not really that relevant mentioning victories I guess. And I do say "In 2001, he became the eleventh Indian player to score a century on Test debut, with 105 runs against South Africa"

Also, didn't he break a few records for hitting a lot of fours and sixes in some of these triple centuries?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, doesn't he have the highest % of boundaries out of modern players? Or something along those lines. One series 5 years ago he scored 80% of runs from fours. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Its very hard to cite facts like that: [24] is the only link I could find, and it dosen't mention anything particularly notable.

Thanks For you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Opening sentence is, well, so practical that it is flat.
    • It might be basic, but it introduces the topic so non-cricket readers are not immersed in cricket terminology from the start. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it without adding any more terms. SGGH ^ping! 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The lead has too many choppy sentences, and not enough flow.
  • The lead does have good information, however.
    • I know.. I tried to fix it earlier as well, and this is the best I could do.
  • Of the tables, why is there no column for which Test of Sehwag's career it was? i.e. 5th Test, 23rd Test etc. I would have thought this would be useful information, helping to show particular runs of form or drought, and how many consecutive centuries there are.
    • The dates for the Tests are mentioned
  • I think an article on his centuries should perhaps have a shade more information on the man's career debut date, the date of his first century in the lead, things like that.
    • I menton " In 2001, he became the eleventh Indian player to score a century on Test debut, with 105 runs against South Africa"
  • Also, please replace the external link with {{cricinfo|ref=india/content/player/35263.html|name=Virender Sehwag}} ***Done SGGH^ping! 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Cheers. SGGH ^ping! 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - *You could probably say how he has scored 150+ in his last eight or so centuries (I think). You'll need to find a source though. Aaroncrick (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I do say that: "His last 11 centuries have been scores of 150 or greater, a record for the most consecutive hundreds of over 150."
• "He has been dismissed three times between 90 and 100 runs, and has made five scores of 200 runs or more, the most by an Indian opener, of which a record three have come against Pakistan." Is the sentence a bit long? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That part of the lead has gone through several edits, and that was found to be the best way to say that. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Tough one to review. There are no major faults that I can find, but I also notice the choppy nature of the lead. It's difficult to offer solid advice on this, but mixing up the beginnings of more sentences may help. Also, I wish the alt text for the graph had some description of the figures in the graph, since that would be of great benefit to those with screen readers. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the alt text for that should at least mention that the graph runs from 2001 through 2009, that there are peaks in early 2004 and early 2008 (and perhaps the value of those peaks), and that the moving average goes up and down around 50 for most of his career; that sort of thing. The current alt text leaves the visually impaired reader in the dark. Eubulides (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Changed. Thank You Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "scored in thirteen cricket grounds" scored "at" the grounds? Changed "of which eight", reverse it for my taste, but that is my opinion (i.e. eight of which...) That does sound better Can we find a link for "dismissal" for when you say "dismissed three times" (it's a bit cricket jargony) Done I would tend to agree with Giants on the slight feeling of disjoint - you mention dismissals then double centuries... I know... but what else can I do? "of which a record three" what kind of record? Most double centuries against Pakistan; explained by note "His first ODI century was ..." not sure you really need to repeat ODI century here. Changed "coming up off 60 balls" - not sure this is how I would write it, perhaps "coming from 60 deliveries"? changed "The number of the Test matches played in that series" - not really, it's the "The Test in which the century was scored against the total number of Tests in the series". No succinct, perhaps you could work that out a bit better than I could write it? The current caption kind of works... as you said, the alternative is not very suucint. I would make 201* sort above 201 as it's generally agreed that a NO finish is better than an out, right? Same with the 114* I don't know how to do that! I just used standard wiki sorting. SpacemanSpiff fixed it. In the lead image you use ODI but in the image a way further down you revert to the full usage. I'd do it the other way round. Done Your notes are really all References except for [7] which is a note. Changed Is India national cricket team linked anywhere in this article? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai, where Sehwag got his highest score, 319 versus South Africa." ... reached his highest score, 319 versus South Africa? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Added a comma. Thank you. Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak> Support - Nice work Aaroncrick (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose still nothing happening on the discussion of some of the notable things about Sehwag's centuries YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Abeer.ag added bit about scores of 150, however, I doubt there are refs for the other issues. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Added some data. Abeer.ag (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Like mentioned by Aaroncrick above, "He has been dismissed between 90....come against Pakistan." is too long and should be split. Also, ref 6 is really a note, so it should probably be split off from the references.
  • Changed
• Double referencing - #1 and #2 don't say anything different, so either should suffice for the first paragraph. Likewise #8, #9. In both cases, the reference quality isn't questionable, so is there a reason for adding the extra reference?
  • 8 & 9 cite different things; #1 and 2 are the result of a discussion on a previous FLC, its so that not all references are from Cricinfo.
• The three sentences from "His highest score of 130..." to "...coming from 60 deliveries" should be consolidated to two and the reference to New Zealand strengthened.
  • Changed.
• This is more of a stylistic preference, but should "between 90 and 100" be replaced by "in the nineties"?
  • Done

-SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, I didn't notice the other comment. How do I do that? Or should I just remove it? Abeer.ag (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done Abeer.ag (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Has YellowMonkey been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you add the info that the 254 v Pak in Jan 2006 was the largest score at 100+ SR? Also the fact that it was in a 400-run partnership and went with 4-5 of breaking hte WR by Roy and Mankad in the 1950s YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Added the second part;not sure about what you mean by the first part; his 319 also had a SR>100. Abeer.ag (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The 254 was off about 250 balls or something and was the record until the 319 broke it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit about the 319 being the largest. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey himself added the other stuff as well. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - concerns have been addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 01:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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