Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2013

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates | Featured log
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 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by David Boon

edit
Nominator(s): Zia Khan 14:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is based upon pre-existing lists of the similar type and I believe this is according to the FL criteria. Comments and suggestion are appreciated! Zia Khan 14:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)

—Vensatry (Ping me) 10:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments (re-visit)

  • You could use a secondary sort for the Test centuries based on date, though not a compulsion.
  • No need to link "Tied" in the table.
  • You seem to have misinterpreted the license of the image. The original image (posted at Flickr) is {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} while a derivative of that uses a PD template. Further, this image should be hosted at the Commons as it's free.

—Vensatry (Ping me) 11:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only issue I can see is this: "His accomplishments with the bat during the 1993 English cricket season led to him [.....] and described him that he......" - his accomplishments with the bat didn't describe him as anything, also in English we don't "describe that" something. I would re-write the sentence to "His accomplishments with the bat during the 1993 English cricket season led to Wisden naming him as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1994 and describing him as "the most assured batsman in the Australian team"". Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - you missed out a word when you put my suggested revised sentence in, but I fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted

edit
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 02:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one was progressing alright the first time around but then I had to go and disappear for a while (aliens). I think I've caught up to everything that had been mentioned the last time around, plus any relevant material from the intervening time has been added (along with a nice shiny picture). I promise I won't get abducted a second time around. GRAPPLE X 02:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Shouldn't " two-hundred and fifty " just be "250" or "two-hundred-and-fifty"?
  • "thrash band ... fellow thrash band..." not keen on the repetition and what's a "fellow" thrash band? It seems clear if they're both "thrash bands" then they'd be "fellows" of that genre.
  • "his inability to work on side projects" was this because he was actively prevented from doing so? Should be made clear.
  • Sad but True article has a small b for but, not necessarily part of this process but consider moving it appropriately.
  • I count only 12 Moss Brothers songs.
  • Ref 33 (for instance), avoid double periods.
  • Is it Nuclear Blast Records or just Nuclear Blast (per our article)?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for having a look at this. Got all of these bar the "Sad but True" thing—should I move the song page or fix the casing in the list? I get the feeling it's the latter but I'm not 100% on how conjunctions work with title case (this is from an english BA too...). GRAPPLE X 05:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, and no problem with the redirect, they're not disallowed. I just prefer the reliable source solution, so opt for the one which RS's use. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The albums themselves tend to use block capitals so I deferred to our article, which I'm pretty sure is how web and print sources parse it too. GRAPPLE X 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Lightlowemon

  • He played bass guitar with the group between 1987 and 2001. Any chance this sentence could be merged with the one before or after? It sounds like a fragment.
    Merged. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his time with the band, Newsted was given writing credit for only three Metallica songs. I count six in the table.
    I guess that does look a bit off. There are three actual songs which he has credits for ("Blackened", "My Friend of Misery" and "Where the Wild Things Are"), but there's also a bass solo from a live album listed there, which is his own work (I don't own it but I'm 99% sure it's actually the bass intro to "My Friend of Misery"), another live bass solo which might or might not be the same work, and a medley of songs ("Justice Medley") which includes parts from "Blackened" (here's a breakdown of the parts). I'm at a loss for how to succinctly explain that only three studio-recorded songs featured original work credited to him though. :( GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Newsted faced difficulty integrating with the group, and found little opportunity to add his music input. In his time with the band, Newsted was given writing credit for only three Metallica songs. to add his music input? The sentence sounds a little off, since this seems to be a cause and effect thing (as in the sentences are directly related), maybe merge these sentences somehow?
    How does it look now? GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newsted wrote and recorded three albums with the band: Voivod, Katorz and Infini. You just mentioned three different bands in the sentence before, so you need to specify which one you are talking about (even if it is obvious due to the album titles. Also you mention these three albums and yet I only see one listed in the table, why is this?
    Reworded it in the intro, but the three albums are definitely listed in the table (sort by "artist"; the first three Voivoid songs are each from a different album). GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do find it a little strange that you have 13 artists yet only mention 9 in the lead, missing The Moss Brothers, Unkle, IR8 and Sexoturica and Sepultura
    I couldn't find anything about his involvement with Moss Brothers beyond the raw credits in order to say anything about it, and I wasn't sure a one-song cameo for Sepultura was worth much of a mention. I could see about digging up some of the other stuff, though the IR8 and Sexoturica stuff is just one split demo that appears to have been a pair of self-released vanity projects. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several songs and a few writers are redirects, you don't have to do anything with these just pointing them out:
Songs - ...And Justice for All (both occurrences), Battery (both), Blackened, Die, Die My Darling (listed with an extra comma after the second Die), Sad But True (all versions; in regards to the above comment, it should be spelt however it appears on the album), To Live Is to Die, The Unforgiven II (links to section) and Welcome Home (Sanitarium)
Writers - Chris Exall, Clive Blake
Looks good overall. --Lightlowemon (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • About to start working through these now, but about the last one—apparently AllRovi has once again split into the two sites that merged to form it in the first place (AllMovie and AllMusic, where "Rovi" comes from is a mystery). Looks like the content still exists but just elsewhere. I'm going to poke around and see if it's an easy fix or if I need to replace all the URLs manually. GRAPPLE X 19:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in an extra line in the lead which should mean all acts are now covered, and have fixed the unnecessary redirects. I also managed to get the URLs fixed in the refs for AllMusic; as I had hoped it turned out to be a simple change that could be applied en masse to everything. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hahc21 10:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Arsenal F.C. league record by opponent

edit
Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this again after no 'consensus' was reached at the first time of asking. A complete list of Arsenal's record against every team they have played in the league, which wasn't the case when I nominated this months ago. All feedback is welcome, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. There is already a totals row. Unless you mean something else? Lemonade51 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he means at the very bottom of the article there should be a totals column for Arsenals overall record throughout their history. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether that is a necessary requirement. It'll be easy to accumulate the Premier League total, but very time-consuming for the other leagues Arsenal have played. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Anyway, other than what Eddie said I can not find anything wrong with this list. It has everything someone doing research would expect and more. Easily earns my support. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Introduction

  • First Division doesn't need to be linked twice in the first paragraph.
Removed.
  • Even though the article links to 2005-06 FA Premier League, i'm not sure it looks good having the words 'Premier League' as part of the link, as other season just have the years linked. I would suggest removing the words from the link. Same goes for 1894-95 Football League Season link.
Done.
  • " The team that Arsenal have played most in league competition is Manchester United, who they first met in the 1894–95 Football League season; the 78 defeats from 188 meetings is more than Arsenal have lost against any other club." suggest removing one of the mentions of Arsenal from that sentence, as the word Arsenal is used a lot in the last few sentences of the second paragraph.
removed Arsenal at second mention.

Key

  • "The table includes results of matches played by Arsenal (under that name and under former names Royal Arsenal and Woolwich Arsenal) in the United League, the Southern District Combination, the London League Premier Division, the Football League and the Premier League. Matches from the abandoned 1939–40 Football League season are excluded, as are games in the various wartime competitions." Firstly, i would rephrase the first sentence to say The table includes results of matches played by Arsenal (including under the former names of Royal Arsenal and Woolwich Arsenal). Secondly, add 'the' between 'as are' and 'games' in the second sentence.
Done and done.

Table

  • Burnley's figures to not total correctly.
You are right. Fixed.
  • Portsmouth away doesn't add up.
Fixed
  • Manchester United has 79 for defeats, yet in the article it states 78.
Whoops. Updated the table after United beat Arsenal a week and half ago, but forgot to tweak the prose to reflect that. Done it now.
  • There are several inconsistencies with the links to season articles. For example, Glossop links to 1899-1900 Football League, but Arsenal weren't in the same division as them that season. Also, Chatham is linked to 1899-1900 in English Football, while Chesterfield Town is linked to 1899-1900 Football League.
There isn't a United League (football) article (or Southern District Combination one for that matter), where Arsenal first played Glossop and Chatham, so I linked them to the respective English football season articles. Changed to specific articles, albeit with red links.

Hope that helps. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review! Lemonade51 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the season articles, and the fact that some of the years relate to different leagues (united league, football league etc) it night be worth adding some sort of note and symbol to show that the first match against a club was in either the united league or southern district combination league.
Adding symbols would mean adding a colour scheme and in the case of West Ham, it would have been conflicting as they are Arsenal's divisional opponents, who they first met in the London League. So left notes clubs Arsenal first played in the United League, the Southern District Combination, the London League Premier Division (ie: discontinued leagues). Lemonade51 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably a better way of showing the information. All issues resolved. Support. Eddie6705 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of DS:Style products

edit
Nominator(s): PresN 22:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm finally nearing the end of getting all of WP:SE's lists to featured status- though of course, that means we're down to the even-more-obscure ones. Here we have what should be the bottom of that- the DS:Style line of educational software products for the Nintendo DS, which started out in 2007 with fascinating topics like gardening and yoga, and ended after 22 releases in 2011 with study guides for the Japanese real estate exam. Riveting stuff. The main point of notability for these Japan-only products is that they represented an attempt by Square Enix, a massive video game developer/publisher, to expand their product lines to include the non-traditional-gaming public. Turns out there's only so much you can do with that when producing software for a video game console. Anyways, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments These lists really are getting to obscurity aren't they? Good luck on the last two Dragon Quest lists. Not sure what your position is on red links, but I'd consider linking LEC certification test, Japan Legal Mind, and even Tipness. They may not get articles any time soon, but a red link isn't necessary a bad link. Due to there being no parent article, a third paragraph in the lead with a bit of overviewing reception of the series from the reference links might give the article a bit of a boost. Also, just a heads up that all the Gamespot links are broken I believe. This is (as you noted) a very obscure list, especially as it doesn't have any English release and it's content is pretty much only concerning the originating language, good luck on the nomination. --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the broken links and added some redlinks. --PresN 18:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are, mind if I ask for your feedback about a potential third paragraph? --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added one, but there weren't really reviews for them- they're really just software products, and as such after the first blip were largely ignored- they're the kind of thing you pick up in passing in the store, not the kind of thing you read big reviews of on websites, regardless of country. --PresN 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I figured, but pretty much what you put up was what I was looking for, just a couple of sentences given that this list has no main article. I see nothing else wrong with this now. --Lightlowemon (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past...:

  • Make sure tables comply with MOS:DTT and utilize column and row scopes. If you're not a proponent of the bold row headers, you can use "wikitable plainrowheaders", but I'd suggest using row and column scopes anyway.
  • I'm very worried about the use of GameSpot as a reference for the items in the tables. Per WP:VG/S, GameSpot's database is NOT considered a reliable source. It is shared with GameFAQs, which is entirely user-contributed without editorial oversight, and GameSpot mirrors it in a rather deceptive fashion. Can you find another source for the games?

Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...I can't believe I forgot about that. Ugh. Of course you were going to call me out on that; you did on my last video game FLC as well. We're in luck; IGN covered most of the games, and the Square Enix sites for the others had the release dates (which they don't always). No Gamespot refs remaining, col/row scopes added. --PresN 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with one more comment. Well done. I promise, I'm not trying to pick on you for that; GameSpot just happens to be rather deceptive because it doesn't look like it's a user-contributed database, yet it is. About the most that GameSpot can be used for are for staff-contributed opinions and statements, as long as they're verified staff members of GameSpot. Now, I'm already willing to support this list, but given the red links in the lead, can anything be said about some of the items linked to help understand the subject? For example, I'd understand the sentence about a study guide for LEC certification tests if we had such an article, but we do not, so can something be said about what an LEC certification test is for right after that? I didn't withhold my support because it's of little relevance to the subject itself, but it would help readers to understand what they're reading and what we're talking about when we don't have an article for something. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out LEC is actually a strange acronym for Legal Mind, K.K. (i.e. Inc.). Probably makes more sense in Japanese. Changed the text from the Japanese LEC certification tests to "Japanese professional licensing and civil servant exams". --PresN 18:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)

edit
Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this a 2nd time for featured list because I still believe it meets the criteria. The first time around it was not promoted because the review timeframe expired and nobody seemed to have shown sufficient interest in the topic. Thanks to anyone willing to comment this time around. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsNot supported Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • the rank or date citations for several recipients are not cited for the date given in the table, only for Scherzer's alternative date, please check all the ones with a Note. The fact that this isn't seen in the Role and unit column indicates it may have been intentional, but I feel it is necessary for completeness. Examples include:
    • Botho von La Chevallerie
    • Dietrich von Choltitz

No changes made: It is a procedural question. I had built this list with the information from the AKCR/Fellgiebel. I cited this information in the Role and rank column only, one cite per row. In the second pass, I verified this with the information from Scherzer. Here I chose to cite every item of the table. This helps me keep an overview. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I don't think a "one citation per line" approach is the answer to this query. Either all information on each recipient is clearly sourced, or it is not. My view (as described) is that it is not in its current form. I cannot support this nomination with that approach to sourcing, in my view a sortable tabularised list such as this is effectively incomplete without greater clarity of sourcing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation style, citing every bit of info, follows the principles established during the reviews of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. All of which are featured lists today. Even if your comment warrants addressing, which I have, I feel that a final review comment "Not Supported", without first engaging in an open discussion, is not best practice. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the citation approach used is not adequate in its current form, regardless of the status of the other articles that might use it. The result of the citation approach you have used is that the source of some of the data (Fellgiebel) is not evident. I have changed my precipitate opposition to a tentative one, but I firmly believe this must be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my previous comment. I have implemented your suggestion! Have a look. The article lead already states that the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work. I don’t think that adding even more citations to this table helps clarity in any way. It would only impede load times. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where in the lead it says that "the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work". It states that the list (the assumption is the list of recipients) is drawn from Fellgiebel, but the point there is about the inclusion of a name on the list, not the details of the award itself in terms of rank or date of award. The addition of further citations from Fellgiebel is a significant improvement, but for example, Richard Czekay's rank of Hauptmann still needs to be cited, as does Erwin Clausen's date of award. When they are done I'll be happy to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It states "These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book". Thanks for finding the other two citations. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the lead doesn't state that some of the data varies between the two sources, predominantly ranks and dates of award. A list of names is one thing, variances in data relating to the award between the two sources is another as far as I am concerned. Regardless, the additional citations from Fellgiebel resolve my issue, supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there anything I can do to attract more reviewers? Help MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop by in the next couple of days - ping me on Tues if I've forgotten by then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

List of chief ministers from Bharatiya Janata Party

edit
Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As somebody who's spent a lot of time on chief-minister articles, I've come across a number of difficulties which has prevented me from nominating any (except the relatively simple List of current Indian chief ministers) at FLC. I see a number of those problems here:

  • the primary one is sourcing. WorldStatesmen.org seems to be a crowdsourced project, and I thus doubt it can be considered as a reliable source. You'll have go to individual state-govts' websites and hunt for CM-related info. In several cases these don't even exist.
  • What makes photius.com an RS?  Done
  • The Term (tenure length) column seems to be inspired by this. However that article was simpler in the sense that whoever was longest-serving was also the earliest occupant. In this BJP article, there's no way to use the sort function to rank by tenure lengths. There's also no mention of total length of tenures.  Done
  • You don't need to use ref [4] in the lead. It is backed up by the table.  Done
  • That map is extremely strange. It goes from lighter to darker shade of the same colour--giving the impression that a darker state has had more CMs than a lighter one. For eg.
  • IMO don't make any special indication for "regional party supported by the BJP". This article is about BJP's CMs, not BJP govts. Plus it's never really clear who is supporting who in Indian politics, so you'd need a source to back these claims.
  • On the whole: reconsider the purpose of the map. As a national party, obviously it will have a presence in nearly the whole country. Maybe just listing the four incumbent states is enough? Or maybe colour-code the states by no of CMs?
See below
I have opened a thread here about the source. I will fix all other issues once it gets clear whether the source is reliable or not. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is complete in itself with reliable sources. This article should be in Featured list.--Prateek MalviyaTalk 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
Comments
  • Any reasons for not including the No. column?
The CMs are initially sorted by their states. The No. column would had been appropriate if sorting would had been on the basis of name or something which is unique to each one.
  • Rowscopes can be for "Name" column rather than the "State" column, as the former is more significant in this list.
I have added "rowspan" to the "State" column and thus it automatically has row scope. I can add rowscope to Name column if you don't have any problems with two rowscopes.
Since this list is about the list of chief ministers, I thought the "chief minister" column is the most important. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Is "worldstatesmen.org" as RS? same for "jagranjosh.com"
Editors' views are not uniform when it comes to "worldstatesmen.org". I got only one response at WP:RSN regarding this, which suggested that this source can be used in this list. There is no alternative for this source. As for jagranjosh.com, it is a sister site of a well-known Hindi newspaper, and I am cent percent sure about its reliability.
Could you name the newspaper? —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dainik Jagran
  • Check whether all the images are free from cop-vio.
 Done However I am not sure in the case of File:Dhumal HP.jpg and File:DV Sadananda Gowda.jpg.
  • Remove the second template as it doesn't link to the list.  Done

—Vensatry (Ping me) 17:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Vensatry's comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Ensure publication/access dates are consistently formatted.  Done
  • Wouldn't a more suitable See also be "List of chief ministers from India National Congress" rather than the rather vague ones you currently have?  Done
  • Shouldn't the title of this list be "... from _the_ Bharatiya..."?  Done
  • "Serving since October 2001 (for 12 years, 51 days), Modi is the longest-serving" repetitive use of "serving".  Done
  • "Given he has ... he/she..." consistency required.  Done
  • I would put the key at the top of the table rather than wait for readers to scroll to the bottom of the table before discovering what the colour and asterisk relate to.  Done
  • "for the least time-period" this isn't grammatically correct English. "shortest period" would be better.  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of Cricket World Cup centuries

edit
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've modeled this list based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Comments from Harrias talk
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

Zia Khan 22:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments –

It has only 45 entries and the table we are dealing with is almost thrice the length. When we navigate through the list the top header goes out of picture on the screen. Sure 8-10 headers may be helpful for table with 1000 entries. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add a little further, I've already said this was based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket, an existing FL which uses three headers for 96 entries. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many things have changed since that FL. Anyways, I'll wait for a third persons opinion. Zia Khan 20:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many things? what exactly do you mean. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for Harrias as well. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment on this issue by the nominator. If I'm reading this correctly, the question concerns the extra header at the bottom of the list. I've seen much longer lists without an extra heading, but have also seen shorter lists with one. I probably wouldn't put an extra heading there myself, but it's not something that stood out to me when I reviewed it. There aren't any guidelines, as has already been said, so I'm comfortable following the nominator's style. Others are free to disagree, of course. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Çomments
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 Hahc21 10:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

List of Welsh Premier League clubs

edit
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely modelled on existing FL List of former Football League clubs (except that it in this case it features every club to have played in the league), I feel this meets all the requirements.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Bold links like the one in the intro are discouraged by the MoS. I suggest simply dropping the bolding.
  • Redundant "league"s exist in "Since the league's formation, 38 clubs have competed in the league."
  • First two words of the List of clubs section heading are unneeded and could safely be dropped.
  • The Times champions column is currently sorting by fewest championships won, not most. Some sort templates would probably fix this. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All sorted now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 10:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

Zia Khan 22:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
  • The New Saints should sort under "New" rather than "The", meaning it should slot between Neath and Newton. Use the {{sort}} template to keep it in place ({{sort|New Saints, The|[[The New Saints]]}})
    Mostly an aesthetic change—and an entirely optional one—but you'd save a lot of scrolling/white space if the reflist was set to two or three columns rather than one.
    I'm not sure you need "WPL" in the column headings; shorter headings tend to look better and between the article title and the overall table header there's certainly no ambiguity there.
    You may want to consider alt text for the lead image.
    Might just be me but I feel the lead is very comma-heavy, as you seem to be using commas for parenthetical statements quite often. For example, "Although it is the highest level of the Welsh football league system, the Welsh Premier League has never included the country's professional clubs, Cardiff City, Swansea City, Wrexham and Newport County, all of whom play within the English league system" might be better off using dashes or brackets between "clubs" and "Cardiff" and "County" and "all" to create that aside.
    Seems fine to me otherwise. GRAPPLE X 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/December_2013&oldid=588459646"