Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2012

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 Giants2008 19:10, 15 January 2012 [1].

---

List of UEFA European Football Championship finals

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because we have a parallel featured list for the World Cup and I thought it would be nice to get this featured and then onto the mainpage in time for the final of Euro 2012. As ever, thanks to reviewers for the time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I believe this list meets all the criteria laid out at WP:WIAFL. There are no glaring omissions, it covers the topic completely. The MOS is well-observed, the prose is well-written and the lead adequately covers the topic and the following lists. – PeeJay 13:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and thank you for your tidy up too! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Ref 30 has a publish date. As does 9, 11, 14, etc – generally any BBC Sport archive page, as it was made for Euro 2004. Fixed. Thanks for the spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) "France and Spain have also won the competition on multiple occasions (2)". I assume multiple in the adj. sense? Actually ignore that, just looked up Webster's who define it as "involving more than one". — Lemonade51 (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I wasn't sure what you meant so I'm glad you've struck your own comment! Thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Hehe, I was just unsure about the use of multiple. I overlooked that you put in brackets the number of France and Spain's cup wins which answered my query.

• Support – Nice job. — Lemonade51 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
* Just the one query, how come you link to every final apart from 1964 and 1972, seems a bit odd. Other than that it looks grand. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC) An oversight, fixed, kindly, by PeeJay2K3. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Great job, NapHit (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "The tournament takes place every four years;..." – In my opinion, this looks a bit lost, out of place. Would be better contextualized if it was the end of the first sentence ("... in 1960 and which takes place every four years. It is...") or the beginning of the second ("in 1960. Taking place every four years, it is contested by the men's...").
• If this list is modeled after the World Cup finals list, it would be interesting to also mention in the lead the number of teams that reached the final, that won, etc.
• Is there any compeling reason for the table listing the finals having width-defined columns? Just asking...

— Parutakupiu (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'm about to head to bed, so if you don't mind I'll address them early tomorrow. They're all reasonable; (1) I'll look at a rephrase. (2) the WC list doesn't actually seem to cite those stats (so I didn't try to do it) and (3) no, I'll see what happens if I ditch the width-definition, shouldn't be a big issue. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Take your time!) Another comment: the "Key" section is not important or big enough to be a section per se. It could perfectly be tucked into the area between the heading and the table in the "List of finals" section. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Parutakupiu, I think between me and PeeJay2K3, we've addressed your comments, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I still have that column width issue. Could you test reducing the widths, to erase most of the blank space in the cells? Also, I've taken the liberty to make a few copyedits, to the lead mostly; see if you agree with my changes. Btw, the new history section is a wonderufl addition. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I've now unforced all col widths, so it should be okay, hopefully on your monitor? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Thumbs up! I have a couple of other suggestions, but I don't want to become annoying and the way the list is is already deserving of my Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I don't mind if you have more suggestions to make. This won't be promoted for at least a week or so, I have time! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
            • It's really minor but I think could make the main table look neater: (1) make key symbols superscript relative to the score (here, I'd suggest replacing "^" with a bigger one (e.g. "§"); (2) place the note tags in the same line (remove breaks). At the end of it, every row would have the same height and the table would look more homogenous. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
              • See what you think of what I've done now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Ha! Excellent, just what I envisioned. That's it. Nothing more to be addressed. Great work. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • No problem, thanks for your ongoing interest and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd leave this lot till the morning ;-) The infobox would look neater if "Germany (3 titles)" didn't wrap the "titles)" bit underneath the flag, don't know how you'd stop it though Should extra time be wikilinked on first occurrence rather than second? And should replay be wikilinked? seeing as the other technical terms are "France and Spain have also won the competition on multiple occasions (2)" needs a copyedit as does the last sentence. Maybe something like "Greece, Netherlands and Denmark each won the competition on their only appearance in the final, the latter having replaced Yugoslavia on the eve of the 1992 tournament." It's going to be repetitive however you word it, but three "tournament"s on one line is a little OTT. The little coloured boxes in the key would look neater if they were all the same size. You could perhaps use a wikitable? I might have had the three sentences in the key as three separate bullet points, and have them in the order the columns appear in the table In general, numeric columns look neater centred. In particular, in the Results by nation table, the huge width of the Final appearances column containing a single digit crammed up against the left-hand border looks awful. Consider putting the table-related footnotes below the table to which they apply, so that the sighted reader with a deep enough screen can see the relevant notes without having to keep clicking down to the bottom and clicking back up again I'd consider having the primary sort key for the Results by nation table as final appearances, seeing as that's the topic of the list, rather than wins Impressed than you can get three supports for a sortable table where some of the columns don't sort properly ;-) Me too. I think that's as a result of the colspan. Which I didn't add, but it seemed fine. Okay, will fix...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps force the 2012 TBDs to sort high (or low) until there are genuine values in there, to keep them out the way of the real data. The Key to symbols table and the main table need captions, for accessibility. Wasn't necessary when they were immediately below the relevant section headers, but now they're not. Struway2 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 1992 final and Footnote 6: Seems strange that the UEFA History reference calls it West Germany, when German unification took place before qualifying started, the unified German team took over West Germany's fixtures in the qualifying group and the no longer existent East Germany withdrew. The prose in UEFA's history section calls it Germany. Comments I'm uncomfortable with how this list meets criterion 3b: "does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". As far as I can see, the only thing in this list that the parent article doesn't include is the name of the stadium each final was held in. And the history section of the parent article actually includes rather more prose about each final – i.e. some – than there is in this list. There's prose about the final, i.e. format, tie-breaking criteria, in this list, but did you not consider including anything about any of the individual finals? As it stands, it's a little like having an episode list that just gives the name of each episode. Agree with that comment too. Just thought it could be a useful fork from the lengthy main article. Wouldn't want to repeat the "History" section of the main article but think it's justifiable as the replacement for most of the "finals" section of the article. Especially given the size of the main article. However, I guess (from your perspective) it could be eight times the size to discuss each final? Perhaps this is a lost cause (despite the supports!), and if so, we need to reduce the World Cup Finals FL to nothing too. This is where we need to decide what a list does and doesn't do, given there's an article dedicated to each final, would be worth a discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Hope some of this might be helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Struway2, delighted! Typical you leave this until the moment I"m about to go to sleep. I'll deal with your comments tomorrow, but be advised, if they're too difficult, I'll just resign from Wikipedia altogether and become a unicorn (with wings, not entirely a Centaur, but close), and make you an admin. Your choice... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Hey, thanks for your comments. I think between me and PeeJay2K3, we've covered most of them, the only one left is the concern over 3b. In my opinion, that info should be removed from the main Euro page and just linked as a {{main}} to here. The article is long enough to support this info being forked off. As I said, since we have an article dedicated to every final in any case (linked to from here), it would seem nugatory to add more info on each final here. But interested in what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I'm not too bright this morning. Could you clarify what info you'd remove from the main Euro page? Just for comparison purposes, I've been looking at episode lists. The featured List of The Simpsons episodes has some words about how many series there have been and stuff, and then a table with a row for each series, and then a table for each series with a row listing each episode. Below that you get the featured The Simpsons (season 1) et seq, which have lots of prose and a list of episodes each with a few lines of what happened in that episode. Below that, you get the good article Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire et seq, an article for each episode. So it's clearly accepted in this genre that the existence of a mature developed article on each item listed doesn't mean you shouldn't have words about that item in the next level up. I think my basic problem is not that this list shouldn't be spun off the parent article, but that it should justify being spun off by having more than minimal content. I'd expect an article about the finals of a competition, whether a list or a prose article, to tell me something about those finals, not just list the results in a table with detail translated into punctuation marks. A few years ago, lists about football club seasons had a truly minimal amount of prose and a few footnotes; these days we expect rather more information. Compare any of the early promoted versions, e.g. Aston Villa or Ipswich, with more recent, e.g. Watford or Brighton. Obviously with long lists like those, it's impractical to describe in prose what happened in every season, but the existence of a "History of ... F.C." article isn't an excuse for not describing any of them. List of FIFA World Cup finals was promoted nearly three years ago. Standards change. Just about to go out. Will cap resolved comments when I get back, definitely looks better. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Would you prefer something like this or would you prefer a focus on the match itself? The former is relatively straightforward, the latter less so, but either way, is this (in principle) the kind of thing you're after? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I'd prefer a focus on the match itself, seeing as this is a list of finals in the sense of "last match in each tournament". At least I think it is: I wish, for clarity, that the later stages of a tournament and the plural of the last match in a tournament weren't both called "finals". Your example leans more towards a "List of UEFA European Football Championship seasons" spin-off, i.e. an expanded version of the parent article's History section. In terms of layout, I'm not bothered whether the prose goes in the table how you've got it, or in a history section separate from the table. All in my opinion, obviously. Does anyone else have a view on this? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Okay, I'll see what I can conjure up. Thanks for getting back to me. Could you check if we've addressed your other issues at some point convenient to you? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Hey, added some prose, so I expect some comments back from that, but hopefully I've addressed your major concerns? Let me know what's left! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Haven't gone through checking references or grammar or anything like that, but the new prose looks impressively close to what I'd have wanted. Relieved you decided to address the comments and not follow through on your unicorn-related threat above. Apart from any possible incongruity in your assuming the role of a "symbol of purity and grace" (so say Wikipedia, so it must be true), I'd have made a crap admin. Is it worth leaving (the serious part of) this thread visible, for the benefit of other reviewers, or shall I cap it all? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC) You were right, there were some lovely things there (coin toss, penalty, Van Basten goal) that were well worth bringing to the table. I really enjoyed writing all that as it happens. It would be good if you could cap things you're happy with, FLCs don't tend to get this big these days and I don't want to put anyone off. If it helps, I'd be happy to nudge those editors who have already commented, since the list has taken a bit of a turn since they reviewed it? Either way, I think we've definitely made a decent fist of it, and I'd like to think that pretty much every summary of each final I've written is as good, if not better than those in the individual articles. Everyone's a winner baby. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC) On column widths in the main table, I agree with Parutakupiu that there was far too much white space, but for readability, I think you do need a little space in the winners and particularly losers column, which for the longest names crams right up against the venue. In general, columns with comparable content should be the same width as each other, it looks sloppy otherwise; so the winners/losers columns should be the same, and in the results by nation table, the finalists/winners/losers should be the same. I've had a go at tweaking them, see what you think. Looks fine to me if it looks fine to you. Wasn't convinced it looked "sloppy", but nevertheless, you've fixed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) "Sloppy" was overly crude: my apologies. But if the Results by nation table were published in a book, they wouldn't set the finalists column twice as wide as the winners with the losers a different width again. They'd format the headings or whatever so that the columns could be laid out evenly. Easier to read and more professional in appearance. I'm conscious of trying to avoid unnecessary markup should it compromise the ability to access the data. As a non-expert in that area, I would try to adopt the simplest approach... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I'm no expert either. Presumably you're just making the general point, not saying there are possible accessibility issues with adding a width parameter, which is all I did? Struway2 (talk) Yes, I'd like to guess that a purely visual tag like setting width column should make no difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Addressed those. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Should Germany and West Germany sort together? Sort as Germany. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) In the lead, you really can't say "The team that wins the penalty shootout is then declared champions." In an article written in British English, is there any good reason not to use the normal discretionary plural with the collective noun "team"? Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC) All comments resolved. It's too soon to support yet, before anyone's read through the prose, but I expect to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you Struway2, I believe we've now got a doubly good article thanks to your review. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Couple matters arising, sorry. For consistency with the style adopted with the BBC and UEFA references, you need to include as much detail for the new references, e.g. work and publisher, publication dates where these have been omitted, press agency name for agency pieces, ... Well, they're all consistent now as far as I can tell, but you mentioned "omitted" publication dates, can you specify? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC) The one I noticed was #17 Sporting Life (it's in the URL, which is their house style). ##11, 18 and 25 are AP agency pieces so should include agency=Associated Press. Ok, I've never heard of "interpreting" the URL as a publication date (although I'm sure you're right, that's what it is) but will address that and the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC) It's fairly common practice to structure websites in that way, particularly in newspaper archives, e.g. Northern Echo, old icBirmingham site, though also elsewhere, e.g. the Football League, though most publishers include the publication date on the webpage as well. Yes, I can see it's common practice, it's certainly so in my own industry, but I'm not sure if that's the publication date, the date it was originally written or submitted for publication, the date it was last updated, or some other filing date. I dare say you're right, but this is the first time I've encountered an expectation to decode a URL to form a publication date. I'm also not entirely happy when attempting to decode an "international" date format which could be 10 February or 2 October... but as I say, I believe I've done what you asked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, I finally :-( see your point. Having been used to sites where the URL date always was the same as that appearing on the page itself, or on the index page that pointed to it, I'd never considered the alternatives. If you'd prefer to remove that publication date as possibly original research, I'd be fine with that. Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support All comments resolved, thanks for dealing with them all (not just mine) so promptly and co-operatively. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "The team that wins the penalty shootout are then declared champions." "are" → "is"? That's how it's handled earlier in the paragraph, and it seems to me to be the better method. History: Comma would be nice after Bruno Bellone. "Five minutes into extra time, Bierhoff scored his and Germay's second". Typo alert. "Despite never having won a match a 'major tournament'". Needs "in" before the second "a". Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Splendid, thanks for catching those, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2012 (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 Giants2008 19:10, 15 January 2012 [2].

---

Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this timeline now meets the requirements needed for a Featured list. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • Make sure every time the first unit is rounded, the second is as well. For example - " 60 mi (97 km)"
  • The Dolly section is improperly formatted where it makes landfall.
  • I'd like a source for Hanna being the deadliest storm of the season (see its image caption)
  • Could you get a better source for the starting date and ending date? The source only has a generic starting and ending date, and although I know it was the same back then, I'd rather you have a contemporaneous source. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed all, thanks for the comments! -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The dashes in number ranges should be n-dashes, according to the MoS.
  • I'd suggest you use Template:convert for the unit conversion and rounding. Waitak (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed all, thanks for the comments! -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see that either of these was done. Under May, for example, you have 45 mph (75 km/h) (which is actually incorrect!). Using Template:Convert that would be {{convert|45|mph|abbr=on}} yielding 45 mph (72 km/h). If you explicitly wanted to round to the nearest five, you could use {{convert|45|mph|abbr=on|disp=5}} which produces 45 mph (70 km/h). Similarly for ranges (which also takes care of ensuring that you get n-dashes between numbers instead of dashes). Waitak (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

45 mph translates to 75 km/h. I didn't use the conversion template for all of them, granted I didn't use the template for only a select few. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• 45 mph is 72.42 km/h. Rounded to the nearest five, it's 70 km/m, as you noted under August 5 at 1430 UTC. This is one reason to use the convert template, so that you don't have math errors. Waitak (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that we are converting this windspeed from knots.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The windspeeds used are the NOAA standards. HurricaneFan25 02:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be difficult here, but if you're converting from knots, then convert from knots and get the numbers right. I'm sure that NOAA doesn't assert that 45 mph is 75 km/h. If I understand correctly, the idea is that you've converted a number in knots (40?) to mph, rounding it to 45 mph, then converted the same figure in knots to km/h, getting 75 km/h. But 45 mph doesn't round to 75 km/h, so the numbers as represented in the article really are wrong and need to be fixed. Waitak (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually the numbers are correct because we are converting 40 knots to mph and 40 knots to km/h and yeah the NHC does so this. We have to do it this way as otherwise we are committing OR by increasing or decreasing the winds. Its one of those catch 22 situations and has been discussed numerous times on WP including here.Jason Rees (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. And I also see that you've used {{convert}} for the most part. {{convert}} does have some output units that convert to multiple units (like mgpus). Is there nothing like that for converting knots to mph and km/h, e.g. {{convert|40|kn|mph km/h|disp=5}} (by analogy to {{convert|55|nmi|km mi}}, which works fine)? Waitak (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, that does not exist. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• All right. I'd still argue in favor of more accuracy, as above, but if this is what the NHC does, and you're quoting the numbers you're given accurately, then that has to be good enough. Waitak (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose pending fixing of some things per MOS:NBSP, especially times (e.g. 0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. AST) should be 0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. AST). HurricaneFan25 22:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  BTW, I should have enough time to tweak all of those. HurricaneFan25 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment there is an ongoing discussion at WT:WPTC on wheather that timelines should exist. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That discussion ended a week ago, YE. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not true at all. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Author refs are also incorrect. HurricaneFan25 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How? -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - quick note on citations...the way the authors are represented now is quite confusing. In sources with 2+ authors, it's just rattling off names with no sense of if it's first or last. I already made a suggestion to TAWX to reformat these into |author=[First Name] [Last Name] so I'm just clarifying where that's coming from. I'll get around to reviewing this article within a few days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral Some authors are still formatted as last, first; stay with one format. HurricaneFan25 21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the format, though I noticed a few more other issues I'll leave the nominator to address. Auree ★ 22:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sources (haven't done spotchecks)

• None of the refs have publish dates (|date= parameter); I would like to see these added. In addition, take note that dates within the body of the article are formatted as "Month day, year" (e.g. "December 5, 2011), while the ref retrieval dates are formatted as "Day month year" (e.g. "5 December 2011"). For optimal consistency, use the same format for the ref retrieval (and publish) dates as the one within the article.
• Ref 2: "Clarksville Online" is |work=, not publisher.
• Ref 6: Check title.
• PDF files need |format=PDF parameters.
• Multi-page PDF files also need page numbers/ranges (use |page= for a single page, |pages= for multiple pages)
• NHC published reports should probably be formatted using the cite report template instead of cite web.
• Furthermore, make sure everything in the article is sourced. The notes, as well as parts of the timeline, do not contain any sources to back up their claims. The fact that this list suffers basic problems such as verifiability makes me believe this was a rather premature nomination, so I'm inclined to oppose if I find more significant problems. Auree ★ 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I found that portions of significant and contentious content within the lede are not supported by any sources. Some of the content even appears to be incorrect. Some external links also link to completely irrelevant material. It needs a thorough check for similar problems. Auree ★ 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for pointing out the issues you have seen so far. I have Fixed all except the lede, which I shall get to shortly. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll get around to checking your changes soon. By the way, the usage of graphic templates is discouraged over at FLC (for example, Fixed, Done or Not done), as they slow down the page load time. Auree ★ 00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Some issues still remain: the notes remain unsourced; ref 6 still has a faulty title; and some sources still don't have publish dates. Additionally, use an – (endash) for page ranges on ref 5 and 15 (on ref 5, "1, 2, 4, 5" should be "1–5"). Auree ★ 01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, after struggling on how to reference a note, I have finished the lede and addressed all the issues that you brought up. :D -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning support on criteria 2, 3 a) b), 4 and 6, as well as on referencing and lede prose. Thanks for your quick and good work. It's looking much better, but I would like to see a prose review of the timeline itself before wholly supporting. I might get around to doing this myself depending on how much edit time I have in the coming days. Auree ★ 03:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support because it resembles the quality of other FL timelines in the Atlantic basin, such as the one in 2009.--12george1 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Lead image could be larger. Opening sentence of lead could use some work, the use of "hurricane" three times is quite repetitive. Ditto second sentence which uses the word "information" three times. Timeline is not WP:ACCESS compliant (you're using just colour to convey information) and not WP:DASH compliant (ranges need en-dash, not hyphen). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I have fixed the issues per WP:ACCESS and WP:DASH that you brought up. As for the lede, the image was enlarged and the first sentence was reworded. As a whole, I'll see what I can do to enlarge it, and for the second sentence, other timelines use this wording and I feel that the way it is presented sounds the most grammatically correct. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Well perhaps other timelines are written as poorly as that. Elegant prose is needed here. For those lists that don't meet these requirements, WP:FLRC is the way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I have addressed all the issues you brought up, including slightly rewording the second sentence. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Get a dash into Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale in the key. And another one in one of the July 7 entries. And a third in note 2. In the timeline, there's some inconsistency regarding whether or not storms are linked when they are first mentioned. I'd think they should be, but it should be consistent either way. Noticed a red link for Isle of Youth, Cuba. Just linking to Isle of Youth gives a redirect that may be the intended target. Note 1 could use a "the" before the NOAA's name. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Fixed all, thanks for the comments. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 03:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - What doesnt make this a content fork of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season? Jason Rees (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (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 Giants2008 19:10, 15 January 2012 [3].

---

List of ironclad warships of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is another list of German warships (similar to my previous lists on battlecruisers, battleships, and armored cruisers); this one is a list of German ironclads, or Victorian-era battleships. It caps off this project, which is all but ready for nomination as a Good Topic. The article has previously passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review. I feel the article meets Featured List criteria, and look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this is the case. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – SMS Prinz Adalbert: Before the second use of reference 7 in this section, there's an excess space, and there's no space afterwards. Move the cite back and it will solve both problems. SMS Friedrich Carl: "The ship was commissioned into the Prussian Navy in January 1867". The table says October, not January. Are you confusing this with the launch month? SMS Kronprinz: Excess space before the comma after "The Prussians conducted only two sorties in which Kronprinz participated". SMS Konig Wilheim: "SMS Konig Wilheim was laid down in 1865 at the Thames Ironworks shipyard at in London". Either "at" or "in" needs to go toward the end of this bit. Kaiser class: "both ships designed by Edward Reed and were built by the Samuda Brothers shipyard in London." Given that this is the second part of the sentence, it would be a smoother read if "were" was moved to before "designed". The prose says Deutschland was sold for scrap in 1908, but the table says it was broken up in 1909. Did the two happen in different years? (Just checking since I'm not an expert on these things.) Sachsen class: The dates given for Baden's selling/scrapping are 1938 (sold) and 1939–1940 (scrapped). I assume that these are correct as well? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC) First five are fixed, Deutschland was sold in 1908 and scrapped in 1909, and Baden was used as a target ship until 1938. Thanks for finding all of those. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Prinz Adalbert was similarly delayed," then why not just say Britain delayed the delivery of both? Fixed. "The latter two vessels" don't need to repeat vessels here. Fixed. In fact, you could merge that shortish sentence with its predecessor like "...followed by two Kaiser-class vessels in the middle of the decade, the last capital ships..."? Or something more elegant? Fixed. "The date the keel began to be assembled" reads a little clumsily to me, perhaps "The date the keel assembly commenced" would be better. Fixed. Friedrich Carl and Kronprinz and Hansa and Kaiser and Oldenburg don't have their gun calibres in Imperial terms. Conversions are only required for the first instance. Strikes me as an odd approach, especially if you navigate using the TOC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC) That's the generally preferred approach (I was instructed to remove repeat conversions in previous FLCs/ACRs) Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) But you repeat the conversions in the prose... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC) They shouldn't have been repeated there either. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, so one way or the other, you're internally consistent now, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, thanks to your attention to detail :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC) You translate Konig Wilhelm but not Kronprinz, is there a reason for that? Added. You start relinking the units from Wilhelm onwards, why? Simple copy-paste error. Sachsen has 6 x 26 guns (no units at all). Fixed. Why doesn't the Sachsen have a cost? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Groner doesn't have it, for some reason. Added a note to that effect. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support my picky issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment The tables fail WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this, other than this the list looks great. NapHit (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• How does the list fail ACCESS? As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the list as far as MOS:DTT is concerned (correct captions, no spliced column headers, no use of color, and no nested tables). Can you explain please? Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to add row scopes and col scopes, if you look at the MOS:DTT, you'll see that the row haeder is shaded, they are not on this list. Also the tables have no captions, its all explained at MOS:DTT. The scopes are needed for unsighted readers that's why it fails ACCESS. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be possible to add the "scope="row" |" lines to the template without breaking the tables, at least with the example given at MOS:DTT. I'm not well versed in template building - is there someone more experienced who can take a look? As for captions, that seems redundant to the section headings (which seems to be the general thrust of the discussion here) - I think it would be best to hold off until some consensus is formed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done the first table for you as an example. Regarding the captions, they are required, as its for people using screen readers so they need the caption to be able to tell them what the table is about. Most Featured lists that are promoted now utilise these, regardless of whether there is a header close by. NapHit (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the rest of the row and column labels, but I really do not like the table headers (which in my opinion decrease the visual appeal of the list - FLC criteria 5a). Is it possible to hide the captions so they don't show up but they'll still be available for screen readers? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think its possible to make captions available to screen readers, I'll leave this up in case another editor suggests captions should be included, its not enough to abstain from supporting. I support the list regardless, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: This is excellently done, and very close to FL status. I do have a few quibbles though:
• I'd suggest changing the lede a little; perhaps "the Prussian and later German Imperial Navies" should read "the Prussian Navy, and later the Imperial German Navy".
• "The Prussian Navy acquired three more ships" - sounds like there should be a "had" in there based on the rest of the sentence?
• "The three turret ships of the..." Might want to link turret ship; also, this is a little unclear as to whether it means three ships with turrets or ships with three turrets, can this be tweaked a bit?
• "...the last capital ships ordered from foreign yards." - probably should add "by Germany".
• Arminius: "...designed by the British Royal Navy Captain Cowper Coles" - this is rather awkward, perhaps "Royal Navy" should be dropped?
• Sachsen class: suggest wikilinking boom defense.

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• • All done, thanks for reviewing the article, Bushranger. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Support, nice work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Sometimes your footnotes are out of numerical order. Forex, in the first para of the lede.
  • Should be good now.
• Fix caption on SMS Hansa image.
  • Did you just want "line-drawing" hyphenated?
    • No, it's not a compound noun or adjective. Two words please.
      • Fixed.
• Why aren't the costs plural?
  • In the ACR for the heavy cruiser list, MisterBee said Mark doesn't add an "s" to make it plural.
    • That maybe correct for German usage, but I assure you that every American that I encountered when I lived in Germany during the Cold War anglicized mark(s) as they'd do for any English term. Not gonna oppose over this, but "mark" reads as singular, which conflicts with the quantities specified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - this is the English wiki afterall.
• Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2012 (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 17:48, 3 January 2012 [4].

---

List of Afghanistan T20I International cricketers

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria, and follows a similar format to current FLs such as List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Feels like "matches" or something else should be added in at the end of the first sentence. Could link Ireland in the second paragraph to an article on their national team, if one exists. I see a link is already in the third paragraph; maybe it could be moved up a paragraph? Names should be sorted by last name, not first name. Only one person is now sorting by last name. The rest are still sorting by first name. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Per a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers/archive1 I believe that sorting by the first name is more appropriate, and have reverted the article to do that. Harrias talk 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC) If there are going to be colored rows, there needs to be an explanation of the color in the key, with matching symbols per WP:ACCESS. Not sure if it's because of the colors, but the sorting tab isn't showing up in the colored rows, though the sorting itself works fine. Don't know if other similar lists do this, but having a seperate Ref column would be more attractive than having cites after the players' names. Ref 2 could use a PDF indication. If you're using cite templates, the format= parameter works well for this. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC) All issues fixed. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Table currently fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this Not keen on the sorting being separate from the rows, three rows at the top of the table is unnecessary. Remove the colours from the table as they are not needed, the key indicates what stats refer to bowling etc, and just have the sort next to the stats. Majority of the third paragraph needs referencing, I know its reference in the table but I would add the refs in the lead as well. All issues fixed. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC) nearly, you need to add rowscopes. I've done an example for you so you know what you're doing. Btw, you have to put everything on a separate line as I have done for the first player, otherwise the whole table gets highlighted not the row header. NapHit (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - seems to meet all the criteria having read through it a couple of times, so unless I've missed something, it looks good to me! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Because of the width of the table, when viewed on a monitor width even 1280 pixel width, the images display above the table, creating a large amount of blank space. I know monitors and resolutions are getting better and better, but I think we should be catering to that width, which is still reasonably common. A solution as used at List of international cricket centuries at Lord's Cricket Ground might be appropriate?
• "..was the 2nd match.." – per MOS:NUM this should really be "second" rather than "2nd"; similarly later in the sentence, "by 5 wickets." should be "by five wickets."

Otherwise the list looks pretty good to me. Harrias ^talk 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support thanks for those tweaks: nice work. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Don't mix date formats in the references. The lead image caption is a little clunky, could be "The Afghanistan national cricket team playing in Rotterdam in 2010 ICC WCL Division One"? 13, 8 - thirteen and eight (just to prose-it-up a bit). T20I is overlinked in the first para. Are the names per the sources, e.g. Shenwari has an article at Shinwari here, Hameed Hasan has an article at Hamid Hassan (in fact, in his image caption, you spell it per the latter)... If the captions in the gallery are intended to be sentences, the "Has..." etc should not be capitalised. Ref 4 has author name inconsistently formatted, i.e. first last rather than last, first per all the other similar refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:43, 1 January 2012 (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 17:48, 3 January 2012 [5].

---

Grammy Award for Best Country Collaboration with Vocals

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the criteria. I'm not a big fan of country music, but hey. Albacore (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

;Comments "Alison Krauss holds the record for most wins in this category" → "Alison Krauss holds the record for having the most wins in this category" Reworded. Do not link more than once within table cells. Table entries are linked more than once because there's no guarantee which year the user will want to find. If someone's name is not linked in the following years then the user would have to find the first year the name is linked, creating an inconvenience. Albacore (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC) What I mean is that you would not link more than once within an individual table cell, not in the table as a whole. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Albacore (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Check for inconsisntencies in references. (i.e. FN 20 vs. 24) Fixed, should all be consistent now. I am open to revisit once these issues have been addressed carefully. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• You now have my full support. Excellent work on the list. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I made a few edits to the list, mostly minor and to increase consistency with other FL Grammy lists (Grammy year template, see also section, portal link, etc). I also removed a few sortname templates, MoS inconsistencies, etc. Please discuss if you disagree with any of the edits. I would support the promotion of this list assuming all other reviewers' concerns are addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments 1996 has a minor format issue in the winner's name. As does 1997. "Michael Martin Murphey " has an e in his surname. k.d. lang has a full stop after her d. The "Mary-Chapin" of "Mary-Chapin Carpenter" doesn't need hyphenation. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Taken care of. Best, Albacore (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Only issue I see is that the year's are bold links, not sure if this is frowned upon or not, but I would suggest adding plainrowheaders to wikitable sortable to fix the issue and be on the safe side. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2012 (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 17:48, 3 January 2012 [6].

---

List of monarchs of East Anglia

Nominator(s): --Hel-hama (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria; it provides a good summary of information concerning the regnal dates of some pretty obscure kings in such a way that invites people to explore the rulers of East Anglia further. --Hel-hama (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments Don't start with "The list of...", treat it as an article about monarchs of East Anglia. done Image in the infobox is meaningless as it's nothing to do with East Anglia. sorted For a non-expert, what does "semi-historical" mean? phrase removed "kingdom of the East Angles" vs "The East Anglians were initially" Angles or Anglians at this point? always 'Angles', but sometimes 'East Anglia' - any necessary amendments made. "was soon restored by Offa's successor" his successor, no need to repeat Offa. done Your spelling of Eadmund is derived from the source, presumably? (I'm not aware of this spelling). spelling changed to Edmund Why are King names in bold in the table? No need. sorted "A king named Hun may never have existed." not referenced. Who said this? sorted out Please make sure the timeline is accessible, i.e. colour is not the only thing to distinguish one thing from another. done, after a lot of thinking... Large empty cell at the end of the table should be removed. done Ref page ranges should use an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) per WP:DASH. done Ref 14 could use a publisher/accessdate. Ref 14 already had a publisher and didn't need an access date, but ref 20 is an online citation, so I sorted that instead The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• First quick nit-pick: The first table entry has a comma after "Possible ruler" while the other similar entries have semi-colons, which seem to work better.

sorted.

• Second quick nit-pick: Ref 34 has no space between the p. and page number, which is inconsistent with the other cites. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

sorted

Support Just one suggestion, perhaps split the reference column in two, although if this affects the template then don't bother, otherwise well done on a great list. NapHit (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk One major issue from me: the timeline image is beautiful, significantly unfunctional. When viewed on a 1024 x 768 monitor, the image and the table are out of sync. While it may not be the intention for them to be perfectly aligned (they don't appear to be at the full width of my screen either) it is very confusing when they are so far out. – On further thought realise this is acceptable. Harrias talk 13:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC) I also don't understand why there are blank cells at the start of each dynasty? sorted, I think - can you confirm it's worked (I don't see the empty cells you've got)? Hel-hama (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC) The Bede source should have an ISBN number if it was published in 1969. template amended accordingly. Hel-hama (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC) The is a slight discrepancy between the navigation box and the article: Æthelred I, Oswald, Æthelred II and Æthelwold are all listed as being "sub-kings", but as far as I can tell in the article, only Oswald and Æthelred II are mentioned as being sub-kings. article (and template) clarified to remove discrepancies. Hel-hama (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Beornwulf is styled differently in the nav box and the article: Béornwulf and Beornwulf. sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC) On the whole, the article looks pretty good. Harrias talk 07:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Thanks, the empty cells have disappeared, so whatever you did has worked, and the other points have all been addressed. A nice list about a subject I knew nothing about, but am now quite interested in reading more about. Harrias ^talk 16:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Well done. Waitak (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2012 (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 Giants2008 15:08, 1 January 2012 [7].

---

List of 1964 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Courcelles 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is tie for another of this series to make an appearance here! Courcelles 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Remove the extra 'from' in the opening sentence. "Germany dominated the luge competition, with that country's team..." A tad colloquial. Unified Team of Germany would be a better substitute for 'that country's team'. Of course I am need of a second opinion of this. Ref 6 is dead, or has been since December 18, 2011. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Al three attended to, thanks for the comments. Courcelles 16:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support — Lemonade51 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – No need for multiple 1960 Winter Olympics links in the second paragraph. There are a few "with ... winning"-type sentences in the lead. Given that this is an awkward type of structure, perhaps consider rephrasing one or two of them. "The Scandinavian teams Sweden, Norway and Finland". I'd replace "teams" with "nations" or "countries". Typo in note B: "fro" in "tied fro second...". What makes Topend Sports (reference 4) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Just a note, I've looked at some of these, and will get to the rest tomorrow. Courcelles 16:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC) With a new source, I've handled all off these. Courcelles 20:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: "... after the sports had been absent from the 1960 Olympics." – This is redundant, if the sports returned to the program it's because they were absent from the 1960 Games. If we look at history, though, they weren't "dropped" so much as Squaw Valley didn't build a track for them. I've edited to make that clearer. Courcelles 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC) "Unlike the preceding 1960 Games..." Long sentence copyedit suggestion: "This was the second and most recent occasion on which ice stock this sport (a German variant of the sport of curling) had been played as a demonstration sport at the Winter Olympics. The first Games at which this sport had made an appearance was at the 1936 Winter Olympics." "... with its athletes winning a total of 25..." – I suggest replacing "winning" with "collecting" or "securing", etc., to avoid repetition of this verb in the same sentence. Same situation in the first sentence about Lidiya Skoblikova. "... Winter Olympics participant..." → Winter Olympian — Parutakupiu (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I've addressed or fixed everything. Courcelles 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Suppport. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Andrewstalk 22:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments The lead is of decent quality - the only problem I have is this sentence: "The Soviet Union won the most number of medals, with its athletes winning a total of 25, 11 of which were gold." It reads a bit awkwardly. How about, "The Soviet Union won the most medals; its athletes won a total of 25, 11 of which were gold."? A couple of WP:CAPTION issues - basically, captions which are complete sentences should end in full stops, while others (eg "French figure skating silver medallist Alain Calmat in 1963") should not have full stops. Image licencing checks out OK, but I think it would be good to crop the file notes on the side from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B1014-0012-002, Alain Calmat.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-G0313-0017-001, Ludmilla Beloussowa, Oleg Protopopow.jpg. I'm happy to crop them for you if you want. —Andrewstalk 23:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I've addressed the first two, and have no means to manipulate images at all until I get back to my home computer next week. If you feel this needs doing, please go ahead. Courcelles 21:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support I have no issues. —Andrew_stalk 22:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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