Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Foot in Mouth Award/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 17:12, 9 October 2012 [1].

Foot in Mouth Award edit

Foot in Mouth Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An odd little list that I came across. I have improved it significantly, and think that while it is more than a bit quirky, it meets the FL standards. As always, all comments, questions and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 16:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Awarded for quote in the infobox is missing a quotation mark at the end.
  • Don't think you need to link Welsh.
  • I would hope for more independent sources, a quick Google of "foot in mouth award" shows you could source Mandelson, Rumsfeld awards to BBC, McClaren to the Daily Telegraph etc. Would be better than relying on the primary source.
  • Thanks. To be honest, I just ran out of time when I was adding them before, and then forgot. Should have all of those that have secondary sources available now. Harrias talk 15:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. When I'm doing lists like this, I'll usually try to avoid the primary source altogether if I can pull in some BBC, Telegraph, Guardian refs etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs some consistency with the way closing quote marks and full stops are placed. Some full stops are inside the quote marks, some outside... Is there a method in the madness?
  • There is in fact! (Or there should be.) Where the quote has a full-stop or comma inside it in the source, the same is done here, and where there is no full-stop or comma in the source, it is outside. This is how I had previously interpreted MOS:LQ, but reading it again, I think it allows me to place them inside or out to maintain a consistent appearance: how do you intrepret it? Harrias talk 11:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right, but thought it worth asking the question. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I hope you leave here and walk out and say, ‘what did he say?" is missing a ‘.
  • the for in Have I Got News for You isn't capitalised in our article.
  • No need for special mention table to be sortable.
  • No, although if it isn't sortable, the column widths are different to the table above, which looks rubbish. I haven't managed to fix it using fixed column widths either. Any thoughts? Harrias talk 11:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 needs publisher and/or work.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for your thoughts. I've fixed most of them, and responded to a couple of the others. Harrias talk 11:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table should be in chronological order.
  • Given that they are in chronological order, I assume you mean in the opposite order, ie oldest first? Harrias talk 11:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do indeed, I mean chronological order as opposed to reverse-chronological order. I must find the guideline that says that these things should be ordered that way.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I've left the "Special mention" table at the bottom, as it seems more appropriate down there due to it not being a "full win" as it were. However, it does mean it looks a little out of place chronologically. Any thoughts on where it is best suited? Harrias talk 15:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be just as well to include it in the main table but to make it clear in the notes that it was a special mention? Should neaten things up a bit? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Don't have references in infoboxes, as that is already in the prose.
  • "England cricket team" how about "British" instead
  • Because it is the England cricket team, not the British cricket team. Harrias talk 10:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The award has been made 17 times" it was actually awarded that many times, perhaps copy-edit that sentence
  • Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK. To do this, add plainrowheaders to the table's coding
  • Just a suggestion, but perhaps align references to the center in the tables
  • Images need to have alt text per WP:ALT, especially considering that there is no image caption
  • "Golden Bull Award" can that be removed? I don't see how it is revlaunt to that.
  • It can be removed, but it is relevant because it is another similar awarded given out by the Plain English Campaign, so I believe it is very relevant. Harrias talk 10:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use double quotes in references, per WP:MOS, to avoid doubling
  • Telegraph Media Group link that
  • BBC News is a "work", not a "publisher"
  • Remove the location parameter from references, as it is not needed and not used only basically every article, this will fix other concerns that would have been brought up
  • WP:CITE suggests that for Newspaper sources the "city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper" is "typically included". Unless you have a specific reason against it being used, I will continue to include it, as I do in all of my articles. Harrias talk 10:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 03:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support TBrandley 14:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No obvious problems now, the most entertaining list I've seen for a long while Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A very nice little list. Agree with Jim on the entertainment value - we need more lists like this! Dana boomer (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support– Meets the standards. Zia Khan 16:27, 9 October 2012 (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/Foot_in_Mouth_Award/archive1&oldid=1138480100"