Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Featured list candidates)
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Ones who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates—Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and PresN—determine the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{ArticleHistory}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects


Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics are discouraged (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}), as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated more than 20 days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:



List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Tour de France finished two days ago. This is a list that shows all the teams and the riders who participated. All the riders are shown first, including their placing in the general classification, and are then grouped by team and summarised by nation below.

This is my first attempt at preparing and nominating a featured list – I've never come near this page before. I've mostly followed another FL (List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia) as a guide, but it's fairly old so I don't know how much it reflects modern practice. Your advice and criticism is very much appreciated. Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Gone Girl (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gone Girl is a psychological thriller based on the eponymous novel by Gillian Flynn. The film was directed by David Fincher and received many accolades especially for the performance of lead actress Rosamund Pike. As usual, look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Littlecarmen

  • his wife Amy played by Rosamund Pike Add a comma after "Amy".
  • Neil Patrick Harris, and Tyler Perry Remove the comma.
  • The score was composed by Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross. Remove the comma.
  • Gone Girl premiered at the New York Film Festival on September 26, 2014,[2] before 20th Century Fox later gave the film a wide release at over 3,000 theaters in the United States, and Canada on October 3. Remove "later" and the comma after "United States".
  • Pike won the Empire Award for Best Actress, and Breakthrough Performance Award from the Palm Springs International Film Festival, and was also nominated at the Screen Actors Guild, and British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAs). Could you split this up into two sentences or phrase it better? You say "and" three times in just one sentence.
  • Flynn was also nominated at the BAFTAs as well as the Writers Guild of America Awards. Add a comma before "as well as".
  • The National Board of Review included Gone Girl in its list of top ten films of the year. Add "their" before "top ten films of the year".
  • African-American Film Critics Association should come before American Cinema Editors in the infobox. Same in the table.

Otherwise, this is a great list! Littlecarmen (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Littlecarmen: Thanks for the review! I think I've sorted the above points. Cowlibob (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 11:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a list on awards and nominations received by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, known for his roles, such as What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993), Titanic (1997), The Aviator (2004), Blood Diamond (2006), Inception (2010), and The Wolf of Wall Street (2013). I feel that the list meets the FL criteria with the inclusion of the said material. I will address any comments or concerns to the best of my ability. Thank you! -- Frankie talk 11:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry Frankie, you don't get to vote on your own noms with FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's fine for TFAR and FPs, but not FAs or FLs. I've no idea why it is for some processes and not others, but there you are! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support sorry to leave a !vote without any comments, but I fail to find any improvements needed. A good list nominated by an experienced editor with multiple FL's under their belt. Nice job. Azealia911 talk 13:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much. :) -- Frankie talk 14:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the review and support. -- Frankie talk 16:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wolfmother discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Shaidar cuebiyar & Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as it was previously nominated in September 2008 (FLC #1) however not all issues were addressed it was subsquently renominated later that month (FLC #2) but failed as some additional issues were not addressed. Shaidar cuebiyar and I have since gone through and made extensive revisions & updates to address all previous outstanding issues and bring it up to FL standards. We have also had a review undertaken by the Guild of Copy Editors. We believe that the article now satisifies all the FL criteria and should be re-considered for promotion. Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Littlecarmen

  • Include the music videos they've released in the second sentence.
  • the band signed with Modular Recordings and in September 2004 released an extended play (EP) Add commas before and after "in September 2004". You can just say EP since you clarified what that is in the first sentence.Yes check.svg Done
  • Whenever you say "In [month year]", add a comma after. Yes check.svg Done
  • , which reached number eight On what chart? Yes check.svg Done
  • five times platinum This doesn't sound right. Maybe change it to "quintuple"?
  • The band's second album, Cosmic Egg, was released in October 2009. -> "October of that year" Yes check.svg Done
  • , released before the album, Unnecessary Yes check.svg Done
  • the track "Back Round" was only included on the deluxe editions. This isn't important. Yes check.svg Done
  • The album also peaked at No. 3[3] it received a platinum accreditation from ARIA. You're missing an and. You can also remove the "it". Yes check.svg Done
  • , an iTunes-exclusive live EP,[19] featuring songs recorded at a free show the band performed at a Sydney Apple Store the previous month. Cut this down, it's not that important.
  • Trim the last paragraph. Most of it isn't important for their discography and remove the last sentence completely. Yes check.svg Done
  • Add the country the release dates are for.
  • DL -> Digital download Yes check.svg Done
  • Extend the columns so all titles fit in one line and keep all title columns the same width, if possible.
  • Remove the references column in the "other appearances" section and just add the references in the album column.Yes check.svg Done
  • Reformat the directors column in the music video section. It looks messy this way. Either keep it all in one line or give each director their own line.Yes check.svg Done
  • iTunes -> iTunes Store. You also don't need to have iTunes installed to view the website.Yes check.svg Done
  • Only link publications the first time you use them. You do this correctly sometimes, but not always.
  • IMDb is not a reliable source.Yes check.svg Done
  • Sometimes you mention a publication's publisher, sometimes not. Be consistent.
  • The Wolfmother category should be last.Yes check.svg Done Littlecarmen (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

With my comments addressed, I can Support this. I'd appreciate any comments you could give at my FLC. Azealia911 talk 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

78th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2006 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Please note that the Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash "so-called" controversy will not be addressed due to concerns regarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and objectivity concerns. This list/article is primarily focused on the ceremony itself, what actually happened in that event, and analysis pertaining to the ceremony in the form of critical reviews. Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian biographical sports drama film Mary Kom starring Priyanka Chopra as the eponymous boxer. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Azealia Banks discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This article details the musical releases of controversial American rapper Azealia Banks. Nominated once before, the sole reason it didn't pass was a lack of involvement, hopefully that won't be the case, and this time we can reach a clear consensus. Article has been worked on by myself and various others since the past nomination, and I feel it's even better than the previous occasion. Any and all comments appreciated, thanks. Azealia911 talk 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou! Much appreciated :) Azealia911 talk 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I also currently have a list nominated for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look :) Littlecarmen (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment on referencing: Do you have anything stating that these were all released as singles? That a song charted is not enough; charts do not always differentiate between singles and promotional singles like the discography here does. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 Is the fact that all of them have independent articles not enough? I understand your point completely, and have even used it myself when giving comments, but usually in FL discographies, the only listings that need references are the ones without independent articles, as seen in the "As featured artist" section. Azealia911 talk 00:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If you're relying on the existing articles, that is fundamentally the same as citing Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is about as reliable a source as a blog by Joe Blow in Kalamazoo. (In policy/guideline-based terms, relying on Wikipedia as a source is a violation of WP:CIRCULAR) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 No no no, certainly was not relying on citing the 'pedia. Independent articles just usually contain a release history section, I'm more than happy to cite the singles, it's just rarely done, on literally all the featured discographies I can think of, singles with independent article aren't cited. Azealia911 talk 01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You said that "Is the fact that all of them have independent articles not enough?", which suggests that you (and most previous discog writers) have depended on those articles having citations, rather than citing the single release in the list here. It's not the exact same as citing Wikipedia, but it does depend on the information in the single articles being cited. I recognize that most discographies haven't had references for the single/EP/LP/etc. designation of a release, but that's something we need to start changing. We shouldn't be relying on other articles to reference any information in our lists, even non-controversial stuff. I'll definitely be bringing up the issue with subsequent discogs I see. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree, my bad for depending on those articles, without even knowing so. I'd definitely agree with you on stricter rules for FL discography referencing. Have added citations to all singles. Azealia911 talk 01:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pretty good work. My only question is this: are worldwide sales are available for her album? Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS Unfortunately not. WW sales are usually included in "Worlwide best sellers" year-end lists, and as you can probably tell, 30K in the first week of November won't really place her on those lists. Azealia911 talk 18:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll support, but you really should include such figures if they come along. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll be sure to as soon as anything's published, thankyou for the support. Azealia911 talk 18:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • "In November 2008, when she was seventeen" → "At age seventeen, in November 2008".
  • "A year later, she released her debut music video" → "The following year, she.."
  • "In September 2011, she self-released her" – we don't start a paragraph with a pronoun.
  • Both, the second and third para start with "In [month] [year]" – rephrase one.
  • "In November of that year, her debut studio album, Broke with Expensive Taste, was released" – all of the commas after "studio album" are redundant.
  • "The album itself received positive feedback from critics and peaked at number 30 on the US Billboard 200" – shift this sentence to the above sentence I have mentioned. Also, Billboard 200 needs to be linked.
  • References that are already covered in the main body of the article, shouldn't be repeated in the lead section unless the purpose of the source is to verify something else which isn't in the main body – per WP:LEAD. For example ref 19 shouldn't be in the lead as it's already there in the Albums section.
  • The WP:ALT of the image is not something it should be – see this, especially the Queen Elisabeth II one.
  • Wiki-link labels in the "Extended plays" table.
  • I don't understand what is "Hung Medien" doing in ref 5.
  • Access date needed for ref 6.2 (the second bulleted one).
  • Link Billboard in ref 12 and de-link in ref 19 and 31. Also, it has to be in italics in ref# 31.
  • Publishers for ref 23 and 24 should read (and linked only in no 23) ARIA Charts.
  • Take Intent Media away from ref 30 as you haven't mentioned the owners of references, so it will be inconsistent to mention just a particular one. Likewise for others (e.g. Prometheus Global Media in ref 42) where applicable.
  • Unlink Ultratop in ref# 49 as it is already linked in ref 40.
  • Access date needed for ref 54. Likewise for ref 57 and 58.
  • Wiki-link Digital Spy in reference no# 55.
  • Is ref 58 a reliable one? The same for Pretty Much Amazing.
Both seem like reliable, professional sources to me, there's also no red flags after a search at WP:RSN. Azealia911 talk
  • Wiki-link AllMusic in ref 72 and the same for Idolator in ref 82.
  • What makes VideoStatic a high quality source? -- Frankie talk 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What makes it not? Azealia911 talk
Have never seen it in an FL/FA/GA. Anyways, you can use this source. Surely this is a better one. -- Frankie talk 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, replaced. Azealia911 talk

Addressed all other comments. Azealia911 talk 13:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Make sure there is access date in every reference e.g. one missing from ref 3, 7, 27, 43, 49, 50, 51.
Checked and added, all occurrences of a lack of accessdate featured an archivedate parameter, I think an editor thought one could substitute for the other. Azealia911 talk
  • Also, make sure to avoid overlinking issues in references and they are properly linked on first instances and not afterwards. For example iTunes Store needs to be linked in ref 27 and de-linked in ref 43. -- Frankie talk 14:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Checked and corrected, all should be ok now. Azealia911 talk
  • A last one – there are dash violation in references – see MOS:DASH. -- Frankie talk 16:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed 'em. Azealia911 talk 16:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. However, I can still see dash violation in in ref 13, 38, 56, 67, 78, 87. Also, take away the owners of references (wherever they are) e.g. Hung Medien from Ultratop sources and remove ARIA Charts from sources by Pandora Archive. Also, make sure the links are working. -- Frankie talk 17:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed dashes, removed owners, only one link isn't accesable, which requires subscription to view UK sales, swapped another dead link. How's it looking now? Azealia911 talk 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • Lead section: "she released her debut music video, a visual for a song titled "L8R"", I think you could edit "a visual", it is redundant.
Done Azealia911 talk
  • Maybe you could include something about her featured performances with Britney and Beyonce. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
They aren't actually official features, merely Banks' remixes, one of which was even taken down for copyright. Maybe it'd make sense for me to do the opposite and remove the two womens' names from "other releases" the table? Azealia911 talk 20:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments

None of the directors are sourced/referenced. Some are in the references to the video releases but most aren't. Dan arndt (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Dan arndt...umm...did you actually check the references? Every single director is mentioned in the reference for the listing... Azealia911 talk 23:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
My bad, shouldn't try and get things done so early in the morning. I would suggest that in addition to the production company (i.e. Were Were Monkeys) you try and include the actual directors as well (i.e. Mihai Wilson & Marcella Moser) or Rankin should be John Rankin Waddell. If you can try and find who the actual directors at BBGun Films were that would be a bonus. I also managed to track down Fafi's real name for you, it's Fabienne Fafi. I hope that helps. Dan arndt (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
For single directors like Rankin and Fafi, I think I'll stick with their stage name, they seem to use them for a reason, plus suggesting to change any vocalists stage names to their real names would be somewhat odd, so I'll paint everyone with the same brush. As for companies, I've added WWM's, however it was hard enough to track down the company that directed "L8R", finding the exact directors for a five year old low-budget video, all in a reliable source? After looking for the best part of an hour, I've got zilch. Thankyou for going the extra mile though, I really appreciate it! Azealia911 talk 02:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough - that's a personal choice. I would however change 'Rob Soucy & Nick Ace' to 'Rob Soucy, Nick Ace', as they are two separate individuals not a company (and I also hate the use of '&' when and is more appropraite).Dan arndt (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Separated the two. Azealia911 talk 02:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That's great. I also have a query about the grammar in "It was further promoted by the single "Liquorice"." - how was the EP further promoted by the release of the single? Also if you could add ref [28] to the end of the sentence "As of November 2014, the EP has sold 35,000 copies in the United States." would also help. Dan arndt (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Singles promote projects, like how the video for the single features links to the EP in the footnotes "iTunes: (" when the video could've just linked to the single, as opposed to the full originating EP. I'd be happy to change if you want to suggest something though. As for the ref, WP:LEAD states that refs don't have to be repeated, but considering it's a challenge-able statistic, I can add it if you really want. Azealia911 talk 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that singles are supposed to promote album sales but is there anything that specifically links the sales of the EP to the release of the single. I'm probably being pedantic & it may not be worth worrying about.
I think given it is a challengeable statistic its worth playing safe.
I would also suggest that the link BEL (FL) Urb. be replaced with BEL (FL) Urb. - gives a more exact location in the article. If there are any others where you can pinpoint the exact topic it would assist. Dan arndt (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Inserted sales ref, Ultratip doesn't relate to Ultratop, it'd be like doing the following [[Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles|US<br>Rap]], linked it to a more specific place in the article though. Azealia911 talk 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything else, so I'm prepared to Support this nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List of French Open men's singles champions[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after a lot of cleaning up I believe the list is now close to meeting featured standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey[edit]

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have been working on this list of songs recorded by American chamber and art pop singer-songwriter Lana Del Rey for about one and a half years trying to get it to the highest quality possible and I would like to see it achieve featured list status. I would appreciate any comments. Greetings, Littlecarmen (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Littlecarmen, this is the most authoritative and comprehensive Lana Del Rey song recordings list out there, and I hereby support its passage to Featured List status. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good. -- Frankie talk 10:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – Another happy support after comments are addressed quickly and politely, always a pleasure :) Azealia911 talk 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Littlecarmen (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut[edit]

Nominator(s): Joseph2302 (talk) and Vensatry (ping) 19:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302 created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied up the table a bit. Look forward to comments and suggestions Vensatry (ping) 19:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Can now happily Support per all comments being addressed. Would appreciate any feedback at an FLC I opened, thanks. Azealia911 talk 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: Will review your nomination soon. Vensatry (ping) 10:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC), Hawkeye7 (talk), and Gecko G (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list is a well organized list and is suitably written. It passed an A-class list review earlier this month. Just a list of all the (notable) campaigns that the Army served in during World War II. All comments are welcome. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Shahid Kapoor filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My 10th nomination on the filmography of an Indian celebrity. This one is about Shahid Kapoor's film, television, and music video roles. As usual, look forward to constructive comments. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album[edit]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is well referenced and is modeled after several featured lists about the Grammy Awards, Latin Grammy Awards and Lo Nuestro Awards. I will be watching this nomination closely in order to follow your recommendations. Thanks in advance. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • Second sentence of second para is too long. Count the words (98).
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref. 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 28 should be changed from "Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company" to "Los Angeles Times (Tribune Company)" to maintain consistency.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Digital Spy does not need to be in italics in ref. 35.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Billboard Staff" is redundant as seen in ref. 43 and 44.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A QPQ? -- Frankie talk 20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – Like AB said, the list looks great. -- Frankie talk 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It has been a long time since I've promoted or even endorsed an FL, but I think this list looks really great and appears to be consistent with similar featured Grammy lists. Well done! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you AB, very proud of this, I am very glad that you liked it, I am a big fan of your work. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Great job as always! Erick (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you could just fix one more thing? On Ref 7, you listed it as a journal when it's a book. It also states that's in Spanish when the books is actually written in English. Erick (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! Good job! Erick (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


  • A five-paragraph lead is far too long for a list like this...
The lead has only four and I still think is short, there are 31 winners in the category. I think it is correct as is. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Table needs !scope="row" tags
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed (Thanks (Erick). Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the lead could probably be condensed to two sentences.
This category had a lot of changes, but I'll try to edit the paragraph.
  • That year recordings in this category were shifted to the newly formed Best Latin Pop, Rock or Urban Album violation of MOS:BOLDTITLE.
Ok, fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Puerto Rican American singer hyphen after "Puerto"
Erick asked me to remove it, which suggestion should I take into consideration? Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Erick's right, our article Puerto Rican American doesn't hyphenate. Seattle (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Use of color in the table should be restricted to one cell per MOS:COLOR. Seattle (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will fix it. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Seattle: I know this isn't my nomination, but I've never seen a hyphen between "Puerto" and "Rican" anywhere in the English language. Not even the article uses them. Could you point out where a hyphen must be included between those two words? Erick (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

With all my comments resolved, I can happily Support. Would also appreciate any feedback on my current FLC, cheers. Azealia911 talk 13:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)[edit]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1930–1934. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Its 1st Plenary Session can you link "Plenary Session" somewhere?
    • Its linked in the "Plenums" sections. --TIAYN (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done has been marked in historic literature what historic literature specifically? You need a few citations to support this generalization.
    • Wrote at the end "according to Khlevniuk"
  • Yes check.svg Done Upon Molotov's appointment as SNK what's SNK? You don't abbreviate anywhere before.
  • Yes check.svg Done Can you provide a description of File:КПСС.svg on its file page and on the article, as a caption perhaps?
  • Yes check.svg Done "Apparatus" sort ascending doesn't work; goes from 1932 to 22 July 1930, for instance. Same with "Left office"
  • Yes check.svg Done The "*" and "$" in the table key seem more like footnotes than table functions.
  • Sorry, I meant that these should be converted to notes rather than table symbols, because they only have one individualized application over the tables. Seattle (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Konstantin Gey was born into a Estonian family a → an. Seattle (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Seattle: Thanks for reviewing the article! :) --TIAYN (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Seattle: Help me here; where is the template that says copyright expired after 70 years? --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In addition, several of the photos have been released into the public domain by the Russian Government (as owners of the works); if the owner releases it into public domain a US-PD tag is not warranted, is it? --TIAYN (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series[edit]

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) and Adamstom.97 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This list meets all of the criteria, is similar to its "sister" article List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (which is a featured list), and is a worthy candidate to add to the ever expanding good and featured articles under the Marvel Cinematic Universe banner. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Graeme Swann[edit]

Nominator(s): Sahara4u, Harrias talk 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Swann is England's best spin bowler of the modern era. Were it not for his childish antics when he was originally called up by England that meant he was dropped and ignored by the coach at the time, he may have set a number of records. As it was, he managed a fair bit in his somewhat shortened career until a combination of injuries and Australians forced his retirement. Following the style set by plenty of similar lists before, this list summarises his five-wicket hauls. The list was initially created by Sahara4u, and I recently went through and tidied up the prose and the table to bring it up to what I hope are FL standards. As usual, all comments, improvements and thoughts are welcome! Harrias talk 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • "17 in Tests and one in ODIs" – see WP:NUMNOTES.
    Done. Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The English cricket journalist Scyld Berry" – I don't know if "the" is needed.
    It very much is in British English (and to be honest, any "professional standard" of English). Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh yes. I didn't notice that the subject is British. My bad! -- Frankie talk 20:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "He did not claim any five-wicket haults in T20I cricket; his best bowling figures in the format were three wickets for 13 runs" – again, see NUMNOTES.
    In this case I disagree. The number of wickets and runs are not comparable quantities really. I'm not against changing if you really insist, but I don't think the MOS requires it. Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NOSTRIKE says "do not use unpronounceable symbols". I am not sure if asterisks are one of them; it does not look appealing to me. Instead, you could use a hashtag or something.
    Changed it to Section-sign ({{Section-sign}}). Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 3: ESPNcricinfo and ESPN should be de-linked and instead, they could be linked to ref. 1 as you have linked on first occurrences.
    Done. Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty nice list. -- Frankie talk 10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – See above. -- Frankie talk 11:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Great work! NapHit (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370[edit]

Nominator(s): AHeneen (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has received a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors. The issues raised in the previous nomination were addressed.

Although the search is ongoing, there has not been a lot of events associated with the search in recent months. Since November 2014, there has only been about 1-2 events per month (and a few of the events listed aren't very significant). Most of the events occurred between March-May 2014 and the start of the current phase in October 2014. I believe the list meets the stability criteria because it "does not change significantly from day to day". AHeneen (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Attorneys General of West Virginia[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive listing of Attorneys General of West Virginia, with an adequate introduction that provides history and context to the state office. I welcome your comments and suggestions so that I can further improve upon this list so that it meets Featured List status criteria. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – Wasn't able to spot any other issue. -- Frankie talk 23:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • FrB.TG, thank you for your support, and for showing me the ropes. I don't often nominate lists for FL, so I appreciate your guidance and will heed your advice for next time. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I also just nominated a list for featured list status myself. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look :) Littlecarmen (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and support Littlecarmen! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Fashion (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2008 Indian drama film Fashion starring Priyanka Chopra. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala[edit]

I am listing the issues i have encountered after a thorough read and am expecting the nominator to rectify the following issues or give a valid explanation within a reasonable period of time.

  • The film features Priyanka Chopra as Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model and her transformation from small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry — consider rephrasing it as The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model played by Priyanka Chopra from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry. And, i don't think so it stops there. Rise, fall and rise. Isn't it?
Tweaked it a bit.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Music director has been credited. What about the rest of the relevant technical team like the director of photography, editor and lyricist(s)?
  • positive reception — from whom? if critics, please change it to critical acclaim.
  • ...collected ₹600 million (US$9.4 million) — Is that gross figure? If yes, please changed it to "grossed" as Nett and Share are collected in general.
Done.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • was noted for being commercially successful despite being a women-centric film with no male lead — I think, no male-lead is not that necessary. The statement can be rewritten as was noted as one of the commercially successful women-centric films in India IMHO.
Well, a similar line is use in Chopra's page and her filmography. Also, it was the first box-office hit featuring a female lead in a long time. So there should not be any problem.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Added ALT and replaced those dead links, I have archived all the sources and will add when I have time.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a part of The Times of India.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why the ones "Golden Trident Awards", "Cine Blitz Awards" and "Lions Gold Awards" are given priority over National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards, Screen Awards etc.? Those three don't even have articles here and since the chronological order is not followed, i suggest the nominator to place the ones with articles existing on the top and the other ones down, though the list is sortable.

I hereby request the nominator to ping me after all the issues have been addressed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Done. Thanks for the comments.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Where done? The last adjustment hasn't been made yet. And, i hope you shall archive all the references soon. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
All the awards were placed alphabetically and Yes i will add them ASAP.—Prashant 16:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • "The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur played by Chopra, an aspiring fashion model from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry." — Can be rephrased as "The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model played by Chopra, from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry."

That's about it from me. Really good work on the article, Prashant. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Done. Thanks.—Prashant 11:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

SupportSsven2 Speak 2 me 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: No major issues found from my perspective.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive history and list of the tallest high-rise buildings in Brooklyn. The introduction is a bit shorter than that of the list for New York City, but this can be forgiven as this merely deals with the sole borough of Brooklyn. Any comments, guidance, and assistance to make this a Featured List is appreciated and welcomed! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Note to reviewers (because it was the first question I had when I saw this nomination): You'd think that this list would be a subset of List of tallest buildings in New York City and thus a content fork, but as that list only has buildings higher than 600 feet, and the tallest building in Brooklyn is 590 feet, there is 0% overlap. --PresN 03:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments Looks like a good list. Here are my few suggestions:

  • I would remove "proposed" buildings, as this is a list of tallest buildings, not potential tallest buildings that might be built (running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL).
  • The second last paragraph is a bit hard to follow, maybe you could make clear the present ranking of the building in terms of height to help the reader keep track? Otherwise the last sentence "The borough's fourth-tallest" comes out of nowhere (why 4th, what about the other 3?).
  • Mattximus, I've clarified that The Brooklyner and the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower are the second and third-tallest buildings in the borough per your suggestion. Please let me know if this current configuration works! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A thumbnail image of 388 Bridge Street would look good to the right of the lead, as it is the tallest building in Brooklyn.
  • Mattximus, I concur with this idea, however, a decent free image of 388 Bridge Street is not yet available on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not in New York at the moment to take a photo. I'm currently working on acquiring one as we speak, but this change may not happen within the timeline of this review. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "This list ranks completed and topped out Brooklyn skyscrapers" is an old way of writing that is no longer considered good form for featured lists. It could be changed to "There are 32 completed or topped out skyscrapers in Brooklyn..."
  • Mattximus, this has been changed per your suggestion. Let me know if it works in its new form. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." could be deleted and your column could be changed to "year completed".
  • City Point Tower II is indicated to be under construction, but is not in the under construction table. This should be made clear.
  • Mattximus, thank you for the catch! I've entered City Point Tower II in the under construction section, as it is still under construction. It was also remain in the main list, since it has been topped out. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For this one, I don't think it's necessary to have it in both tables. I would just keep it where it was in the big table and just have a footnote stating "topped out but still under construction" or something like that. Will continue my review later, but it overall looks good.
  • Mattximus, it is commonplace in other Featured Lists of tall buildings to twice-mention a building that is under construction and topped out: once in the list of completed buildings so that the reader can see the building has successfully reached its planned height, and once in the under construction list since the building is still technically eligible for listing there due to its incomplete status. Again, I am flexible with this and if need be, could include a footnote instead. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I still think having it once in the main list is fine, however I won't oppose the nomination on this little point. Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings" I think this is redundant and not needed.
  • Please do not remove equal sign, they are very important! You just don't need to say equal signs mean equal in the paragraph, it's tautological.
  • "An asterisk (*) indicates that the building is still under construction, but has been topped out." This could be done as a footnote as is done in many tables.
  • Mattximus, I've added a footnote and have included this statement under an "Explanatory notes" subsection. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very good article. Mattximus (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Made a few changes myself, let me know if they are acceptable.
Close to support but a few little points:
  • You mention that there are 32 buildings over 300 feet, but I count 29? You will need a citation for that number, but one of the pages already cited probably has that number in it, just need to add the citation where I put the tags.

Support if these little changes are made. Great work! Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Mattximus, I've recounted and there are 32 buildings. That two pairs of buildings that are the same height, and are therefore, tied. I had removed the equal signs per your request. I've added an inline citation to the Emporis website that lists all the completed buildings. I've also taken City Point Tower II out of the under construction list per your request. It is now listed in the main list only, with an asterisk illustrating that it has been topped out. Thank you for all your guidance and support throughout this process, and please let me know if you have any further suggestions to improve the overall quality of this list! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, just one thing, please return the equal signs as per my explanation above. I guess you counted buildings that are 297 feet as being "over 300", that's where my number discrepancy came from. But it's close enough so I won't quibble over that one. Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Mattximus, I sincerely apologize for my oversight, the list covers buildings at a height of or over 295 feet (90 m). 90 meters was the benchmark here, to be more inclusive since some buildings hover just under 300 ft. I've re-added the equal signs. Take another look and let me know what you think! Also, thank you for your edits and additions, they are greatly appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks very good. Just caught a little one: "This measurement includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts", the citation doesn't include this information, can it be found somewhere on that site (specifically, where did you get this definition for height)? Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Mattximus, the specific height for each building was pulled from the individual pages. The heights used here use the architectural heights, and not the heights of antenna masts, but this information can only be gleaned from the individual pages. Any suggestions as how to best illustrate this point? -- West Virginian (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This kind of refutes one of Mattximus's points above, but the articles "List of tallest buildings in New York City" and "List of tallest buildings in Bellevue, Washington", both featured lists, does indeed have a "Tallest proposed buildings" section. Provided that these buildings are definitely in the final planning stages and not just one developer's vision for a supertall skyscraper (which would then be violating this policy), a table of proposed builginds can be added to the article.

Also, a consistent reference format is needed; you should use either almost all {{sfn}} (or a variant like {{harvnb}}) or almost all expanded citations like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. Epic Genius (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Epic Genius, per your point, I have reinstated the list of proposed buildings. None of the buildings mentioned are considered visions, and all are slated to begin construction within the next two years. If any of the buildings should become stale proposals, or be cancelled, they will of course be removed. Regarding the sources, it is a common practice to use harvnb format for sources from published books with multiple pages referenced, and to use cite web and cite newspaper for websites and newspaper articles without page numbers. I admit that it does look a bit strange with the two being used side by side. I could repeat the cite book each time with the new page number, but it could become quite cluttered in the citations section. Cogitate on that and let me know what you think. Thank you for your comments and suggestions and for your guidance on the list provided thus far! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with this statement from Epic Genius. A while back I went through many of the featured tallest buildings list, and in nearly every case the "proposed buildings" were almost all never built, with old links from many years ago proclaiming how great this building is going to be. Based on these experiences, I don't believe any of these lists should have speculative proposed buildings. It is not encyclopedic to report on non-buildings. No other (largest/longest lists etc.) have speculative potential entries in their lists. I've tried to remove them from all previous featured lists and met with no resistance (since almost all those proposed buildings were cancelled many years ago when these articles were promoted anyway). The only exception is if the building is actually under construction then we have at least a physical thing to put on this list. Speculative potential ones could end up in an architect's dusty cabinet even if "approved". Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Mattximus, I've removed the proposed list pending consensus on the subject. The list can stand alone without the list of proposed buildings. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is best, thanks for making the change, when the buildings are built then they can be added to the list without problem, there is no need to predict the future. Mattximus (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is fine as well. Epic Genius (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Epicgenius, did you have any further guidance or comments regarding my responses above? I wanted to ensure that I addressed all your concerns. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

List of UAB Blazers players in the NFL Draft[edit]

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A team that existed for less than 25 years is already taking a year-long break. UAB is one of several infant teams of college football, and is now the poster child for getting money out of college sports. During the program's short existence, it has produced twelve players who have been drafted into the NFL, and surprisingly, has two first-round picks. While only one player has had a long-lasting and successful career in the NFL, UAB still has done a better job producing players than several older schools. And I actually am neither a supporter or detractor of UAB. This was a spur-of-the-moment expansion by me, and most of the tedious, repetitive stat work on this list goes to User:Patriarca12. This will hopefully be followed by another list or two about UAB football. Thanks to everyone (anyone?) who reviews, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This list has twelve occupants... why can't you merge this to UAB Blazers football? Seattle (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fails 3b "In length and/or topic, it...does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." I see absolutely no reason why this cannot be incorporated into UAB Blazers football, which already contains a table with 7 of the 12 players that are in the candidate article. Besides that, the key section is unnecessary, the references are not complete and not properly formatted, and the fourth paragraph of the lead is unnecessary. AHeneen (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

List of York City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. It is the last of a three-part series including List of York City F.C. players (featured since October 2007) and List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) (featured since March 2015). I am working on reducing the number of red links, although I feel criterion 5a is met as it is. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Fantastic work, well done. NapHit (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – The one thing that jumped out at me was the Players with 25 or more appearances section, which is basically just a hatnote to other articles. Since links to the other pages are included in the templates at the bottom of the page, I'm not sure we need a blank section for them. If you feel that they are important enough to highlight, perhaps they should be at the top of the page. Otherwise, the list looked strong to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I placed the links to the other lists there as I thought readers would find them useful upon finishing reading the list. However, I wouldn't oppose them being moved to the top of the page if you feel it is more practical. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - no issues jump out at me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The format for these lists is well established now, the second part of the York City trilogy passed FLC quite recently, and this list follows that one pretty closely, so I expect to support. There are a couple of things...
    • The John Lowey image struck me as clearly a scan from somewhere, so I checked its description at Commons, was unconvinced, and have nominated it for deletion as likely copyright violation. The people at Commons might think it's OK, and they might take ages thinking anything at all, but I'd be tempted to remove it pending a decision.
    • Would "all players who have played between 1 and 24 first-team matches" be a more precise wording than "played in fewer than 25"? or does saying "played in" clearly exclude unused substitutes? Naming the article List of York City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) would clarify, but that's outside the scope of this FLC.
      • Reworded as suggested, and article retitled as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This one stems from the standard wording "The club's first team have competed in numerous nationally organised competitions" which was removed at the 25–99 apps FLC to cater for the Midland League years. For clubs without time spent in a regional league, or where the players list doesn't cover such time, that wording avoids having to include things like appearances in county senior cups, which certainly in the early years of my club were very much first-team competitions but for which the line-ups aren't recorded. Did YCFC play first-team matches in any regional cups? and if so, should they be specifically mentioned and excluded, as the Gillingham lists do with supplementary matches? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The club has fielded a team in the North Riding Senior Cup since its inaugural season, but appearances in this competition are not regarded as first-team/competitive, and records have not been maintained for appearances in it. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2010 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2010 Pacific hurricane season featured the fewest number of named storms on record in the eastern portion of the basin. Despite its inactivity, two storms were particularly devastating in Central America and Mexico: Tropical Storm Agatha and Tropical Depression Eleven-E. This list covers the status changes (such as formation, dissipation, category upgrade/downgrade, etc.) of the season's 13 tropical cyclones based on the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center's post-storm reports. The format is based on previous featured hurricane timelines and this particular article should match FLC standards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • This timeline includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that data from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. - did this happen? Afiak, no new storms were added. Otherwise, I love the format, and with clarification, I'm happy to support. Definitely one of the better hurricane season timelines on Wikipedia. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed the generic line to mention the subtropical phase of Omeka, which wasn't warned on operationally. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

NWA World Middleweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ -US  01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it hits all the marks for featured lists including an engaging lead, it is encompassing the subject, it is fully sourced with reliable sources, well written, it adheres to the list format for professional wrestling championships and the subject matter is definitely Feature List worthy as a number of professional wrestling championship lists are Featured Lists, including 12 articles I have previous led through the FL process.  MPJ -US  01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Well nevermind, plans are made, plans change so I will be here and ready to review & improve this list. MPJ -Viva Esfinge  20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

List of amphibians of Bulgaria[edit]

Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I hope that a successful promotion would encourage other users to create or improve lists of amphibians (and other animals) by country. While the lists of mammals and birds generally cover most countries, the lists of amphibians and reptiles still cover only a limited number of countries. In my opinion it is surprising how little lists there are in that field despite the available information. Regards, Gligan (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • A few minor comments. I could not find the full citation for Biserkov 2007, and the introduction sentence "This is a complete list of the amphibians of Bulgaria" can be deleted, as it's no longer accepted form for featured lists (as it is rather redundant). Mattximus (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I have changed the introduction of the list. However, I don't understand what exactly is missing in order to have full citation for Biserkov 2007. I hope you can help me with that issue. Here is a link to the book of Biserkov in PDF, if that could be helpful. Best, --Gligan (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments by PresN

Alright, removing my delegate hat to review this list, as I'd like to see more lists like this as well. Comments:

  • Okay, the only amphibian FL we have appears to be List of amphibians of Michigan, which has very different formatting than this one. At first glance, I'm on team Bulgaria- looks better visually
  • That lead is short. It's barely a single paragraph- is there no other information from the article that could go up there? The Michigan list gives the idea of a map of Bulgaria, to start with. Maybe add a description of the regions of Bulgaria you discuss in the various species notes?
I have expanded the lead. I will also add some information about the levels of precipitation but this would be in Wednesdays, when I get home.
  • The background:Linen; is removing the up/down arrows from the column headers; replace them with background-color:Linen; and they pop right back up
  • You're missing row and column scopes; make the column headers scope="col" style="blah" to fix those, and make the first item of each row !scope="row"| ''Lissotriton vulgaris'' for the row scopes. Note that the row scopes change the formatting of the first column; to undo it add plainrowheaders as a class of the table (so class="sortable wikitable plainrowheaders") and make the row !scope="row" style="background:#ffffff"| ''Lissotriton vulgaris''.
Done. (hopefully I haven't messed up something)
  • All your status links are redirecting, but that seems to be a problem with the template, not your list
I have corrected the template.
  • The distribution texts all have punctuation but most are not complete sentences- either make them all complete sentences with a period at the end, or drop the periods and make them all half-statements
  • Poor southern crested newt doesn't have an image- I assume you've looked for one?
Indeed, I have looked for an image but unfortunately there is none in Commons.
  • I like the way you tell the reader how many species/genera there are in general, as well as in Bulgaria
  • And... that's it! A nice, short list that covers all the bases.

--PresN 01:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestions and the positive comments :) I will take note of the discussion here and will extrapolate the recommendations to the List of reptiles of Bulgaria, which I intend to nominate once the current process is over. Regards, Gligan (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I did a copyedit on the new additions. 2 last things- ref 3 (First record of Triturus macedonicus (Karaman, 1922) (Amphibia: Salamandridae) in Bulgaria) - shouldn't this be cite journal, not cite book? If so, it needs a journal listed; if it is a book, it needs a publisher. Cite 5 (Ecoregions of Bulgaria") is also missing a publisher. --PresN 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Best regards,--Gligan (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool, Support. --PresN 20:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of getting this list some more attention: consider reviewing some other lists at FLC to get people more inclined to review yours back, and maybe ask Mattximus if he's willing to do a full review. On that note- would you consider reviewing my World Fantasy Special Award—Professional down below? --PresN 12:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude, AssociateAffiliate

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. I have an open FLC for List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds, but that has two supports and no unresolved comments. All changes in response to user comments on that FLC have been incorporated into this article too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry (ping)

  • Burton upon Trent – Linked twice in lede
  • "List A cricket since 1963[2]" – Move the ref to the end of the sentence.
  • You say "The club was established on 4 November 1870 and has played" but in another sentence say "Derbyshire have played first class".
    • Sorted (hopefully) - in British English it is standard to use the singular when referring to the club as an off-the-field organisation, but plural when referring to the team of actual players on the field. Hope that makes sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification! Vensatry (ping) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the opening para must be sourced.
    • I would have thought it was self-evident from looking at the dates in the table...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • To be more precise, I was referring to the last two parts of it. Also, the "Notes" section is currently unsourced. Vensatry (ping) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I still don't follow. DO you refer to the bit that says "....Highfield in Leek, which in 2013 hosted the most recent Derbyshire home game not to be played in either Derby or Chesterfield."? Well, that can be deduced by looking at the dates in the table, I don't think it needs separate sourcing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Notes are now sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
            • "all of which are not actually located in Derbyshire, but in the adjoining county of Staffordshire." Vensatry (ping) 06:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Oh, sorry, opening paragraph - d'oh! For some reason I kept reading it as if you were talking about the whole lead. Ref added..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Why is Biddulph piped to Knypersley? Also, I cannot find Burton upon Trent in the source. Does it have a different name? Lastly, Leek links to the vegetable. Vensatry (ping) 07:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The map in the source shows Burton as being in Staffordshire, but just to be on the safe side I've put in another ref too. Knypersley is part of Biddulph and does not have a separate WP article. Leek link fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Debut first-class cricket since 1871 is repeated twice in lede.
  • The table needs row and column scopes.

Vensatry (ping) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Nice work! Vensatry (ping) 10:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support No major issues leap out at me. Great work. NapHit (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Anurag Kashyap filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after failing at its first FLC, this list has gone through a PR and now I feel meets the criteria's. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks much better than the one during its first FLC. Hope it passes this time. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good. Deniroish (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Admins please note that Deniroish is a confirmed sock of the nominator. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and since this was from the nominator himself, this support should not be considered valid. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The list is modeled after articles of related award categories such as the Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year and the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album, both which are listed as FL. The Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year was an honor that was presented annually at the Billboard Latin Music Awards, a ceremony which honors "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music, as determined by the actual sales, radio airplay, streaming and social data that informs Billboard's weekly charts." According to Billboard magazine, the category was "created in response to the growing number of charting titles from the genre" of reggaeton. Regards, DivaKnockouts 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Erick[edit]

  • Please explain why the award category was discontinued. I presume it was because it was later replaced by the "Latin Rhythm Album of the Year" award, but the article doesn't explain why Billboard hasn't given the award since 2008. You also need to include the category Awards disestablished in 2008. Also use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to have Billboard italicized on the article title. I'll check for more later. Erick (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Delegate note: if you must use subsections, they need to be at least a level 4, or they pop out onto the main FLC page.--PresN 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Erick. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. — DivaKnockouts 16:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding, I've been having health problems. Anyways, the source doesn't exactly say that the "Rhythm Album of the Year" replaces "Reggaeton Album of the Year". Is it possible that "Reggaeton Album of the Year" may have been renamed to Latin Rhythm Album of the Year? Erick (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No no, you're fine! I hope everything is going better. Hmm, I tried finding a source that stated that, but failed. And well, if it was renamed, it wouldn't be considered a new category right? I'll look again. — DivaKnockouts 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have much else to say so Support. Erick (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992[edit]

  • "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music" - shouldn't it be reggaeton instead of Latin music in general since we are talking about reggaeton?
In this sentence, it's talking about the Billboard Latin Music Awards ceremony itself, not the award category.
  • What is reggaeton? Maybe a brief sentence that talks about its origins or influences would suffice. Best, jona(talk) 20:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your comments! — DivaKnockouts 21:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I now support the article's promotion to FL. Congrats, jona(talk) 16:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

I copyedited the lead (see diff) as there was some repetition, redundancy and incorrect grammar. If I did something wrong, feel free to undo, or if you disagree with one of my changes, feel free to discuss. A few notes:

  • This seems irrelevant to this award itself—"The album was also awarded the Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year and the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album in 2005."
  • "Puerto Rican singer Ivy Queen is the most nominated artist without a win, with three nominations, and the only female nominee."—trivial.
  • Can you hold Puerto Rican nationality? Aren't they American?
  • For the "Ref." header, you need to use {{Abbr}} to specify the meaning of the abbreviation. See the source text in List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift for an example.
  • Refs 1, 9–12: "Billboard" needs to be italicized in the title.
  • Why is "Prometheus Global Media" in parentheses in Refs 9–12 but not in Refs 1 and 7? The Wikipedian Penguin 16:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Satyajit Ray[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ray is considered as one of the great filmmakers of all time and he has won numerous awards for his films and honors for himself. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies FL criteria. Looking forward to constructive criticism.

  • Note: Sorry to say this but bad-faith Indian editors...please stay away. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks much FrB.TG for the review and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on a quick run through

  • Consider changing the caption of the image. Looks pretty obvious to everyone that it's a portrait.
Any suggestions?
  • The table lists 133 wins and 15 nominations – This is a blunder
In what regards?
@Vivvt: Some of those award wins would have had previous nominations which you should include in the total. For example say a film was nominated for five Oscars and won twice then you would include in the table as five nominations and two award wins. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: But in case of films, its kinda impossible to have previous nominations for the same awards. I didnt want to categorise per award which is very convenient for me but wanted to show how many of his each film won any award. There are total 39 films by him so didnt want to mention all of them in the lead. Do you have any suggestions?
Fixed Cowlibob helped to fix this.
Not done Vensatry (ping) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Point out the mistakes for the further correction, if required. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Every win is an outcome of a nomination. Vensatry (ping) 08:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thats not true for all the awards. E.g. National Film Awards, Bodil Awards do not declare nominations and only announce winners. As Cowlibob suggested earlier, added a footnote explaining the same. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Every award has nominations; it's just some ceremonies don't disclose it. In case of NFAs, they have something called "shortlists" in the final round. The winner will be decided from the shortlist, which is made available to the press these days. I agree we cannot consider the all those "contenders" as nominees, but the winner certainly is. Also the BFJA awards have nominations, but you've not considered that. Vensatry (ping) 11:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Done - Vivvt (Talk) 12:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see a point in splitting "Awards for the films directed by Ray" and "Awards for the films contributed by Ray". After all, he was the recipient (of a particular category), regardless of who made the film.
  • honors -> honours (Indian English usage)
Not done Will keep US English for this list.
As Ray is Indian, the standard is to use British English not US English. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I can still see the usage of "honor" in the article. Vensatry (ping) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ray received numerous awards and honors, including India's highest award in cinema, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, in 1984 and India's highest civilian award, Bharat Ratna, in 1992." – The placement of commas confuses the reader. Consider splitting the sentence as it looks lengthy.
  • Same for the succeeding sentence.
  • "Commander of the National Order of the Legion of Honour, the highest decoration in France" – Are you sure about it being the highest decoration? If so, needs a source.
  • "an Academy Honorary Award at the 64th Academy Awards in 1992"
  • "Ray made his directorial debut in 1955 with Pather Panchali." – Needs a source
  • You say 3rd National Film Awards (1955) and 7th Berlin International Film Festival (1957) – Be consistent while mentioning the years.
The year for Dadasaheb Phalke Award also needs to be corrected. Vensatry (ping) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lead you say he won 10 awards for Best Screenplay, but the table lists 12.
  • OCIC Catholic Award of Cannes Film Festival is linked to a Sri Lankan film award.
  • 'Are 'Aparajito and Pather Panchali American films?
Just so you know, the answer is no. But the official site lists the entry under American film awards. However, its Wiki page says " The category was named "Best American Film" until 1961, when it became the "Best Non-European Film". In 2001, the name of the award changed back to "Best American Film", and the European category was changed to "Best Non-American Film"." Added it to the list.
To correct this simply change the category like this: [[Bodil Award for Best American Film|Best Non-European Film]] Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In BAFTA, you should give the actual names of the category; Best Film -> Best Film from any Source
Not much clear about what needs to be done
The Apu Trilogy films won the "BAFTA for Best Film from any Source" so correct in table as [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film from any Source]] Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Filmfare nomination for Shatranj Ke Khilari (Best Film) is not verified by the source. Further, Ray doesn't look like the producer of the film. If so, he shouldn't be credited with the nomination as the film belongs to the producer.
  • Awarding body for Dadasaheb Phalke Award should be DFF. I'm not sure if the Dadabhai Naoroji Memorial Award is presented by the government. Also, since the UK govt. seems to present an award of the same name, this needs to be clarified.
Done Added the source from PIB release for the awarding body.
Mention the ministry Vensatry (ping) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Kanchanjangha->Kanchenjungha
Corrected Though the award is given in this particular section, I incorrectly assumed it to be a screenplay section with his name written as a screenplay writer. Another film Bab El-Oued City was awarded that year.
  • In "Established in 1909, the National Board of Review awards are awarded annually by The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures" – Link "National Board of Review of Motion Pictures" rather than the awards. Also, the "Top Foreign Language Films" seems like a list. Not sure if that qualifies as an award.
  • You should know the difference between "The film is directed" and "The film was directed" (in the notes section), especially when the other part of the sentence uses another tense.
  • Refs. #47 and #48 use the same title.
  • You have included Bijoya Ray's Manik and I: My Life with Satyajit Ray as a source, but not used it as a ref. anywhere in the article.
The second para of the lead just reads like a series of bullet points. It goes too much into the Apu Trilogy discussing only about those three films. I'm sure the nominator must be aware of other films that fetched him a lot of awards. I can see that a lot of hard work has been put into the list, but sadly there are so many issues with the list. A peer review would have made this process much more easier. Vensatry (ping) 19:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vivvt: Please add back the Best Film nomination at Filmfare as I found the archive of it here, and I think you also need to ping @Vensatry: to tell them to revisit. Cheers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 23:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Ray was not the producer for the film so it makes sense not to credit him for the award. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A few comments[edit]

  • A dead link and a few missing access dates Please rectify them.
  • ...received critical acclaim and was awarded the Best Film prize at various award ceremonies and film festivals — i think prize can be replaced with award.
Ssven2 made the change on my behalf. :)
  • ...and two awards for writing lyrics — and two awards for lyric-writing.
  • Looks like the list has been written with focus. I see a few redlinks though. Any reason behind this?
I think red links are ok with FLs and would encourage editors to create new articles.

I hereby request the nominator to ping me once all these issues are addressed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Thanks for the review. I have made changes per your request. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Seven references do not have accessdates. Any explanation regarding this? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to ref no. 9, 20, 23, 109? These refer to a book so accessdates are not needed. Please let me know if you are referring to any/something else. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That's all from me then. Support Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of birds of Massachusetts[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Massachusetts

Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.

With absolutely no inline citations, it is assumed that the content of this list is all backed up the information provided in five references provided at the bottom of the article, but this is unclear. Harrias talk 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

List of birds of Kansas[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Kansas

Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.

This article has precisely one inline citation, which is in the "fictional" section at the bottom of the list. The rest of the article, and the lead, is presumably sourced to the three general references provided, though it is unclear, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point there. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, and less reader annoying to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of birds of Florida[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Florida

Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.

This list has a decent lead, but all the inline citations provided in the article are within that lead. A bibliography is provided, but there is no indication which, if any, sources back up the main body of the list, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

List of birds of Egypt[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Egypt, WikiProject Africa

Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.

This list has an extremely short lead, which can not possibly summarise the content of the article, and all four inline citations provided are in that lead. The bulk of the article is presumably all covered by "General" references. Harrias talk 14:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing about FL process, honestly. Two questions: 1) Wouldn't it be way more efficient to just fix the lead wording than to launch a removal process? It probably took more time to describe the problem in the lead than to reword it. What is the wording problem? (Well, that's question 1A). 2) How is a lead supposed to summarize a list, more than introducing it? Is there a checklist of some sort? Understand the citation problem of course. What's the timeframe?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Hello? Anyone?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't notice the reply here. In response to your questions:
  1. Maybe it would, but to be honest I'm not particularly bothered about the lists, and that issue is very much the tip of the iceberg. I could fix that, but the list would still be far from featured quality.
  2. Although still not an ideal article, List of birds of Thailand gives an idea of how the lead can provide more useful information, and something of a summary of the content, rather than simply a dry, rather meaningless introduction which is more akin to a key. Harrias talk 13:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)