Knowledge (XXG)

• Episode 2: "The episode concludes with McDonnell, Day and Hill receiving a phone call from former pop star Chesney Hawkes – Hawkes offers them advice". I wish Hawkes' name didn't repeat from one word to another like this. It's not great prose-wise.
• Episode 7: "Day, Haggart, Chartrand and Nichols speak with celebrity stylist Hannah Sandling. Sandling...". Again, there's some repetition from one sentence to another that would best be avoided.

•  Done both

• What makes Hypebot (reference 1) a reliable source?

•  Done Replaced Hypebot reference with one from The Huffington Post.

• Is it YouTube or Youtube? The ref publishers disagree with each other. By the way, if they weren't from an official channel I'd be asking whether these were copyvios and complaining about what a bad source this is. Just be forewarned if you plan on using it in the future, and make sure to only use offical feeds; anything else is not a good source for multiple reasons. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for the tip. Genuine question though: I understand why citing something from an unofficial source on YouTube would be unreliable, but why would it also be a copyright violation? V_oBEDD 02:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the uploader doesn't hold the rights to the footage, what they are doing is a copyright violation, and the upload will probably be taken down if the rights holder becomes aware of it. Don't think it's an issue here, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Background shading is excessive: shading the film's cell rather than the entire row would look better in my opinion. *Additionally, coloured backgrounds are normally accompanied by a symbol such as †, so that readers using text based browsers like Lynx do not miss out on any information.
• I would recommend updating the coloured background by month, rather than a specific date. I.e. "Background shading indicates that at least one film in the series is playing as of January 2012 in theaters around the world", rather than "14 January 2012".
• The references with a red background on this page are not working: . I have to say, considering the number of references and bearing in mind that all of them went dead recently, it's an impressively small number.

—WFC— 00:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've fixed the references; they were still there but TCM had just altered the urls for some reason.
• As for the highlighting, I think I've done what you had in mind, but you better take a look. I didin't know whether I should put the daggers at the start or the end of the line like a footnote; I opted for the start to distinguish them from footnotes, but if you think they'd be better at the end that is easily sorted.
• As for the playing dates, I actually think updating every day is pointless (it's just done that way so it's automated), but I think updating it once a month would introduce unnecessary lag. Basically theatrical release is a weekly thing so it should ideally correllate with that. The purpose of the highlighting is two-fold: to let readers know which data is subject to change, and to aid editors in tracking the films on release. In view of that I'm not sure we even need a date: if a film is highlighted the data hasn't been finalised, if it's not then it's because the film has closed and final figures have been entered, so I'm thinking we should just scrap the date because it's more a key for our chart than an encylopedic claim (I'm thinking it's technically untrue anyway, because the key really indicates what Box Office Mojo is currently tracking, and a film can play in a theater without being tracked). Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nice work with the references, and the shading looks great. Unfortunately putting the daggers at the start affects the table's sort function (for The Twilight Saga): putting daggers immediately after film titles should solve this.
• Updating once a week would work too, if you prefer. The frequency of updates is largely down to you (I only update List of Watford F.C. players every 4-6 weeks), but having a date of some sort is important: it informs the reader how up-to-date the information is. —WFC— 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I really wish the lead didn't begin with a distinct similarity to the outdated "This is a list of" opening. Surely more could be done with such an interesting topic.
• Link James Cameron in the lead, and the many films and series that are discussed. The lead is actually under-citedlinked for my taste, which doesn't occur too often.
• "While inflation has eroded away the achievements of most films from the 1960s and 70s". According to the MoS, a decade range should be given fully, as in 1970s.
• Not sure how encyclopedic the phrasing in "there are franchises from that period still going strong" is.
• "Indiana Jones also saw a successful comeback nearly twenty years after the last film." "last" → "previous"? By definition the third movie wasn't the last one.
• Avoid contractions like the one in "but don't really compete against today's top-earners".
• Another one in "doesn't even make the top fifty in the modern market".
• Issues with calculation: Is "play better" the most encyclopedic phrasing that can be come up with? The whole list needs a thorough checking in this regard, if the things I'm seeing are any indication.
• "Social and economic factors also impact on the number of people purchasing theater tickets, such as population changes and the growth of international markets." The order of the sentence would be more logical if the factors were put before "also impact...".
• "and relayed to the distributor, which in turn release them to the media." "release" should be plural in this context, I'd imagine. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected them now and made some over alterations along the way. I've linked the films in the lead, but it looks slightly unkempt to me; however if everyone else prefers it this way I can live with it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Still think another editor should go through the prose carefully, but I don't have time to do so myself now. I'll try to come back sometime during this FLC, but I make no promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming back after some time away from the list, and I still see some issues to sort out...

• Highest-grossing films: Try not to start a sentence with a number, like the year 2009 toward the end of this prose section.
• "and 2011 currently stands at five." It's 2012 now, so this could use an update of some sort.
• High-grossing films by year: For the prose part, MoS recommends against ampersands (except for tables and such, but they appear in the writing here). For all the cases where they appear in parentheses, a simple "and" works just fine.
• Timeline of highest-grossing films: "The Birth of a Nation played a large number of ... engagements". Should "at" be added before "a"?
• En dash needed in "$50-60 million".
• "it is likely it did not overtake The Birth of a Nation in total revenue until a much later date, which was still being reported as the highest earner up until the 1960s." The part after the comma is referring to the movie, correct? It reads like it's talking about the date, which is confusing. A re-wording is in order.
• Highest-grossing franchises and film series: Add "of" to "with a total over $12 billion at 2011 prices."
• Publisher of refs 10 and 31, and 90 from box-office sources (Turner Classic Movies) needs an s at the end.
• Spaces needed in the access dates of refs 12 and 13.
• In the box-office sources, most dates are fully spelled out, while refs 8, 9, and 13 use a shortened format. These should be made consistent throughout; just changing those few is probably the easiest way to do this. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for going over it, I've addressed most of the issues. I've been through the article with a toothcomb, but I've worked so long on it I think I probably just see what I want to see now. As for point 2 (i.e. "and 2011 currently stands at five."), we may be in 2012 but to all intents and purposes we are still effectively in the 2011 season. There are still several 2011 films working their way towards the list, so I've tried to clarify in the prose the 2011 tally isn't finalized. There really isn't anything to say about 2012 as yet, except that there are no 2012 entries, and there probably won't be until June or July at the earliest. I can always add that, but historically we've always waited until there is something to comment on before incorporating a new year. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• First up, after RexxS's comments about the concealed info, I would point everyone to WP:COLLAPSE, which, as part of the MOS, means this list currently needs some work before it meets that criterion.
• A few issues in the lead, turns of phrase like "Traditionally", "diminished the importance", "theatrical earnings are still an important metric"... which, while I'm sure are true, don't have any basis in fact (verifiable fact, that is!) that I can see.
• It may just be me, but the "Issues with calculation" section makes me wonder if any kind of list like this could ever stand scrutiny.
• Don't repeat unambiguous first names (e.g. Steven for Spielberg) once you've mentioned them in full once.
• "($10,000,000R)" looks very odd to have that footnote inside the closing parenthesis.
• Ref here should be Ref(s) since there are many examples of multiple refs.
• Dislike blank cells, so those with "unknown" budgets should be positively marked as such.
• Would make sure refs are in numerical order (e.g. look at Frankenstein which has 72 followed by 57).
• "The Birth of a Nation was essentially the first Hollywood blockbuster." what does "essentially" mean here? And is this referenced anywhere?
• "Timeline of the highest-grossing film record" why are some years in italics?
• Series wikilinks in bold italics? Is that compliant with MOS?
• Ouch, just seen that triple-mutiple embedded "show" for James Bond, really, really inaccessible.
• " is playing in the week commencing 10 February 2012 in theaters around the world." how do you know what films are playing around the world? This needs constraining. (I know that they're still playing Octopussy in Udaipur...)
• Wall Street Journal is The Wall Street Journal.
• Ref 14 - " "All--Time Box-Office Hits By Decade and Year" that double hyphen should be a single hyphen.
• Ref 19 has a spare period.
• Should add publisher info about works like The Daily Telegraph (and location info for global information).
• Ref 30, author can be linked.
• Box office source 6 needs a space.
• Ref 57 has a spare period.
• Refs 63 and 64 point at the same Google book but are formatted differently.
• Ref 131 has a spare period.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. Most I have taken on board, a few others require further discussion:

1. This seems to be the biggest issue for reviewers. However, there are strong reasons for the collapsible format. This is what the chart looked like in the middle of last year. Since a franchise can have many divisions, some editors felt it had neutrality issues, and it needed to be clear exactly what films we were including in this chart. The collapsible table received strong support because it was able to facilitate the multiple points of view. I feel it would be detrimental to go back to this type of table and reintroduce the neutrality concerns, so the only other option would be to break it down into a list of tables. By doing this I think you then lose the aesthetic advantage of actually having a chart (just fully expand the chart to see what I mean) and being able to compare the franchises at different levels. The collapsible table received a strong consensus in the discussion—in fact not a single editor voted against it. Now I'm aware that it goes against a guideline, but the guideline is only an accessibility consideration, and I did propose above including an appendix which would make all the data available; an appendix would satisfy WP:COLLAPSE which permits collapsible elements in tables to conceal information if it is only consolidating what is already available in the article. If this is still not acceptable personally speaking I would rather abandon the pursuit of an FL grading, since I don't think it is in the interests of the article to ditch the collapsible table.
2. I've rejigged the lead to make it sound less like analysis and more like an observation of what is covered in the article. Hopefully it is compliant now.
3. It may just be me, but the "Issues with calculation" section makes me wonder if any kind of list like this could ever stand scrutiny. – You should wonder, that is kind of the whole point of the section! There is a debate that questions the validity and motives of the industry metrics; however, as editors it is not our place to question the legitimacy of industry practices, we only require it to be verifiable, and it is in major trade publications. That said, there are two other charts on the list which are not affected by the issues outlined.
4. Removed first names.
5. Taken the "R" out of the brackets although I'm not 100% convinced of this, because when it was in the brakets it was clear the note referred to that figure only. Do you think having "R" outside of the brackets could cause readers to think the note applies to both figures? I am worried it is ambiguous.
6. Added an (s) to "Ref".
7. Added "TBC" to blank cells; let me know if there is something more appropriate I can put in there (other than the actual budget figures of course).
8. I haven't put the refs in numerical order. I've tried to order the refs in the order the information appears i.e. refs for grosses first, and then refs for budgets. Obviously this puts some of them out of numerical order, but it seemed more logical to me. However if you still think it's is better to have them in numerical order I will do it.
9. Birth of Nation is generally perceived as being the first proper film, in terms of its techniques, its structured narrative etc, and instead of making thousands in a few local theaters it made millions nationwide, and as a consequence the first real blockbuster. It is included in one of the sources, but "first blockbuster" is subjective anyway, and I don't want to get bogged down in an analysis of its impact on the medium since it is only an image caption, so I've tried to convert it something that doesn't really require a source.
10. Some years are in italics to indicate years that are not record setting years; for instance 1940 is when Gone with the Wind took the record, but added to its gross with reissues (1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971); its 1971 record was the record that was defeated by The Sound of Music. I'm not explaining this very well, but I wanted to distinguish between years where a film took the record and years where it just added to its record. I thought it was clear, so I will have to think about how to approach this.
11. There is not much that can be done about the bolded series titles; that is just how Wikitable code renders the titles.
12. I think the embedded tables for the Bond films actually make the information much more digestible. It is clear which films are part of the Eon series and which aren't, which actors did which films, all at the click of a button. If we had half a dozen tables vertically stacked down the page I think it would make the information much more difficult to comprehend. For instance, it is instantly clear how much the Pierce Brosnan films have made in comparison to the Connery films, and with a click you can see how the Roger Moore films compare with each other. If these tables were all sprawled out then it would make it much more difficult to compare the franchise at its different levels. If you have a table for Craig films, and for Moore films, and then Connery films etc it becomes much more difficult to see how they rate against each over; this way they are in a condensed space, you can see how they performed relative to each other at a glance without having to scroll up and down the page and you can refine it to the level you want.
13. how do you know what films are playing around the world? Well we have a source for the table, and it uses the same key. We are basically just emulating what is done here: . They don't make it clear how they define what is playing, but my guess is films that are on general release that they are tracking. I could put that in the article but it would possibly be original research. In practical terms highlighting indicates to readers that the data for the highighted film is subject to change, and it also aids editors in identifying which films need to be updated. We could simply change our caption to read "subject to change" or something like that if it is unacceptable as it is. Obviously I can't really tell you what "currently playing" actually means, since the source isn't explicitly clear on the matter.
14. Wall Street Journal corrected
15. Ref corrected
16. Ref corrected
17. I don't fill in the publisher for national newspapers like The Daily Telegraph simply due to the fact I was made to remove them a while back in a GA review on the basis that we don't use the publisher parameter for nationals. I was told it was for regionals, and was directed to the guidelines for news citations: Template:Cite_news states This is commonly omitted for major publications and This parameter should normally be left blank. I'm happy to go ahead and fill them in provided someone isn't going to come along and ask me to remove them again, so I think we should clarify this first at the sourcing board. Personally speaking I don't care either way, but there is something like 200 references in this article so I'd like to be sure on this matter.
18. Ref corrected
19. Ref corrected
20. Ref corrected
21. I'm aware of the different citation format. Both references refer to the same book, with the same ISBN, however, they are hosted on Google books in two different forms. One has page numbers and the other doesn't. They both have different parts visible, so the one that doesn't have page numbers can't be accessed using the page number version. However, the best I can tell they are exactly the same book, just hosted in two different forms on Google Books and unfortunately I can't provide page numbers for some of the citations, just a link. If you have any suggestions as to how to get around this I'm happy to implement them, but it seems to be a quirk in Google's hosting of the books so I dealt with it as thoroughly as I could.
22. Ref corrected

Betty Logan (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of responses. Not sure still if you have adequately explained to the reader what the italic years mean, and as for the bolding in the series title, that's not as a result of the wikitable, it's down to the {{Highest-grossing films franchise}} template which really should be adjusted to not use bold. I'm still nervous about the multiple nested collapsed tables but won't oppose over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually forgotten about explaining the italics, it had gone out of my mind, but I will get onto it sometime today. I don't know how to remove the boldtype from the series headings; I tried to use "plainrowheaders" but it didn't remove the bold, and the Help manuals don't seem to explain how to do it so I just assumed it weren't possible. I think it helps to distinguish the series titles from the film titles so it didn't bother me that much, but if someone can show me how to remove the bold I'll be happy to do it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Intro is missing one important link – to California.
  • Done. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• At the same time, there's overlinking of other cities in the lead: three links to Los Angeles and two to San Diego. One each will do fine.
  • Done. One of the San Diego links actually links to somewhere else. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Be careful about time terms like "today", such as the one in "California is today an economic powerhouse." The sentence works fine without it, actually.
  • Done. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It now says "California is an $1.85 trillion economic powerhouse". "an" should be replaced by "a", I believe. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Done. --Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• "with its $1.85 trillion economy being larger than all but eight countries." Nit-picking here, but the prose reviewers at FAC would tell you that the "with ... -ing" sentence structure is awkward and not the best to be using. Try to re-word it to get that out.
  • Done. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Alt text would be nice for the non-lead images. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The caption text functions as the alt text in this case. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The images are coded such that screen readers will not read the image title (the "dot jay pee gee" thing). Adding dedicated alt text when the caption text serves the same function seems needlessly verbose. --Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that just read the guidelines and I'd say these are images are for decorative purposes, so you've got it right, apologies. One more thing I noticed, while viewing the list on my iPhone the dagger did not show up, you need to add, instead of having † in the bracket things (I'm not sure what they're proper name is), you need to spell out dagger to ensure they show up. NapHit (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The daggers work on my iPhone, but done. --Kurykh (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see no reason to wikilink "award", "broadcast" and "sponsorship". Corrected.
• Link "Carling" in its first instance ("... Carling Manager of the Year..."). Corrected.
• "... and Manager of the Season and awards... " – Extra "and"? Corrected.
• "... the previous season and Harry Redknapp in 2009–10 for steering... " – Place a semicolon after "season". Corrected.
• "... steering Tottenham Hotspur into a top-four... " – Steering "to"? Corrected.
• "As of May 2011, the most recent recipient of the award is Scottish manager Sir Alex Ferguson, who manages Manchester United." – No need to go into detail again about Ferguson, since he was already mentioned before as United' manager. Corrected.
• The columns in the list of winners have too much blank space because of the enforced width parameters. I'd let the table "choose" its column widths. Corrected.
  • Actually, now the columns looks too tight without a bit of blank space. Sorry, but could you try and add just of bit of empty space to the three middle columns? The same width would be the best. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. I have reverted back the table to its previous form if that is OK?
      • I made a small reduction. Are you OK with it? Parutakupiu (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• "José Mourinho, two time winner with Chelsea" (caption) – hyphen missing between two and time. Corrected.
  • You misunderstood me: you added a en-dash after "José Mourinho". Do the same with Wenger's caption ("three-time"). Parutakupiu (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Corrected now.
• You could also add a "by club" section. Done.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. – Lemonade51 (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some more comments:
  • If you append "Premier League" just before the boldfaced "Manager of the Season", it will validate the use of the boldfacing, as per WP:BOLDTITLE. Done.
  • "... top–four finish... " – Hyphen here, not en-dash. Corrected
  • "Kenny Dalglish was awarded the allocate in the 1994–95 season having guided... " – "Allocate"? You mean accolade? There's also one like this in the second paragraph you should fix. Corrected
  • "... first manager born outside of Britain..." Simplify: "... first non-British manager...". Corrected
  • "... with the prize not going to a manager of the league champions..." Noun + 'ing' sounds bad. Say "... as the prize did not go to a league-winning manager...". Corrected
    • You removed "...for the first time." unnecessarily. I've added back. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "... the previous season finished in fifth position..." – Add a comma after "season". Corrected
  • "... third consecutive championship and Liverpool manager Gérard Houllier who guided..." – Commas after "championship" and "Houllier" Corrected
  • "Reflecting on Wenger's accomplishment Barclaycard Awards Panel spokesperson Nic Gault said, 'Arsene Wenger..." – Take the comma after "said" and put it after "accomplishment". Also, place a period after the end of the quote (just before ref. 21 anchor). Corrected the first part, do you mean published date? Because it isn't available for some reason. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I meant a full stop mark after the quotation marks, but I've checked the MoS and it's not necessary, so I take this back. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "... becoming the first foriegn manager..." – Typo. Corrected
  • You forgot to change "Country" to "Club" in the heading of the by-club table. Corrected
  • One of the last two images could be placed within the history section. Not only it softens a text-heavy section, but also prevents perturbation of section heading. Adjusted

— Parutakupiu (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind but I made a general copyedit to the text and also fixed the image layout. Please, see if you agree with my changes. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images need alt text

I assume you mean the bottom two images? – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The image in the lead doesn't have it either, so I mean all three. Here's a link if you're unsure what I'm asking. NapHit (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• The two tables below the by year table need to comply with MOS:DTT and top table needs a caption. NapHit (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Done

• Remove "for" from "Ferguson has been Manager of the Year for ten times"?
• History: Remove "to" from "resisting to Newcastle United's threat."
• Ref 25 should be moved outside the comma.
• Ref 11 needs an en dash to replace the hyphen in the title.
• The publisher (The Guardian) appears to be missing from ref 20.
• Publishers in refs 27 and 31 (Daily Mail) should be italicized as they're from a printed publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done, hopefully. Thanks for your comments!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• "announced in the second or third week of May", not "announced on.
  • Corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps restructure the sentence about names. "It has been called" doesn't imply it was named after its sponsor; "it is currently" might be better as "since then" or "since which time"; not sure it sometimes being referred to as Barclays Manager of the Year rather than Season is worth mentioning, unless that was the award's proper name at some stage.
  • Rephrased somewhat. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• If wikilinking the names of the two former sponsors, best to link the current sponsor as well
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Suggest saying briefly what "the existing LMA Manager of the Year‎ award" is/was: "the existing manager of the year award presented by the League Managers Association"?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ferguson's "more than half of the awards given so far" is another relative time reference
  • Added precise time reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wenger wasn't the "first manager outside of Britain": "first non-British manager", perhaps
  • Indeed, corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• For consistency, perhaps mention Wenger's and Mourinho's clubs
  • Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps recast the Mourinho sentence: two in a row beginning "XXX became the first manager..." isn't ideal. He didn't really "become" the first manager after Ferguson to win it twice consecutively, he "was" the first to do so.
  • Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• History. The "however" adds nothing in "Manchester United, however, regained the Premier League"...
  • Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move the 1997-98 into the last part of the Wenger sentence: as it reads now, it makes the reader wonder who the second non-British manager was to win the award for that season. Try "Wenger was the first non–British manager to receive the Manager of the Season award, having led Arsenal to the top of the Premier League in 1997–98, his first full season at the club."
  • Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• "second-placed Arsenal", not "second-place Arsenal"
  • Fixe.d. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Does "ultimately" add much to "a run which ultimately ensured the club regained the Premier League trophy"?
  • No, banished. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Is the name of the awards panel spokesperson relevant?
  • Not desperately, erased. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'd guess MOS:QUOTE would allow us to add the missing accent to Arsene in the spokesperson's quote, though probably not to insert a comma into "exciting attacking football".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• "in a period when Manchester United regained" rather than "where"? and not sure the comma's necessary before "and retained"
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Please clarify "leading Manchester United to an historic 19th league title, overtaking Liverpool."
  • Just left it as "a record 19th..." The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Mourinho image caption: TRM has assured me before that the construct "two-time winner" is acceptable in British English, but is it really an improvement on "twice winner"?
  • Rephrased into prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• References. The BBC refs should (as far as I can tell) be either all BBC News or all BBC Sport.
  • Unified. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Just for future reference, BBC Sport Online became a separate strand in 2000. Does that mean any sport related articles published by the Beeb pre-2000 should be categorised as 'BBC Sport'? Or 'BBC News' as it suggests in its heading? – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing out what I clearly failed to notice when it was sat in front of me :-( You're quite right, the earlier ones should indeed be BBC News, or BBC Online, rather than the then non-existent BBC Sport. Apologies for making unnecessary extra work for you both. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)#
        • No worries, back-fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• #27 Sporting Life ref should be work=sportinglife.com publisher=365 Media Group
  • Done, and fixed the title while I was at it...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ref #23 doesn't verify the stats mentioned in the sentence.
  • Added an explicit ref (I hope you were referring to the lack of direct ref to the "record"?) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I've changed the Statto.com ref for another page from the same site that does show Chelsea's goals scored/conceded. Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, yes, I missed that it only had the GD, not the GF and GA. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Lead. Could we possibly construct a better opening sentence than "The Premier League Manager of the Season ... recognises the most outstanding Premier League manager of the season."
  • Yeah, fair, any suggestions? Everything floating my mind is rubbish.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If I could write decent prose, I'd have loads of featured content. As it is..... Probably needs shuffling about so you don't actually have an opening sentence of that type. Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Have tried.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
        • An improvement, certainly. Incidentally, there is an article called Manager (association football), if that would be a better link than Coach (sports). Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Aha, well I never. Thanks, replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope some of this is helpful, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• All of it helpful, I've attempted to address them all bar the very first one. Further input would be great, thanks so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• "...some of which have been reviewed by one of the featured list directors, who really should know the criteria..." agreed, but none of us are perfect and if I have omitted something from a review, it's more likely an oversight rather than a redefinition of the criteria.
• Is there a reason that DETROIT is shouting in the clickable map?
• Is it S.S. City of Milwaukee or SS City of Milwaukee? Our article is the latter, your usage is the former, just wanted to check.

• I think you meant in the map? If so, I've changed it - I can't find a punctuated usage in the list itself. - DB

• "detailing the state's automotive" would link "state" to Michigan otherwise we don't seem to have a direct link to the state itself anywhere in the lead.
• Normally would expect to see (NHL) after the first expanded use before it's then used as an abbreviation in the lead.
• Would expect that the !scope="row" would be applied to the landmark name itself, not the number.

• Tried to do this and broke the table. (I've left it broken, so that you can see what I tried and let me know how to fix it.) - DB

• You missed a pipe each time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ahhhh.... It's still the little things that trip me up with this coding. Should be fixed now. - DB

• Ref appears to be a footnote, not a reference so should be separated from the others.

• I've pulled this out into the main text. - DB

• Is there a reason why the CITY OF MILWAUKEE and the COLUMBIA are capitalised? Similar comments apply to the other ships. (cf. "Ste. Claire (passenger steamboat)")

• This is the capitalization used by the Nat'l Park Service in their listings of these landmarks (both for the names and the disambiguators, per the below comment). I was on the fence about using the uppercase letterings, but this is what is used on other NHL lists, so I didn't change it. I would prefer to use sentence case, but I guess I would like some further thoughts on the subject. - DB

• I thought MOS etc just said to write it per our own MOS? So unless there's a convincing reason otherwise, it should just comply with our own style guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Works for me, especially since I like it better in sentence case. Should be done now. - DB

• No need to capitalise (Steamer) nor (... Car Ferry). Again, similarly applies to the other ship types. (cf. "Ste. Claire (passenger steamboat))

• See previous comment. - DB

• Although community isn't a dab page, reading it, it says the word has two distince meanings, so its use (and linking) here could be unclear.

• Unlinked. - DB

• Number col doesn't sort correctly, you'll need to use a sorting template to stop 10 sorting after 1.

• Can't figure out how to do this. Please check what I've done and let me know what I'm doing wrong... - DB

• I think when you use the symbols (which are essential for WP:ACCESS) the Wikimedia software treats it as text rather than numbers, so you'll need to use a {{sort}} template or similar. Will look into it more for you and get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure there's a need to link House, and pipelinking "work" to "architecture" is a little odd to me.

• Removed. There was a lot of overlinking here when I started, and although I removed a bunch of it I guess I missed some! - DB

• "the American dream of "a summer place."". is there a spare period here?
• I guess if you want to link skyscraper once then you should link it every time in this sortable table.

• Delinked this and below. - DB

• Same comment applies to Great Lakes.
• If no image for the "Norton Mound Group", I would place a centrally aligned en-dash so people don't sit there thinking "when's the image going to load..."
• "Copper mining in the US" although it doesn't exist, so the point may be moot, wouldn't it be called "Copper mining in the United States"?
• "top-ranked " would it be clearer to say "most decorated"?
• Any reason why, sorting by date, Quincy sorts after the Huron, despite the Huron having a precise date rather than just a year? Do we know the Qunicy was designated after the Huron?

• I just removed the full date from Quincy so that they were standardized. - DB

• Find it hard to see the in the heading, and wonder why that column doesn't have any visible heading at all.

• Moved ref 5 into the text. Do you have a recommendation for a header name? - DB

• Footnote(s)? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• The first column isn't even footnotes, though, it's just numbering by significant words (i.e., by the word which the NPS alphabetizes them). So, the Alden Dow House is #6 by significant wording (since the NPS calls it the Dow, Alden House), but when sorted by true first word it would be first on the list. I'm not sure how to go about explaining this, though? - DB

• The key probably doesn't need a section entirely of its own since it's only got two components.
• Former NHLs - no need to allow image col to be sortable.
• Don't think there's a need to link factory.
• Ref 1 we would normally have format=pdf in the ref.
• Ref 5, you link to the Knowledge (XXG) namespace, is that something that is acceptable at FAC? I wouldn't expect to see that.

• Normally, no, but since this is more of a note than a reference (and now is not formatted as a ref) it should be OK, at least in my opinion.

• You appear to have the map co-ordinates/Bing/Google box twice.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, TRM. I've addressed everything, and left some responses above. The ones with no responses I have addressed, but they were fairly straightforward, so I didn't bother leaving a reply. The list formatting/sorting issues are the hardest for me, and I've managed to break the list, so if you could figure out how to do what you guys are asking and not break the list, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Some quick responses there, will get back to you re:sorting, hope you can see what I did with the "scope" thing. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the {{nts}} template works nicely in the # column. Have done the first 12 or so... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've done the rest of these, and the sorting is working correctly in my browser. Thanks again for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The National Historic Landmarks in Michigan represent Michigan's history from pre-colonial days through the space age..." is this right space age? I take it you're referring to the space age as in the pace race between USA and USSR in 50s, 60s etc, but I can't be sure this definitely needs clarifying and a link to space age would be great.
• "and one, a ship..." would be much better if you linked the actual ship that was moved instead of just saying a ship.
• I would split the ref column in two, looks a bit clunky in one long list at the moment

NapHit (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments, NapHit! I believe I have addressed them all. On the first point, I looked back through the entries and realized that the latest one was from World War II, so I changed the sentence and linked it properly. Please let me know if you have any additional comments. Dana boomer (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a link to overs? would be useful for that to be linked

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would link innings in the key as well

• I have already linked "innings" in the key. If you are more specific can you please point it out. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't really need the colours in the batting, bowling and fielding columns, the key makes it clear what discipline the stats are related to, plus the colour hides the sort keys, I'd remove it.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Any reason why you don't use exclamation marks for the rowscopes?

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use † instead of the normal dagger as this complies with WP:ACCESS

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use — instead of conventional mdashes in the table as it allows the dash to sort properly

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Any reason why the players sort by first name rather than last? NapHit (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is a problem with South Indian names. For eg., take the case of Subramaniam Badrinath where "Badrinath" is the actual name and "Subramaniam" is a patronymic. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "A Twenty20 International (T20I) is a form of cricket" no, T20 is a form of cricket, a T20I is a form of cricket match...

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The first Twenty20 International match" you've abbreviated it already so use the abb...

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "the current captain" need a timeframe for this.

Timeframe? Should I say that he has been leading the team since India's first game or something like that? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Like "As of ...." you need to add that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "best bowling figure is" I thought this was always plural, and would advise you link it if possible.

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Link "six" appropriately.

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Would link the 2007 ICC WC in the first use of the word "inaugural".

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "a fifty which came off just 12 balls, thus" would remove "just" and perhaps link "balls" to delivery or something appropriate.

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Australia in Melbourne in" bit Easter Egg to link Melbourne to the MCG, would perhaps say "at the Melbourne Cricket Ground" instead.

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Forgive me asking a possibly stupid question, how do we know that some of those players are still "active"? What's the criteria for them to not have an end year?

I had this doubt earlier. Perhaps should I convert that into two columns (First and Last appearance) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably safest option (certainly the most verifiable and least subjective approach)... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Already done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "This list of Indian cricketers" looks like a throwback to an old style intro...

Is it okay for now? or should I remove it—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I adjusted it a bit, looks fine to me now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• For careers of 2011–2011, just have one 2011, no need for a zero length range.

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• 5wI is missing from the key.

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "won his first cap" first shouldn't be part of the wikilink.

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• External link should have the same info for publisher, it's not Cricinfo India is it?

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added sentence to the lead. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Home Depot Coach of the Year Award" but just "Walter Camp Coach of the Year", why not be consistent with "Award" here?

• Fixed Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't mix date formats in the refs.

• Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Publisher info for "Columbus Dispatch"?

• Added Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments addressed. Thanks for taking the time to take a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is because I'm English and don't fully understand some of the terminology in US sports, but what do mean when you refer to the LSU Tigers football program? Is that just standard terminology for referring to the team?
  • To be fair, I agree with that, the idea of a "football program" in English is more like this. Presumably there's something in Knowledge (XXG) we can link to (if you don't already...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I reworded the sentence and removed "program" altogether. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some refs from newspapers have locations while others don't. The difference is mainly between national and non-national newspapers but I think for consistency you should include the location of the national ones too. NapHit (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Cities added. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Table fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for info on how to rectify this. In short you need to add row and colscopes to the table.

• Done rowscopes. Colscopes are already in the top row template. --99of9 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• You need to add a symbol when highlighting items by colour per WP:ACCESS, plus I would only highlight the country cell instead of the whole row

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "This event was the eleventh Summer Paralympic Games, quadrennial international competitions..." I'm not sure the last three words are necessary makes the sentence very hard to read, I would remove them

• I've removed the word "international" since it's obvious from the previous sentence. Personally I think quadrennial adds significant value here, even though it's a long/rare word. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "These games"

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• "With 3,843 athletes taking part in the 18 sports on the programme, the Games were the second largest sporting event ever held in Australia, and utilized the same facilities as the largest, the 2000 Summer Olympics, which had concluded on 1 October." This is a very long sentence I would look into splitting in two sentences

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "A record of 122 countries (or 123 delegations including independent athletes from Timor-Leste), participated at these Games..." at these games is redundant, already clarified we are talking about the event

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• You use countries and delegations in close succession to refer to what appears to me to be the same entity, I think one should be used throughout.

• Done? I've removed the second instance of the word delegations. It is now only used once in parentheses to clarify the difference in count of 122 countries, 123 delegation, to aid researchers fact-checking sources that differ. --99of9 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "A total of 1657 medals" comma in between the 1 and 6

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Image need alt text adding

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, those were useful improvements. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking good just a few more comments

• "The location and facilities were shared with the largest event, the 2000 Summer Olympics, which had concluded on 1 October."

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "A record of 122 countries (or 123 delegations including independent athletes from Timor-Leste), participated, and 68 won medals, seven for the first time." would change to something like "A record 122 countries (123 including a delegation of independent athletes from Timor-leste) participated; 68 countries won medals, of those countries, seven won a medal for the first time."

• Done. Ok, I've put your wording in. The last half feels a bit verbose, but I didn't find an easy way to trim it. --99of9 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The medals themselves were designed by the royal goldsmith and jeweller Stuart Devlin, and feature the Sydney Harbour Bridge" themselves is redundant and feature should be featured as the sentence starts off in past tense.

• Done... slightly differently. The medals still exist and have the same design, so I kept it in the present tense but split it from the past tense sentence. --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• You link medal the second time...

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• " This event was the" I don't see a real need for "event" here.

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't you link "Individual Paralympic Athletes " rather than say "independent" athletes?

• I think "independent" means they'd declared their independence from Indonesia, but it hadn't been recognized as a country. But I'll check this in a couple of days. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've checked this, the phrasing is correct IMO. There were multiple athletes from East Timor, competing as a team. --99of9 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• So is the article about East Timor's appearance at the Games incorrect as they refer to the athletes as Individual Paralympic Athletes... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. That article is not sufficiently sourced to prove their case on the term (since both would have the acronym IPA). My strongest source is this. I'd say it's pretty compelling, but it's possible that both terms were used. I'd still prefer to stick to the one I know to have been officially used over one from an unsourced wiki article. --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• "countries won medals, of those countries, seven won a " -> "countries won medals, of which seven won a "

• Done, thanks, this removes the verbosity I was concerned about in the first reviewers comments. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is that the total list of multiple-medalists?

• No, these were the ones noted by the press. I particularly tracked down press mentions of the top medal winners. A complete list of multi-medallists would be long. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• If a nation is tied on silvers, when sorting by silver, what determines the order of those tied?

• I'm not sure. This is specified in a protected template. I will look into it in a couple of days. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently it's a mediawiki issue. Here's how it works: Help:Sorting#Secondary_key. You basically have to shift-click the secondary column. --99of9 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Same for total number. If a nation is tied with another on total medals, surely they should then rank by golds then silvers, then bronzes?

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. That sounds like the equivalent of always using "Rank" as the secondary sort key. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently it's a mediawiki issue. Here's how it works: Help:Sorting#Secondary_key. You basically have to shift-click the secondary column. --99of9 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Table does not meet WP:ACCESS and MOS:DTT.
  • Are there specific issues in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Names in the Player column don't sort correctly, use {{sortname}}
  • The template does not seem to be sorting according to its own description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Same in the last column
  • Does it make sense to sort on the last column with multiple names?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• I personally don't like the ALL CAPS writing in the first paragraph. EA SPORTS could be "EA Sports", or "ESPNHIGHSCHOOL.com" just "espnhighschool.com"♫GoP♫_TN 14:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Caps fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Pair of commas is needed surrounding "also known as ESPN RISE National Player of the Year".
  • Fixed with an addendum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Should "boy's" be "boys'" in the first sentence?
  • Dunno. My logic is from all the college basketball teams that are named Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • According to this edit it is suppose to be boys'.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Why is "National Player" capitalized later in the first sentence? I doubt that it should be.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• The List section heading is on the plain side. Something like "Winners" would be better.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• The list should be ordered from first winner to last, not the other way around.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• A key explaning the position abbreviations would be helpful to include.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Publishers of the references shouldn't be italicized since they're not printed publications.
  • I am not sure what you mean. ESPN HS is a print magazine, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Important: What is citing the table? If it's the external link, it must be given as a general reference. Just having it as an EL isn't clear enough. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Runner-up column should be sorting by last name, not first name.
  • I am confused on how to sort this because often the source includes two runners up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't notice that. In that case I'd recommend sorting by the last name of the first runner-up listed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
      • This seems to be a task to do while watching the Super Bowl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I tackled this today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• One more I noticed while checking edits: in the first sentence, "as" needs to be added in "and formerly known the...". Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• • That sounds like a good idea, but the source does not explain the term. I know what it would usually mean, but based on current voting procedures, there is no such thing as a consensus winner without a runner-up. I don't know what past voting procedures were.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, it didn't notice that they have different voting procedure over the years. Anyway, what about blanking the cells (or inserting dashes) to indicate that there is no runner-up in those years. — MT (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • O.K. please look over the current legend following the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • It's much clearer now, thanks! — MT (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a reason that ESPN HS and ESPN RISE are inconsistently presented, italics/not italics?
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The lead would make more sense to me if it was in chronlogical order.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Many of the players have images, it's a shame this article has none.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• "The panel includes five McDonald's All-American selection committee members." is this significant? Not to a non-expert.
  • The proper article is linked in the paragraph above. If they are unfamiliar with the McD AA then they should have clicked on the link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Link all positions or none of them in the sortable table.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• "F - Forward" - en-dash.
  • All En-dash now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• em-dash explanations in the key, one ends with a period, the other doesn't end in a period.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• "The following players have been named Mr. Basketball USA." not sure this is necessary, particularly given the name of the section and given the caption in the table heading.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• It looks like you're actually using en-dash not em-dash in the school column.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• LSU/UNLV etc, don't use abbreviations without explaining what they are.
  • The four abbreviations (UNLV, LSU, USC and UCLA) are all considered so common that the linked pages use these abbreviations rather than full names. We are using the names that people would look for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images could do with alt text
  • ALT added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Any reason why you use 95% font size instead of 100%? NapHit (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I blindly copied code from another FL (don't remember which one). Fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Lead image doesn't need a full stop.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't use red-linked abbreviations (e.g. NAST). All abbreviations should be expanded before use (e.g. ABHE). You may need to consider a key.

• I'll work on this in coming days (haven't decided whether I want to simply list all the accreditation agencies in the lead, or make a key. The list is short enough for the former, IMO). Thoughts would be great. Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I added all of the agencies to the final lead paragraph for ease of use. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• "an enrollment of 14,194 students as of fall 2010 enrollment data" reads clunkily with 2 x enrollment...

• Tweaked Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Two institutions lacking references for the year of foundation.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Refs shouldn't be sortable.

• Not quite sure what you mean here- I don't believe they are sortable. Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the defunct table. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry about the confusion. I removed the sortable feature for the whole defunct table, as there really is no need for such a small table (the colleges are in alphabetical order anyway). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Per Giants' comment below, I made the table sortable again (all but the ref column). Ruby 2010/2013 04:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why isn't Assumption College redlinked?

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 29 needs an en-dash.

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• From the external link, there are Hair design colleges that aren't listed here. Why is this? It says there are 30 colleges in ND, you list just 21. Perhaps some explanation of inclusion/exclusion criteria needed.

• Those schools aren't included in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, which is the basic template I've used for the ND and Minnesota lists (Carnegie lists all accredited institutions that are included in the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System). If a school doesn't appear on either the Carnegie or Department of Education website lists, I exclude it. I made a mention of Carnegie in the article. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! Much appreciated, Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The North Dakota University System contains eleven public colleges, which includes NDSU." "includes" → "include"? The colleges is a plural element, after all.
• In the photo caption, should Ave have a period at the end as an abbreviation of Avenue?
• Also, alt text would be nice to include with the image.
• Is it possible to make the columns in the Defunct institutions table sortable?
• Ref 1 has a hyphen in the title that probably should be an en dash. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• All done except the first comment. As the North Dakota University System is a singular entity, I didn't think it would be proper to convert "includes" to 'include". I'd be willing to listen to a second opinion on this though if you disagree. Best, Ruby 2010/2013 03:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• "(NDSU) is the largest public institution, having had an enrollment of 14,407 students for fall 2010." -> (NDSU) is the largest public institution, with an enrolment of 14.407 students for fall 2010.
• Defunct institutions table has a caption yet, the top table doesn't, I would add one to the top table to be consistent.

NapHit (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Both done. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No dead links or DAB needed to be fixed. Image looks good. Could you get an ISBN number for FN 1? I think you might be able to find it on the Google Books abstract or Amazon abstract. —WP:PENGUIN · 21:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I've added it. :) — Status {_contribs 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, more comments:

• "Following the show's finale in 1993, Lopez made guest appearances in the television series South Central, appeared in the made-for-television movie Lost in the Wild (1993) and starred as Melinda Lopez in the television series Second Chances (1993)" - be consistent on whether or not you add serial commas (commas before "and")
• "which were both met with negative reception." - either "which were both met with negative reviews" or "which were both received unfavorably."
• Remove all instances of the word "both" and "also" in this article. In all cases here, it's being used redundantly.
• "Lopez retained box office success co-starring in the 2004 film Shall We Dance?" - missing word, maybe an "after"?
• Not too fussy with the word "Unknown". How do we know that the stage names of the creators of DanceLife or Como ama una mujer are not "Unknown" and simply unknown?
• FN 20 does not support fact that she was Rosie Romero or that it was Direct-to-video.
• FN 80 does not support cited info. This source also says show was produced from 90 to 92, not 93.
• I didn't check all sources, just a few. —WP:PENGUIN · 21:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The source says she was a member of the show from 91-93. The lead was incorrect, the show lasted until 1994. I've fixed that. For Shall We Dance she got success with the film, not after it. — Status {_contribs 23:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, how's the work coming along. Have you addressed my comments? :-) Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, yes I have. :) — Status {_contribs 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm, leaving a cell blanked seems a bit unprofessional when the Creator is an important detail. You can use dashes and have a note ("—" denotes an unknown creator/"—" denotes an unknown budget) at the bottom of the tables. For consistency, you can also apply this style to the 2 Film roles tables. I'm this close (*puts thumb and index finger in an about-to-pinch position*) to supporting by the way. —WP:PENGUIN · 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm gonna go on a witch hunt to find out the creators of those. — Status {_contribs 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wish you luck. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do we really need to have a link to the U.S. dollar in the first paragraph? I can't link of too many more links that would serve less of a purpose than that one.
• "Following the role, Lopez starred in the independent films: An Unfinished Life, Bordertown, and El cantante." It actually works better if the colon is excluded.
• Right after that: "the latter in which she also acted as the executive producer." With the semi-colon, I think an improved version would be of the form "she also acted as the executive producer of the latter."
• Try to avoid repetition from one sentence in another in "and starring in the film The Back-up Plan. The Back-up Plan...".
• Several of the tables have names sorting by first name, when they should probably be sorting by last name instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not too familiar with tables, so I'm not sure how I would go about sorting them by first name. Could you point me in the right director? The other issues have been resolved. — Status {_contribs 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Check out the formatting of List of Grand Prix motorcycle racing World champions for one of many examples of the type of formatting required. I also don't see any change involving the comment before that one. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "She is the highest paid actor of Latin descent" this is sourced to something written nearly four years ago, are you sure it's still valid?
• "ran for only a short amount of time" reads clunky to me, perhaps "ran for only a brief period"?
• "divided for the latter" usually get divided by, not divided for...
• Ref 7 doesn't allow me to read that page of the book, does the book say "critics" or is it just the book itself saying it was a breakout role?
• "Also in 1998 " perhaps instead of repeating years, say "in the same year" or something of that nature just to mix up the prose a little.
• "Also in 2004 " ->"Also that year..."
• ""—" denotes items which were not released in theatres." this row shouldn't sort.
• Why is budget/box office sortable?
• Is it fly girl or Fly Girl? Be consistent.
• Year should be Year(s) as there's a range in some of those.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I will try to find a more recent source for the highest paid Latino actor. Ref 7 is just an example of it being called as her breakout role. The budget/box office tables aren't sortable? Removed the denotes part. For some reason, it doesn't wanna stay put. — Status {_contribs 11:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I meant why aren't they sortable! And you should have more than just ref for the "breakout role" or change the text. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was told to remove it in the peer review; but if you think they should be there, I'll add them. I'll get on finding some more sources to back it up. How many do you think? — Status {_contribs 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think they should be sortable, I don't see a good reason for them not to be, do you? And as for refs, at least two, more would be ideal. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All the issues pointed out have been resolved. :) — Status {_contribs 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would add ref to the top of the reference column just to make it clear what that column refers to
• Don't think the as a personality table needs to be sortable when there is only one cell in it.

NapHit (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I had that there before, but it became pretty messy. I think it looks best the way it does now. And yeah, you're right, I'll remove that. — Status {_contribs 21:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• 1922–27: "which in fact beat the Ramla side in the 1927 decider." The "in fact" is just excess wordage; of course it's a fact, or it wouldn't have been included (at least I hope not).
• "they are not today considered official by the Israel Football Association." Given that "today" is a time-sensitive element, and that it doesn't add much to the sentence as the time period is implied, I'd get rid of the word.
• 1928–47: Don't think the hyphen is needed in "officially-sanctioned".

More later. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done, fixed all three.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "and appropriately commissioned a new trophy." The word "appropriately" sounds like a viewpoint is being injected into this sentence. Also, I don't see where this is sourced.

• The cup was stolen and was never found, therefore the IFA were "forced" to make a new trophy, which was also good as the cup changed its name. It's writen in the Note 2 and Ref 9.

• "it was not contested in four of the first 13 seasons since independence and the 1949–51 edition was abandoned before the final was played." It's an oddity that the 1949–51 tournament was held over multiple seasons; is there any explanation of why that was the case?

• After the 1948-49 war, the games began in late 1949, with the end date to be in 1951, to help teams players recover after the war. But in the end the campaign was not completed. It is not the only season in Israeli football that a "double-season" happend, it happend in the 1966–68 Liga Leumit season in the league aswell after the IFA wanted to fight against corruption and increasing violence at matches

• Total cup wins by city: "The most successful home city by some distance is Tel Aviv; Tel Aviv clubs...". Try to avoid this repetition from before the semi-colon to after.
• Would be nice if the Won columns in the last two tables were sortable.
• Another repetition issue from before punctuation to after in note 3, regarding British Police. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done, Iv'e fixed the issues and commented on the above.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've done a bit of work here too. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The only further suggestion I have is to include a note, or some text in the appropriate section, regarding the 1949–51 double-season. The Israeli football champions list has some content on the 1966–68 double-season, and I think something equivalant would be just as valuable here. You could even include something in the note that's already there in the table. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've put something in the note that's already there and put some more note tags around the page. What do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Image caption, normally expect to see "extreme right" or whatever in italics.
  • Okay.
• "almost every season" what season?
  • Football season, given.
• "became independent in 1948," suspect there's a good link for this?
  • Yes, given.
• "start of the 1961–62 season" context, what season?
  • Football season, given.
• "clubs of all standards" what does that mean, professional and amateur, or something different?
  • Both, given.
• "from the lower divisions". Perhaps I've missed the point, but what's the precise inclusion criteria for this contest?
  • Any club can enter. I've rephrased it: "It involves professional and amateur clubs of all standards playing against each other, creating the possibility for "minnows" to become "giant-killers" by eliminating top clubs from the tournament."
• "to hold a 100% record " I think MOS frowns upon %, so maybe "to hold an undefeated record" or similar?
  • Okay.
• "1922–27: unofficial national cups" section, you link Royal Air Force once, but Maccabi Nes Tziona and Maccabi Tel Aviv twice...
  • Okay.
• "final ended with the two sides, Hapoel Tel Aviv and Maccabi Hasmonean Jerusalem, " no need for "the two sides" in my opinion.
  • Okay.
• "the chaotic 1947 final " explanation required.
  • An explanation is given in the footnote at the end of the sentence – I don't think anything more is required here.
• Ginzburg caption - "was a key player for" does the source say that? If so, it's a quote... if not, rephrase to stop it being a peacock quote.
  • I've rephrased it just to say he played for them.
• "big-city teams" sounds tabloid to me.
  • Okay.
• In the Performance by club section, British Police doesn't link to the same as before.
  • Okay, fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Had a whack through and I think I've resolved all of this now. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Hope my review whack was useful too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Would make the key bit a caption instead of using the semi-colon
• The third paragraph has no refs I would ref, the bit about most titles and biggest win in the final
• "next most prolific team" not keen on this perhaps third most prolific to indicate the team's rank
• "relatively recent phenomenon" would change phenomenon to occurrence
• "Maccabi and Hapoel Tel Aviv have been major players" not keen on major players not very encyclopaedic perhaps change to Maccabi and Hapoel Tel Aviv have had sustained success
• "The most decisive cup final victory by some distance was in 1942" -> The biggest margin of victory was in 1942

NapHit (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Okay, done. What do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I saw that, and I have to disagree with the commas. Since there are appositives in the sentence commas should be there.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to avoid commas in those areas, but feel free to restore them. I look at them as superfluous. —WP:PENGUIN · 17:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I re-read Purdue OWL: Appositives, and it seems you were right.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like the lead sentence to list the releases in order as they appear in the list/table of contents. In other words, just switch around "nine music videos" and "fifteen singles".
  • Moved.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• It might be a good idea to say who the group is compose of maybe in the first sentence? That might get a bit too run-on, but seeing how this is a duo, it wouldn't be bad.
  • Wouldn't it sound repetitive saying "Eric B. & Rakim, a group made up of Eric B. & Rakim,"?
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• "From 2001 to 2010, five compilation albums have been released" - I'm not sure about this, but don't we have some MOS:NUM policy on this—that we use endashes to write a range, so like "In 2001–10, five compilation albums were released" Nevermind, reread WP:YEAR.
• In the Music video section, is "Unknown" the name of a director? If not, then wouldn't people confuse the word for one? Consider using dashes in its place and have a note at the bottom of the table maybe?
  • Added.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

End of comments. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · 10:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the Music video table, you have used Vevo as the source for all of your videos. As the source is listed by the director name, the source should state the name of the director, and although I am not questioning that Vevo is a reliable source, it does not list any director information. Personally, I would use a source like MTV, where the directors are listed most of the time.
  • If you hover over the music video, it gives the director.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Really? I didn't know that. Might use that one myself... I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• There are other charts that could have been listed in the singles tables - for example, the single "Paid in Full" also charted in France, and also charted in Germany (as did "Friends"), and most of the songs in the table also appeared on the Hot Rap Singles chart as well.
  • Personally, I try to stick with the all the charts that the albums peaked. So that's why the French and German peaks aren't listed. I will, however, put in the Hot Rap Tracks.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. It's not what I'd do, but every man to his own. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would have added a "See also" section at the bottom of the page with a link to Rakim discography.
  • Added.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Apart from that, the page is excellent. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the R&B/Hip-Hop be Top R&B/Hip-Hop chart?
  • Billboard.com says the chart is R&B/Hip-Hop Albums. If you want me to change it however, I will.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• "within the top 5 of" top five.
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• "the top 25 on the UK Albums Chart" is there such a demarcation or do you really mean it entered at number 25 (or whatever) in the top forty?
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• In Format, what is CD, CS and LP?
  • Wikilinked.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Is NL the usual abbreviation for the Netherlands? I've seen NDL recently.
  • I used NL because that's what the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 of Netherlands is.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done WP:DASH says to use spaced en-dashes for things like those date ranges.
• Done Took off. -> Took office etc.
• Done Why are "Voting" and "Death" capitalised?
• Done Not sure we absolutely have to use that small text.
• Done Don't understand the relevance of the thin empty rows here.
• Done Sortability would be handy.
• Done It would be better if you used First name, last name here and if you made the table sortable, you could use the {{sortname}} template.
• Done "was no other then" I guess you mean "than", but this reads a bit sensational...
• Done "Khrushchev's ouster," what does this mean? Do you mean ousting?

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• All those references to the same "How the Soviet Union is Governed.", you can make a general reference and then just refer in the references to "Book, author, page (range)" rather than repeat the publisher, the isbn etc every single time.
  • I didn't need to do this at the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (which is an FL), so do I really need to do it now??? --TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Done Yes, it would be better. And if you could retrospectively apply it, that would be even more magnificent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done "During the 1960s 32 people held seats in the Politboro: 23 full-members and 14 candidate members." Were there some people who were in both at some point? Seems like it judging by the numbers. Also, the hyphen in "full-members" doesn't seem correct.
  • Politboro should be capitalized in the new text for consistency. And is this cited anywhere? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Done --TIAYN (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Done "In 1963, for unknown reason, possibly health reasons". Feels like the first "reason" should be plural too.
• Done "the Presidium reverted to it's previous name". Apostrophe should be removed from "it's".
• Done The comma after "he did not have a majority in the Politboro" would work better as a semi-colon for the sentence as a whole.
• Done In the same area, "in fact" is quite redundant on the face on it; if it wasn't a fact, it probably wouldn't have been included to start with.
• Done Small prose point in "Brezhnev and Kosygin would often disagree on policy": it would be stronger in the active form of "Brezhnev and Kosygin often disagreed on policy".
• Done Photos in the lead could use alt text.
  • First photo has alt text, but the second doesn't. I know there's a way to get alt text in both images in a multi-photo situation like this, but I'm not an expert in the formatting since I haven't done it myself. Maybe someone passing by will know what to do? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Done --TIAYN (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Done This is a new one for me: in both tables, the source row is sorting like any other row in the table, which I imagine it shouldn't be.
• Done Another hyphen in "Full-members" needs to be removed in a table note. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done One very picky comment; you have a bibliography section, yet only book is listed in it, while other books are in the specific section e.g. (huskey book). What I would like to see done, is move the full referencing for the books into the bibliography section, and then reference the sources, as you have done for the book that is currently used there NapHit (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• The second sentence has a couple Major League Baseballs and a couple "major league"s. It's really repetitive reading after a while. See if you can't trim some of it down.
• Procedure: If AL is going to be abbreviated, it really should be given the same parenthetical treatment after first usage that MLB gets.
• Another "the" needed in "in the first round of 1993 MLB amateur draft".
• Results: En dash needed in pitching record here.
• The photo captions next to the table could use refs, since parts of all of them aren't really backed up by the table.
• Aftermath: "The Rockies payroll appeared to be $4 million". Apostrophe would be good at the end of the team name.
• Refs 12, 13, and 19 need all caps removed from their titles. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• "1990 basic agreement" what's that? I'm a non-expert so this should be explained (or linked?)
• Background section is a little sparse. Would probably consider adding it as part of the lead, or expanding it quite a bit.
• Worth linking free agent and the 1992 season.
• What's "Double-A"?
• When sorting by round, the Pick column sorts seemingly randomly. Suggest you force that column to sort consistently and as one would expect (i.e. if Round is 1.. 2.. 3 then Pick should be 1.. 2.. 3.. and if Round is 3.. 2.. 1... then Pick should be 72... 71... 70...)
• "chose prospects" perhaps this is a specific term in baseball but it seems obvious to me that they picked prospects, weren't they all prospects, i.e. they were picked because it was hoped they'd do alright?
• Caption: "an 18 year career" shouldn't the 18-year be hyphenated?

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I've attempted to resolve all of your comments. It is helpful to have your perspective on these MLB pages, since you don't have much knowledge on baseball. Regarding the "prospect" issue, teams could choose whether they wanted to draft prospects, meaning young players with little to no track record and the possibility of emerging later, or more established veteran players. Consensus among the sports writers was that the Rockies and Marlins chose more prospects and fewer expensive veterans than they had anticipated. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Right, the number thing. I don't know what's happening with that. I'm not sure right now how to fix it. Maybe after lunch an idea will come to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I figured it out. Low blood sugar. It's fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "This expansion draft was conducted by Major League Baseball (MLB) to stock the rosters of the Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins, new expansion franchises that were set to start play in the 1993 MLB season." – I think there's something wrong here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

• I can rewrite the sentence, but I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with it as is.

• Let me put it differently: I don't understand this sentence. Perhaps it's because of my lack of knowledge of baseball. Perhaps it isn't. Until I do, I can't support.

• Looking at it again, was that comma supposed to be an apostrophe?

• No, it wasn't. I rewrote the lead paragraph in a way that I hope is more clear.

• Better, but now the last sentence leads to believe it is referring to another expansion draft than the one this article is about.

• Fixed.

• How about indicating which players became All-Stars before and after the draft?

• I can do that.

• "were All-Stars after the draft" – I'd reword that to "became All-Stars later on" to reduce repetitive wording.

• Fixed

• The FUR of File:1992 MLB Expansion Draft.jpg is inadequate.

• Can you give me a little more guidance on what the FUR should say?

• I can do that.

• The FUR should be better now.

• Still needs work.

• Did it myself. By the way, are you sure it's the right image? The off-page filename says it's from the 1993 expansion draft. Goodraise 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. It is the right image. The expansion draft was held in November 1992 for expansion that is considered to have taken effect on Opening Day in 1993 (April), even though the franchises existed as functioning organizations prior to that. Hence the page describing this expansion is 1993 Major League Baseball expansion.

• Unhelpful comment Goodraise. I appreciate you're trying to get folks to learn stuff here, but please, be specific with your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly: No. I'm not trying to be helpful or to get anyone to learn anything. I review lists for compliance with the FL criteria and support if I find them met. Anything more is bonus. Unless I explicitly oppose a nomination, I don't see why I'd have to be specific. Goodraise 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see. At least we know where we stand with your comments now. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Jack Armstrong, Andy Ashby, Brad Ausmus, Vinny Castilla, Jeff Conine, Carl Everett, Joe Girardi, Bryan Harvey, Trevor Hoffman, Danny Jackson, and Eric Young." – You marked them in the table. Isn't that enough?

• I had thought so, but User:Harrias above asked me to source them, and I chose to do it in prose.

• Better now.

• "The Marlins traded Danny Jackson to the Philadelphia Phillies for Joel Adamson and Matt Whisenant" – This is a full sentence, requiring a full stop.

• Done.

• "validity of the draft, on the basis" – Unless I'm mistaken, that comma is superfluous.

• Done.

• "both teams used the draft to build successful teams over the next several years." – How can they use a one-day event over several years?

• Grammar corrected

• "In the 1993 Major League Baseball season, the Marlins and Rockies both finished 6th out of 7 teams in their respective divisions" and "However, the draft served as the foundation for both teams that helped them to build successful teams over the next several years." Looking at that paragraph again, I wonder, what are the sources for these two sentences? Are they covered in ? If so, would you mind quoting it?

• I added a source to a statistics website that shows they both finished sixth out of seven in their divisions, as that wasn't properly sourced. The next sentence served to introduce the next sentences, which talk about the successes of the Rockies and Marlins in the late 1990s. I thought about keeping it, but deleted it.

Goodraise 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. On the verge of supporting. Goodraise 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)