Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FLC)
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 Hahc21, NapHit, Crisco 1492 and SchroCat—determine the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 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 the 10-day period has passed, a director 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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  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:

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Nick Drake discography[edit]

Nominator(s): --Idiotchalk (t@lk) 11:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... after a substantial amount of work a little under two years ago, and some further work recently, I feel it meets the Featured list criteria. --Idiotchalk (t@lk) 11:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan[edit]

Nominator(s): FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because following the peer review and c/e it has significantly improved especially with the peer. After a hard work I think that it meets the featured list criteria. Thanks, --FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment – When your current FLC hasn't gained "substantial support", you shouldn't have added another one. Suggest the nominator to withdraw this candidate. Vensatry (ping) 17:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Even I thought so until this edit was made. Thanks, --FrankBoy (Buzz) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Opinions vary with editors. I don't have a final say here. So wait for others to comment Vensatry (ping) 17:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comments here and everywhere :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of ICC Champions Trophy centuries[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A list modeled based on List of Cricket World Cup centuries, an existing FL. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Russian saints (until 15th century)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 14:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The first part of a list of Russian saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church who died at most sometime in the 15th century. Due to size reason I decided to create two separate lists. The second part will feature saints from the 15th century on. Seems to meet the criteria. Tomcat (7) 14:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the name of the list is wrong. For example, not even the precursor to the Russian culture/society existed when the first entry lived. Maybe "List of saints by the Russian Orthodox Church"? Nergaal (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The last part of the lead states "most of which are Russians in the most different sense, while others are essential and important people in the Russian history". "List of saints by the Russian Orthodox Church" would be odd as they are not saints only in the local church; better would be "List of saints in the Russian Orthodox Church", but that name is not really ideal. --Tomcat (7) 15:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Lauren Bacall on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUSTALK 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is a good example of her career, with proper lists and everything referenced appropriately. It's my first featured nomination, be gentle ;) LADY LOTUSTALK 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • This is quite close to being featured quality :). Just need to get rid of one New York Post ref. Also, if not including number of movies, shows, and plays she appeared in, may as well say she appeared in "many films, television shows, and plays" or say she had "an extensive career in films, television shows, and plays". Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Blast! I thought I got rid of that NY Post ref. I'm on it! And I like the second one, so I'll go with that :) LADY LOTUSTALK 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries, just minor fixes, and include her roles for all the "stage" roles Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried to look them up but some of her roles were nameless roles. Should I leave them blank? LADY LOTUSTALK 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If nameless, Lady Lotus, just describe the type of character (i.e. office secretary, opera singer, nun, bartender, dancer) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok so I dug a little deeper and got all the names but one. And all I can find was she was a shy 17-year old, it was speaking part, but no name. I don't want to say what she is if I dont' know. LADY LOTUSTALK 19:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I did some searching myself, but found no names for her character either on Franlin Street. Before anything else, tell me this: what was this shy girl like? A pedestrian, student, townsperson, you name it: some more detail on her character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well she was 17 so I'm guessing a student but I'm not sure. Not a whole lot of sources talked about her character just that is was her stage debut at 18. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm..... just say "unnamed teenager" or something..... as long as there are no blank fields for roles (please also take a look at A Star for Two), I support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
What about adding {n/a} to it? That way it's not blank...? LADY LOTUSTALK 11:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Works for me if you can't find the name of a role or even a description of her character, good work :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

This is very close to featured quality. just a few minor points:

  • Since the release years for Applause and Woman of the Year are already stated, I don't think the years should be repeated for her Tony Wins for those plays.  Done
  • The Tree of Hands links to the novel, not the film.  Done
  • Ref no. 30 is not centered in the ref. column, like the others.  Done
  • Are her roles in A Star for Two and Franklin Street unknown? If so, it would be good to state that. (I see the previous reviewer has also commented on this)  Done; put "Unknown" for A Star for Two; and "Unnamed teenager" for Franklin Street.
  • Playbill is a magazine, right? So it should be in italics in the reference section.  Done -- KRIMUK90  11:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Support: Excellent job! -- KRIMUK90  04:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The King's Speech[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The King's Speech is the most successful independent British film, a critical and box office success. It was well-received enough to win a pile of critical riches that were poured forth onto the cast and crew alike. It's had a recent work over, and should now be FL standard. All comments and criticisms are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment This isn't a necessity, just curiosity - is there a way to separate the tables like this? Especially the prestigious awards like the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, SAG awards, etc. I feel like that would be better for navigation. Again, not a necessity, the list is great and well sourced :) LADY LOTUSTALK 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Lady, It's possible, but not necessarily desirable! Having the results in one table allows readers to sort all the results together. They can see, for example, the number and range of awards won by Tariq Anwar, or Colin Firth, or how many "Best film" awards were won – and all in one table. I find the flexibility of the sort is more useful for general readers than separate tables, which is all a bit too "static" for my liking. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Twenty20 International records[edit]

Nominator(s): Blackhole78 talk | contrib 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. The issues raised in the previous FL nomination are resolved, with references being properly cited, records being regularly updated, tables being consistently formatted, etc.

The explosion of Twenty20 cricket in recent years has irreversibly changed the cricketing landscape, and thus it is important to document the various records and achievements in this format. Blackhole78 talk | contrib 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts[edit]

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have finally expanded it to mirror other featured lists on Wikipedia in a similar category. I am going to finish off the intro within the day as well as adding a description on what the acronyms mean. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Boston Legal[edit]

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 23:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, having worked on it for a while now, I feel it is ready for FLC. There is only one problem, I have not been able to find sources for the Satellite Awards, yet I don't think I will be able to find them, so, in the hopes that you will be able to help me fix this I am nominating this list, as I believe the rest of it is of good enough quality.--Music26/11 23:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Briarcliff Manor[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor is a small village in the New York suburbs. It has plenty of interesting history and quite a few notable residents. The village also has a number of parks and historic buildings.

After working on the main municipality article, I decided to arrange village events into a clear timeline, which I just finished. I hope it meets all of your standards.ɱ (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Jimknut[edit]

  • "The following is a timeline of the history of the village of Briarcliff Manor, New York, United States" — fix the redirect of Briarcliff Manor
done.--ɱ (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The year 1900 was the final year of the 19th Century, not the first year of the 20th, thus events that took place in 1900 are currently listed in the wrong century. Likewise, the year 2000 was the final year of the 20th Century and not the 21st. Hence the events of that year need to be placed in the current century. See WP:CENTURY.
done.--ɱ (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note here: "When using forms such as the 1700s ensure there is no ambiguity as to whether e.g. 1700–1709, or 1700–1799, is meant."
I'm not sure the best way to fix this. In all of the instances in the article, it refers to the decade, not the century. Should I have it as "1900s (decade)"?--ɱ (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to use "ca. 1901-10" or whatever date range fits
OK, done.--ɱ (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The colored timeline bar on the right seems unnecessary as it covers the same events as depicted in the main list. Plus it seems very out of place since the events are placed newest to oldest while the main list goes from oldest to newest.
At least one other municipality timeline used it, and it's a good way of summarizing the most significant events in the history, better than listing them in prose in the lead. I can easily reverse the order of the timeline. I wonder if you can find a precedent: I tried looking for municipality timelines that are good or were reviewed for FL or even GA/FA and didn't find any.--ɱ (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
A suggestion: Place it and the "Historical population" side-by-side up top on the right were an infobox would normally go. Jimknut (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll try it.--ɱ (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks messier there. Perhaps it wouldn't as much if I found out how to make a box around the timeline, but I don't know how and haven't found anything useful so far. The previous placement of the timeline looked better, IMO.--ɱ (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The illustration "Illustration of James Stillman's farm ca. 1886" should be placed in the section of the 19th Century.
done.--ɱ (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The illustrations "The First American International Road Race" and "Village Municipal Building decorated for the village semicentennial" should be dated. Jimknut (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
done.--ɱ (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, they look good so far. I'll start implementing.--ɱ (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments

  • Archaic period: Around this time, the area of Scarborough-on-Hudson is first inhabited. — Fix the redirect of S-on-H
  • 1880 – The Whitson's Corners station is added to the New York City & Northern Railroad train schedule,[12] and the first train arrives on December 13. — Fix the redirect of New York City & Northern Railroad
  • October 13, 1893 – The Scarborough Presbyterian Church is founded — Fix the redirect of Scarborough Presbyterian Church.
  • 1907 – Law's Briarcliff Farms move to Pine Plains, New York, and Law begins developing Briarcliff Manor more as a municipal corporation. — Fix the redirect of Pine Plains, New York
  • 1959 – Faith Lutheran Brethren Church is founded in Scarsdale — Fix the redirect to Scarsdale
  • 1978 – The Scarborough School closes; it reopens in 1981 as The Clear View School. — Fix the redirect to Scarborough School Jimknut (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTBROKEN, the redirect usually is preferred, especially in these cases.--ɱ (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Jimknut: Per that above guideline, it is best to have the redirects. It also makes sense to have them: it means that if the pages ever change, there won't be unnecessary piped links to fix later on. Please revert your edit.--ɱ (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Louie[edit]

Nominator(s): Wikipedical (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive, up to date, and meets all Featured List criteria. Last nomination was closed with one Support and no other reviewers. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Louie/archive1. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Good day, I will be reviewing this article, let me say, first off, how unfortunate about the previous FLC, I hope more reviewers will take the time this time around. Second, I must say, I'm not a big fan of these kinds of lists while the show is still running. Back in the day when I was still fully active I managed to get an awards list for Dexter to FL, yet it was demoted after a while because it was no longer up to date. So, I urge you to keep the page up to date (the Emmys, at this moment are something to remember). I'll post my comments below.

  • In the table, could you replace the '1' nomination of the Peabody Award with a '-', as I believe a show can't be nominated for a Peabody, it just receives one, like the nobel prize.
  • May I ask, when does an award get it's own section, the PGA's and DGA's for instance, why aren't they just in the 'other awards' section?
  • I believe the SAGs are awarded by members of SAG-AFTRA as of 2012, not just the SAG.
  • Why is the date in italics in the PGA source, that appears to be a mistake.
  • Why do the tables have individual titles? They don't appear to be necessary.

That's all, good work :). If you resolve these (small) issues you will receive my support. Also, if you have the time, I have a similar list up for FLC at this moment (here), if you have the time it would be marvelous if you would help me out. Don't feel obligated of course, it is my pleasure to have reviewed this list without getting anything in return, Louie is one of my favorite TV shows (and how nice to see that David Lynch received a nomination for his guest performance, he was awesome in that three-parter).--Music26/11 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hey Music2611. I have made the appropriate changes per your 1st, 3rd, and 4th bullet points. With regards to PGAs and DGAs having their own section- they are extremely notable and among the most prestigious awards in entertainment (the DGAs have been given out since the 1930s, before TV even existed). They are among the highest "craft" awards and I'd say deserve their own sections, as they do at List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development and others. With regards to the tables having "individual titles," see MOS:DTT. Table captions increase Wikipedia's accessibility. Thanks for the review. I will be getting to a Boston Legal awards review shortly. Cheers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I've struck remark 2 and 5, their both more a matter of personal preference than a violation of wikipedia guidelines. The table headers don't really appeal to me, they appear to give information that's already there, I mean they're right below the section header. But, again, it's a matter of personal preference, and it won't stop me from supporting, as you have done some good work here.--Music26/11 04:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, my comments have been resolved, this list has the right quality in my opinion.--Music26/11 04:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Queen Victoria[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The article lists those who have received the highest grade of one of the orders of knighthood in the UK at a time when Britain was a leading power in the world; the list includes foreign heads of state, notable British soldiers and courtiers and ambassadors, reflecting the diplomatic relations and social structures of the time. Due to the number of people awarded the honour since it was founded in 1896, it seems sensible to split it into appointments by reign, and this is the first, covering the appointments made by Victoria from 1896 to her death in 1901. Although not experienced in this process, I do believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. It is complete and incorporates sorting on the name, country of origin and date of appointment of individuals. Similarly, all items in the list are reliably sourced, as is the lead. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support
  • What an overly-complicated way to say "the queen/king likes this person or something they did". Anyway.
  • Letters patent doesn't seem to be capitalized like that at the linked article
  • "Instituted with five grades, [dependent clause]." - missing a subject for this sentence, like "It was instituted"
  • "The the two highest"
  • "and the order remained in the personal gift of the sovereign" - you said that in the first sentence of the article already
  • Any reason why you don't state the name of the "Prefect of the Alpes Maritimes" in the lead?
  • You should explain the difference between a GCVO and an honorary GCVO. Also, you imply that some foreigners got regular GCVOs- any reason why? Any non-foreigners get honorary honors?
  • "Where applicable, the occasion is that listed either with the notices, or in published material elsewhere, in which case, that material is cited." - whoa, commas. Try "Where applicable, the occasion is given that was listed either with the notices or in published material elsewhere, in which case that material is cited."
  • Dash or office/occasion missing for "Field Marshal His Royal Highness Albert Edward, Prince of Wales"
  • "(Caucasian Cossacks of the Line), in the staff of Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia." - why the parentheses?
  • Also, why the period? You have this for several others as well.
  • "Emperor of Russia's Coronation" - don't see why coronation is capitalized
  • "Emperor of China's Mission" - same with mission
  • "Emperor of Russia's Visit to Queen Victoria" - and visit.
  • Consider linking who those emperors were
  • Odd italics for "Membre du Conseil Supérieur de la Guerre, Inspecteur d'Armée"
  • Parentheses again for "(King's Royal Rifle Corps)" - if you're doing it because the original title is non-English, list the non-English title first
  • Why is the star before the honor for Gustavus Ernest, Count of Erbach-Schonberg* KCVO?
  • Stars missing for His Highness Abbas Pasha, Khedive of Egypt GCB GCMG and His Serene Highness Henry XXX, Prince Reuss
  • Stray periods for the occasions "The Duke of Connaught's attendance at the recent French Military Manoeuvres.", "On his return from active service in South Africa.", and "Duke of Connaught's visit to Berlin for the Bicentenary of the foundation of the Kingdom of Prussia."
  • I'm really confused how the sorting by name is working for this. Some people you do first name (Prince Albert) while some you do last name (Count Benkendarf). Unless there's some strange rule that English princes don't get sorted by their last name, or that "William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin" should be sorted by Kelvin rather than Thomson and "Emich Edward Charles, the Hereditary Prince of Leiningen" by Leiningen rather than Charles, please be consistent in sorting.
  • Ref 14 is linking to issue 26755, p. 3853, not the stated issue 26758, p. 4025
  • All your non-book citations are formatted oddly; I think it's because you're missing a publisher for all of them, though that's probably because the publisher is the government of the country in question. That said, your book citations are also weird- you list all the bibliographic information in the bibliography, so the citations should just be like "McCreery, p. 29", rather than listing it all out again.
  • Most of your redirecting links are capitalization changes or spelling changes, ones of note that you might fix are: Nicholas II of Russia, Russians (as Russia Empire, Austro-Hungarian (as Austro-Hungarian Empire), all your Generals are redirecting to General officer, you have KP as Order of Saint Patrick instead of Order of St. Patrick, ADC as Aide de Camp instead of Aide-de-camp, and PC as Privy Counsellor (UK) instead of Privy Council of the United Kingdom, and Carl of Denmark piped to Haakon VII instead of Haakon VII of Norway.
--PresN 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@PresN: Hi, thanks for the comments. All those with strike-throughs have been addressed now. A few points:
  • I believe I've clarified the situation with honorary knighthoods - let me know if I'm still not clear.
  • I've also updated the book citations, but I'm not sure whether you wanted me to alter the non-book ones, so let me know if that's the case.
  • As for the italicised part, it's like that because it's given in a foreign language, unlike most of the others (I don't know why it's like this, but that's how it was listed in the sources) - I can change it if you would like, but I don't see how that's odd.
  • The parentheses include branch of service or regiment details, as opposed to offices; would you like me to remove them?
  • As for the name sort: basically, those who held substantive titles (X, Duke of Y) are listed by their title; British princes are listed by their given names, even if they have titles (e.g. Charles, Wales, Prince of); those who were styled Dukes, Counts, etc. (Duke X of Y, Count X of Y) are listed by their surname if applicable (this is what has been done in the DefaultSort Count Illarion Ivanovich Vorontsov-Dashkov's article). I've corrected Leiningen's, but Kelvin does not need updating, nor does Prince Albert. See WP:PEERS.
  • The redirects for Knight of St Patrick, Privy Councillor and Aide-de-Camp are all from the "post-nominals" template, so I can't alter them. The rest have been corrected.
Thank you again for your review, these corrections are certainly improving the article. --Noswall59 (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
Alright, made a few tweaks, but changing to support. --PresN 17:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, --Noswall59 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Support. Excellent work. Well-written and well-sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the support, --Noswall59 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

Mac DeMarco discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I first created this discography five months ago and have been working on it since, because I appreciate DeMarco's work very much and think having a comprehensive list of releases on a widely-read encyclopedia such as Wikipedia would be very beneficial to both fans and people who have never listened to his music, but are interested in him. Before becoming successful under his real name, Mac DeMarco, with his 2012 releases Rock and Roll Night Club and 2 and, this year, Salad Days, he released quite a bit of material under the name Makeout Videotape, which is not very well-known but still good and should be of interest of people who like his newer music. I would be grateful for any helpful comments. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC), Bruce Campbell

Here it is, the largest film accolades list on Wikipedia. The list contains nearly 400 accolades. Bruce Campbell created and did much of the compiling of this list. To recognise that I've added him as a co-nominator. In terms of my contribution I've made the necessary adjustments to meet FLC. As always, look forward to all the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • De link Washington D.C, MoS advises against linking big cities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cowlibob (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support An excellent list, which covers a lot of award wins and nominations. Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry (ping)

  • I don't think the film being an adaptation of the novel is mentioned anywhere in the source and so is the producer.
  • Brad Pitt is the co-producer right?
  • Ref #1 needs author
  • WP:ALT doesn't encourage same text for "Alt" and caption.

Vensatry (ping) 07:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent list. Well done. Very well-sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states (illustrated, 1876)[edit]

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... The nominated list briefly discusses U.S. state coats of arms, distinctions between arms and seals, and some of the notable people involved with design (and some of the mistakes that were made). The authority and regulation of arms/seals are described. The illustrative center-point of the nomination are the restored full color illustrations from State Arms of the Union, by Henry Mitchell, published by Louis Prang in 1876. Sources indicate that only 20 copies of this book (of less than 10 pages) are reported to exist in libraries across the United States. The illustrations are matched with Bureau of Engraving and Printing proofs of the State arms. Godot13 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I noticed the article's title has been changed; I would suggest just Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states, as the article is about the coats of arms in general, not just those specifically in the book.
  • Heraldic, coat, and jousting in the first section should be lowercase, though most of that paragraph isn't exactly relevant. Reywas92Talk 13:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Reywas92- I've edited the paragraph to remove less relevant information (and correct the caps issues). I am concerned that removing the date from the title would create a scope far broader than intended. Thanks for your comments. They are, as always, appreciated.-Godot13 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Alrightly then, and I've already done my copyediting. Support. Reywas92Talk 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Richie Benaud[edit]

Nominator(s): —Zia Khan 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Former Australian captain, Richie Benaud, was one of the best cricket all-rounder of his time—the first to take 200 wickets and make 2,000 runs at Test level. He took 248 wickets in Test cricket, including five-wickets hauls on 16 different occasions. This list of the leg-spinner's fifers is constructed according to the FL criteria, so I'm nominating this here at FLC. Comments and suggestions appreciated, as always. Regards, —Zia Khan 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Support All good now. Cowlibob (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the support! —Zia Khan 10:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Made some minor changes, mainly to mirror the Bob Willis FL. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, very well-sourced list, excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry (ping)

  • Link cricket in the opening sentence
  • Add month alongside year (in as of 2014) as the year is not yet over
  • "at an average of over 27". The sentence is unclear – 28 and 29 are above 27, and so on.
  • Wisden naming him "one of their Cricketers of the Century". This is blunder. The list had just five cricketers and Benaud was just a panel member that elected the cricketers.
  • No, there were 100 cricketers in the list and the top 5 were announced. Benaud was at 20 along with George Headley and Kapil Dev. Please have a look once more. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all. Do some research. Vensatry (ping) 16:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "once described". I don't know why you aren't interested in having the year when it's clearly known.
  • Link the first occurrence of run
  • "first to take 200 wickets and make 2,000 runs at Test level" is clearly a fact. I don't know why you have included that in quotes.
  • "Benaud took his solitary pair of five-wicket hauls ..." The sentence just looks too long. Consider splitting it
  • "he is thirty-first overall among all-time combined". With "overall" and "all-time" this looks too superfluous.
  • The copyright status of the image is not very sure as the date of creation is unknown. The image has a "conflict of license" tag right now.
  • Get a copyright expert! Vensatry (ping) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Vensatry (ping) 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vensatry: thanks for the comments! Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Yukon[edit]

Nominators: Mattximus (talk) and Hwy43 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We are endeavouring to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted List of municipalities in Manitoba, List of municipalities in Saskatchewan, List of municipalities in Ontario, List of municipalities in Alberta and List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 5 nominations into account. We are hoping to eventually reach featured topic when all lists have been promoted. Our project is currently 5/13 complete, hoping to make it 6 with this very short nomination. Thank you for your input! Mattximus (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • What is below municipalities? At only 8 items this list could be reworded as an actual article. Nergaal (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While it could be reworded, I think it is best as a table. This will allow a complete featured topic with the list from all provinces and territories (and not all provinces and territories, except for Yukon). Also having the table gives readers an easy way to sort and compare all the values in each column, which would be lost if it were converted to text. It also allows comparisons between provinces and territories as they all share a standardized format. I'm not sure what you mean by "what is below municipalities". It is the lowest administrative division of the territory, so nothing is below. Mattximus (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Then how about a map like File:Manitoba_municipalities.png? Nergaal (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The map you see on the right is actually that. The map shows all of the municipalities. It could not look different. There is not much up there. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the borders. Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep I understood. Those are the borders, they are so small that they are within the circles that are for towns and cities. There are no large land areas under municipal control like other provinces. Mattximus (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. When comprising a mere 0.2% of the territory's land mass, using areas rather than points will be ineffective. The map in question is consistent with maps for urban municipalities in other provinces and territories (i.e., File:Manitoba urban municipalities.png, File:Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities.png, File:Alberta's Urban Municipalities.png, File:Northwest Territories municipalities.png, and File:Nunavut municipalities.png). Hwy43 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That answers my question then. What is there in the remaining 99 percent? Nergaal (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Nergaal, pardon the late reply. Mattximus is on holidays and I forgot to monitor this more closely in his absence.
Unorganized Yukon covers 98% of the territory. The remaining 1% comprises a couple other much smaller unorganized areas and numerous small communities that are not recognized as municipalities. Hwy43 (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, now I understand what is happening. I believe then that this is a wp:FORK issue since List of communities in Yukon would be a perfectly suitable FL, which would not have any problems in terms of length. When it will come to FTing this, you can use the communities list instead of a municipalities (probably for all territories). Nergaal (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
See the speedy keep outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities in British Columbia. "Municipalities" are incorporated communities. "Communities" are inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated communities. Having unincorporated communities in Yukon's FL would be inconsistent with the other provinces and territories (Northwest Territories passed) within the topic, and outside the scope of {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}.
Further, info on various unincorporated community types is less readily available than incorporated municipality types. Sections on the different unincorporated community types will not reach the same standard as the municipality type sections in this candidate, and there would be content gaps within the table (or equivalent tables). Essentially, the {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} topic does not lend itself to be FL-worthy.
As the inclusion parameters between the "municipalities" and "communities" topics are sufficiently different, and per WP:NOTPAPER, I respectfully disagree this is a WP:CONTENTFORK issue (which I believe you were intending rather than WP:FORK). Hwy43 (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, this particular FLC should be 100% independent of what a topic should look like or it should be. That is a completely separate discussion at FTC. From my long experience there, I have seen quite a few topics where the overlap of the article with the topic is only part of that article. Secondly, hypothetically, if List of communities in Yukon would be a FL, what would it not contain that this list does now? I can't see anything that would not be 100% included there. Furthermore, the scope of that article is significantly smaller than the municipalities of states like Quebec or Ontario, so it would require a major amount of work. And the difference with the AfD is that that list is much more massive than for YK, so forking it into a separate municipalities list is perfectly ok. Nergaal (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Just look at an acceptable fork of an FL at List of Academy Award-winning foreign-language films. Because of the size of a particular part of the list, that was almost completely taken out so I anticipate a similar pattern for the BC communities list. An example of unacceptable cfork is List of universities in Canada which used to be split in some 6 separate mini-FLs. All those were removed and merged into the reasonably-sized main article. The main article in this case is List of communities in Yukon. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm on vacation for the next few days but I'm having trouble understanding your argument. Are you saying that the article which has a completely different inclusion criteria, but is a set that contains the set of the article we are nominating, should be the only one of the two permitted to allowed to reach featured status, despite the consensus mentioned above (which was debated twice, both times resulting in the agreement to keep both lists, and the policy WP:NOTPAPER. What you are arguing is an arbitrary level which includes subsets that are also arbitrary. I'll explain. This set that is nominated, contains sets of all cities in Yukon, and all towns and villages in Yukon. What you want to nominate is a list which contains all communities, cities, and towns and villages. But why stop there? Why not all settlements in Yukon and communities and cities and towns and villages? Why not all communities in all three territories? Why not all communities in Canada? Of course I'm exaggerating but I'm trying to make a point. The cut off you propose is arbitrary, but the one we submit is based on a simple fact: groups of people defined by law to have local government. A very simple inclusion criteria that is not arbitrary. One used in all other provinces and territories that are featured. So adding in another set (communities not included here already) does not make sense. That list exists because of policies mentioned above, but should not be considered as influencing this submission. Mattximus (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 3.b. Those consensuses were for much longer articles. The article here is not even 10 items long and can very, very, very, very, very easily be included into the communities one. Nergaal (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if you read my reply. You have given us a catch 22. If we submit what you propose, we run afoul of 3.a. Specifically "It comprehensively covers the defined scope". Municipalities are a defined entity with specific inclusion criteria (legally based). Adding something that is not defined (a community or settlement, what ever those are) arbitrarily, makes the list quite poor. In fact, adding those extras will decrease the quality of the list since they don't have much data on them (they are not matched well to statistics). In some cases they are literally some families in a small area. Why take a well defined list, and add ill-defined and arbitrary items? This would also run afoul of FLC guideline 2. since we would not have defined "inclusion criteria". Can you see the catch 22? Mattximus (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
"List of X" will always have X a defined scope. My point is that having X contain 3 items does not make "List of X" deemed as FL quality. Instead, if "List of Y" contains all X and several more other things, the list is still well defined by Y and is enough of a list to pass FL? There are artists with a single published album, should we make FL discographies for those artists? Or should the list be included as a paragraph in the main topic? Here that is not necessary, since Y is still large enough to not be included into the Yukon main article. Nergaal (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no suggestion here that a list for a single item should be eligible for FL-designation. There are nineeight items (municipalities) in this list. A cursory review of Wikipedia:Featured lists#Places reveals there are three FLs of counties by American state with less than nine, and a fourth with ten. Presumably there are numerous FLs in other topic areas with nine or less entries. Wikipedia:Featured lists#Settlements also reveals there isn't a single "List of communities in X" FL to date. In my opinion, this is because of what both Mattximus and I have stated previously. List of communities in Yukon does not lend itself to become a FL. Hwy43 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Which ones are <10 items long? Why arent the comminities lending themselves to a FL? It has 66 items, and not all of them need to be featured at a level that municipalities would (i.e. some of them only need a name and a ref and would be enough). Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Connecticut, Hawaii and Rhone Island. New Hampshire is at 10. A bulleted list of 58 communities (doubt List of communities in Yukon is complete or accurate) following the comprehensive table of municipalities would be an embarrassing joke in my opinion. Hwy43 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think one of them is List of counties in Rhode Island which was promoted in 2007, way before the criteria were seriously upgraded around 2009. That list could possibly be included into List of municipalities in Rhode Island but there there is a slightly larger difference between a county and a municipality, than between a municipality and a commune. I will nominate it when the current FLRC I started will be over. Nergaal (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
List of municipalities in Ontario has upper-tier municipalities (i.e., equivalents of US counties) embedded within it. Hwy43 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I may put it another way. Nergaal, it's not true that "List of X" will have a defined scope. What if an item on the list is ill defined? Using your example, the artist would have 8 albums in their discography, but made a few recordings at home that were never published. Should those be included in discography? Of course not, they are not defined as albums. It is the same thing here. Specifically, in this case the issue would be whatever a settlement or community is (it has no clear definition, unlike the municipalities on this list). Unless your primary concern the number of items on the list, and not the inclusion criteria? If so, what is the exact minimum number? Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
My primary concern is not the number, but the size. Currently this looks more like a joke than an actual FL. There are artists with less than 10 albums, but those have 10+ singles and several other items. That way those lists don't need to be included as part of a larger article. Let's try an extreme example: what is this list covering that is NOT already in Yukon#Municipalities by population? Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the minimum size threshold and what are the units? If not number of entries, is it number of words? Bytes? I don't see anything explicit regarding length or size at WP:FLCR or WP:SAL. Without, size/length is subjective. Only thing I see is "The length and/or topic" under 3.b., in which "and/or" is key. This FLC doesn't duplicate any content except for the bulleted eight municipality entries at List of communities in Yukon, which could be replaced by transcluding the table from this FLC as the main "municipality" article to there.
I don't see this FLC as a joke. I see that it is a list that consistently aligns with all the other Canadian municipality FLs, but it is a unique case where there are the fewest here than meet the inclusion criteria compared to the others.
Not sure your extreme example works. Yukon#Municipalities by population is a transclusion of the table from this FLC.
BTW, I really appreciate your patience and walking through your concerns in detail with us. It is a collaborative and informative exercise. Hwy43 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's try this again: could you please do me a favor and spend only 1h on the communities article and see where you can bring it? Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please address my comment above. It's like you are asking someone who made a discography list which consists of 8 albums to add a bunch of random recordings that are not albums to the list. Maybe there were live performances one time back in 1983. Should that performance be added to the discography list? The community list has former trading posts, ghost towns, mining camps, first nation communities. None of these have areas, populations, dates... they simply are completely different than municipalities. Much like a live performance is different than discography but both fall under "music by artist X". If your concern is the size, please state an exact acceptable size of the list, otherwise it's just arbitrary. Thank you for your input.Mattximus (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I see you are not willing to work with me here. Check the communities list now, and please tell me what is TMI in that article as of now? Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are not addressing my comments. The communities list is a random assortment of different things. It has no defined scope running afoul of 3.a. I could put "bob's farm" on that list and there is no way to determine if it should or shouldn't be there. There is no definition for what a community is, that's why it can't be a featured list. It's completely arbitrary. It's like having an article "music by artist X" and including some albums, some performances, some tapes made at home, some covers of the band, instruments used by the band... The municipalities takes the defined subset and includes only items that meet this definition, just like we've done for every other province and territory including List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories which is *very* similar. Mattximus (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I've moved Nergaal's edits to List of communities in Yukon/sandbox for viewing purposes as the copied lead from this article did not work at List of communities in Yukon. I have however transcluded the table from here to there just like it is transcluded to Yukon#Municipalities by population. Hwy43 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I am giving up trying to help you when you go ahead and even revert my good faith edits. Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Please don't take the revert personally. It has to be obvious that the lead you copied and pasted was not applicable to that article. As for the other content, we already have transclusion available, so why not use it? Hwy43 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you can figure out how to transclude both the "Cities" and "Towns" sections as well as and the list of municipalities to List of communities in Yukon yet only transclude the list to Yukon#Municipalities by population without the two sections, please show me. I've experimented in my sandbox on other things and have had little luck. Hwy43 (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) How is List of communities in Yukon not suitable for FL? Well...

  • What are the definitions of “hamlet” and “settlement” and what are the inclusion criteria of each?
  • Of the 17 “Ghost towns and First Nations communities”, which are ghost towns and which are First Nation communities?
  • What makes a community a ghost town?
  • What makes a community a First Nation community? First Nation communities in Canada are typically Indian reserves and Indian settlements. Is there really a third type of First Nation community? If so, what is the proper designation that applies to such communities?
  • What is “Other” communities and how can we be sure this is complete? Couldn't they also fall under "Small Yukon places"?
  • Speaking of, what are the differences between a “place” and other types of unincorporated communities (i.e., “hamlets”, “communities”)?
  • Also “Small” is subjective. What makes a place “small” in Yukon, and why aren't the four “Other” entries suitable for inclusion in the “Small Yukon places” section?
  • Likewise, couldn't the “Ghost towns and First Nations communities” entries also be listed under the same? What about the “hamlets” and “settlements”?
  • The only pre-existing reference is Robert G. Woodall, The Postal History of Yukon Territory Canada, Lawrence, MA, Quarterman, Revised edition, ©1976, ISBN 0-88000-086-4, but due to the lack of inline citations, it is unclear what content the source actually verifies. Surely it doesn't verify all content in the article (excluding the "Municipalities" section).
  • Also, a source from 1976 is terribly dated. So many things may have changed in the past 38 years. For example, we know from List of municipalities in Yukon that all “villages” became “towns” in 2001.
  • How do we know if all entries in List of communities in Yukon truly are communities? Some of them could simply be family-owned gas station/restaurant/hotel developments on the Alaska Highway just like Twin Lakes, Alberta on the Mackenzie Highway? I've stopped there many times, and I would argue these places are not communities.

I could go on, but I think I've gone beyond overkill here. The points are there is not much information available to answer these questions and to assure the list is complete, and it is unclear where communities end and other places unsuitable for inclusion begin. Surely not every rail siding and roadside service station is a community. The article is riddled with WP:OR of which I am confident not all content could be verified by reliable sources. List of municipalities in Yukon on the other hand... Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. A good list. A few quibbles.

  • "The Municipal Act stipulates governance of these municipalities." This seems to me almost meaningless.Yes check.svg Done
  • "at the request of the Minister of Community Services" I would specify Yukon Minister (assuming it is).Yes check.svg Done
  • "Whitehorse, which is the largest among the three cities" I would prefer largest of the three.Yes check.svg Done
  • "Of the remaining 99.8%, Unorganized Yukon accounts for 98.1% of the territory's land mass". What is the other 1.7%?? Yes check.svg Done Dudley Miles (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your review, and good catch on those numbers! I'm still figuring out where the discrepancy lies... Mattximus (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Found it! I hope this change clears up the confusion. Mattximus (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought reporting the percentages of the two next largest areas was a bit too much, so I changed the note. Hope that is okay. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I think the "stipulates governance" sentence arose out of one of the five earlier FLCs and was carried forward. I have no issue with its removal however. Hwy43 (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your review and support, Dudley Miles! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of Interstate Highways in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  08:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

After a quiet nomination without much comment, I again present to you the list of Interstate Highways in Michigan. This is the first, of what I hope will be, a series of similar lists for the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, and hopefully the first of several similar lists on highways in the U.S. This used List of Interstate Highways in Texas as a starting point, but it uses specialized templates developed to implement WP:USRD/STDS/L, a project standard for lists of highways. We hope to use feedback from this nomination to improve both this list and the new list standard. Imzadi 1979  08:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've also notified the reviewers from the original FLC and the A(L)CR, as well as notifying WikiProject Michigan. Imzadi 1979  09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, again. I reviewed the list at ACR and feel that it meets the FLC criteria still. Dough4872 00:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments (first look)

  • Alt text – You might want to say (in a few words) the subject of the photographs.
    • The captions already do that, so I'm unsure of what to add that wouldn't duplicate the captions. Imzadi 1979  04:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 108 is to a Wikipedia article Michigan Department of Transportation – can you find an external direct source? I’m not sure I see an official highway map in the article. Does that mean that similarly named references (for different years) come from the same Wikipedia article?
    • No, it is not a reference to a Wikipedia article. It is a reference to a paper map printed by the then-Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation that has its publisher linked in the citation. Similar is true of footnote 9, which is an article from the print edition of The Grand Rapids Press where the name of the newspaper is wikilinked. Imzadi 1979  04:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, I see that now.
  • Primary Interstates – Not sure if there is anything that can be done, but the notes section is making the segment very long.
  • Business Routes-In the notes section, if they do not serve a defined area, perhaps put a dash.
    • I only noted the cities they serve if they terminate outside of the city. So the first BL I-69 serves Coldwater, but because it terminates on the southern Coldwater city limits ("south of Coldwater"), there was no need to mention that in the notes. The third BL I-69 terminates on the west side of Lansing in Delta Township and on the northeast side of East Lansing in Bath Township, so unless the notes mentioned Lansing and East Lansing, it would not be apparent which cities it serves. Imzadi 1979  04:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Understood. My point was that a dash in an empty cell indicates that nothing belongs in that cell (i.e., the information, or lack, is complete), but it may be stylistic.
  • Only cursory review of prose (will give it a second reading)
    • “I-75 is the longest highway of any kind in Michigan and only the highway on both Upper & Lower peninsulas.” Do you mean “the only highway on both Upper & Lower peninsulas”?
  • Clearly a lot of work went into this.--Godot13 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, a lot has gone into this. Imzadi 1979  04:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Godot13: any more review comments? Imzadi 1979  22:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll give it one more read-through to see if anything else jumps out.--Godot13 (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
          • In the "Business routes" table, how do you feel about moving the box that indicates "former" from the bottom of the table to the top? It's not immediately clear what the grey highlight means.--Godot13 (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm not in favor of that change. The color key is in the same location on those tables as the analogous color key on junction list tables in highway articles, like the one that appears at the bottom of Interstate 696#Exit list. Also, just like the colored rows in junction list tables, if a reader hovers his cursor over the colored rows in these tables, a tool top pops up with an explanation of the color. In this case, it says "Former route". Imzadi 1979  22:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, most concerns resolved. I currently have a FLC and hope you will consider reading the list and making comments or a review. Thanks in advance.--Godot13 (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (tc) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria and comprehensively covers GTA V's many year-end accolades. I had a peer review open prior to this nomination that got no comments and went stale, so I can only assume that this list is good to go all the way. CR4ZE (tc) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Support as nominator. CR4ZE (tc) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Also support, as a major contributor. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

It's close. My concerns are only stylistic/organizational:

  • Keep consistent whether you link all instances of a publication or just the first one in the sources. For example, Metacritic uses the former style, and Destructoid the latter.
  • I'm concerned about the allocation of information into the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the lead. Why is the Best Xbox Game accolade in the third paragraph but the Best British Game in the fifth? Why are some graphics/technical-related awards in the fifth and others in the fourth? I mean, maybe there's some hidden rationale I'm not seeing, but to me it looks kind of haphazard. Why not try an organizational style like this?
  • First paragraph as normal: anticipation and release.
  • Second paragraph as normal: reviews. (God, it sickens me to even look at this because I dislike Western open-world games and the general "we're so edgy and jackass-ish" GTA style so much, but whatever. Most people don't.)
  • Third paragraph: All awards for the game in general, whether among all games or among all Xbox 360 or British games.
  • Fourth paragraph: All awards for specific aspects of the product.
  • "GameTrailers' Game of the Year Awards ... Top Three" - Ambiguous. Were they unable to decide beyond their three favorites, is it traditional that they only narrow it down to three, or did it only make it up to the top three before being knocked out? You might want to include a footnote to elaborate on which of the first two it is, or if it's the third, just say "3rd Place" or something. "Top Three" in that context makes me cringe like I do when my dad touts UIUC as having a "top 3" Computer Science program (he contrasts this with "just" having a Top 5 one) when it is unequivocally in third place.

Tezero (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Okay Tezero, I think I've taken care of everything. Take a look and bask in the glory of the world's greatest Western open world game. CR4ZE (tc) 02:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't like your attitude, so I'm oppo- Nah, just kidding. Support. Great job; maybe I should try this game sometime. (I actually have the GTA collection from Steam, although I've only played a couple hours each of GTAIV and San Andreas and haven't touched the rest. This one wasn't included.) Tezero (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As if you weren't hooked after San Andreas. Go pick up GTA V when it finds its way into Steam's discount bin and I very much doubt you'll regret it. Thanks for the support. CR4ZE (tc) 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment This looks like the first of its kind. So it's a great opportunity to create a prototype for others. My main issues are structure and some content changes.

  • The lead
  • In the intro first paragraph, include what the game is about briefly for laymen and keep when it was announced and the awards it won in anticipation.
  • Second paragraph should be when the game was released, briefly sales of the games/records it broke etc. Gamerankings and Metacritic are review aggregators so the sentences about them should be something like: Gamerankings, a review aggregator, surveyed x number of reviews and assigned an average review score of....
  • No need for choice quotes
  • Third paragraph should start something like Grand Theft Auto V received awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for.... Then talk about how it did at major award ceremonies.
  • Fourth paragraph should start with any other important to mention minor awards/nominations for aspects of the game or the game itself not included in the third para. This paragraph should finish with what end of year awards it won or generation awards.
  • Also don't include community or general public awards as they're basically internet polls.
  • Infobox
  • wins and nominations --> awards and nominations
  • include the number of each award won and nominations received at each award ceremony as a dropdown
  • Main table
  • Awards and nominations --> Accolades
  • No need for title "List of ...."
  • Instead of year have the date of the ceremony, have the award as simply the name of the awards rather than 5th or 20th. If an article exists for that years award link the date to it.
  • Recipient --> Recipient(s) and Nominee(s)
  • You can choose whether to alphabetise the list by the name of the award or to list it chronologically by date of ceremony
  • Curate the list to ensure only reputable awards are listed so that the list is not a laundry list as per WP:LAUNDRY.

That's my two cents. I know it seems like a lot to do but I'm only trying to make the list the best it can be. Cowlibob (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and I know you're coming from a good place. There is plenty to get through here, which will take some time, so I'll ping you when I get everything done. Cheers. CR4ZE (tc) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Again, I'll be looking at this in the near future, but I'm not sure how you want me to go about curating the list. The awards are taken from high-quality sources as identified by WP:VG/RS, or otherwise by other projects/ prior consensus (ie Tom Chick being notable enough for inclusion per his legacy in the field). This actually came up at the main article's FAC (before this table was split), where I used this source in context with the RS guidelines to include awards I thought would be reliable/ notable for inclusion. I think "reputable awards" is too vague, so I can only treat RS's as reputable enough, and in that case, the table is comprehensive. CR4ZE (tc) 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That was too vague. I've looked through and I think it's ok. It was Tom Chick which I questioned as I've never seen an individual's list being considered an award. If there has been prior consensus in WikiProject:Videogames to accept that than fair enough. Cowlibob (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't seen consensus that his awards should be included in articles, just that he's a reliable source. This list, if passed, will be an unprecedented VG award list, so there's no strong case for his inclusion either way. I'm just as happy to remove his award than keep it. Your call. CR4ZE (tc) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer it not to be included. It's a minor thing though compared to all the other stuff. Look forward to seeing this list after the modifications. Cowlibob (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: I think I've tended to your comments on the lead and infobox. Now, as for the main table, I've been working on my sandbox and the results are so far pretty ugly. I'm not great with tables, but is there some way I can increase the scope of the date column to stop it running onto a new line? CR4ZE (tc) 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Good work on the infobox. One thing why does ars technica have a different background colour? In terms of the lead, move the release dates to before the review aggregator stuff and the end of year/generation to end of fourth para so that it's chronological. I don't know how to stop it running maybe it would look better with awards as first column then date? Additional comments- for references make sure if it is a news/magazine source use cite news work= so it italicizes it. You shouldn't need to add your own italics. Cowlibob (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Cowlibob:, I think I've covered everything. I moved release dates as you suggested, but I didn't reshuffle the other paragraphs. The end of year awards were handed out alongside all the other awards so I thought the way it was arranged was fine. I'm happy to hear thoughts to the contrary. CR4ZE (tc) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Looking pretty good so far, here's my 2¢:

Not much to do here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks SNUGGUMS, I've tended to everything here. Metacritic/IGN etc. are italicised by default because they're using the work= field. I'm not aware of any policy that says they can't be italicised, and I'd rather keep it consistent with other video game websites like Polygon and Edge, which are normally italicised. CR4ZE (tc) 12:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. I now support this for FL. For the record, a way to un-italicize terms would be by putting them in "publisher field". For example: "publisher=Digital Spy. Hearst Corporation". Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from PresN[edit]

  • "the Spike VGX"? Shouldn't that be "the Spike VGX Awards"?
  • Link Inside Gaming Awards, since you do in the table
  • The Platinum PlayStation Award is given out by Sony entirely based on sales- it's like an album being certified Platinum, except it's only for PlayStation games. Your call if you want to mention that.
  • "from Spike VGX" - well, you dropped the "the" this time, so be consistent
  • When sorting by result, some of the places (fourth, fifth, eighth) are sorting below nominated
  • Yeah... you can't just link the first instance of a term in a sortable table. You will need to link each instance of Spike VGX 2013, etc. - the one you linked may or may not be first in the table anymore once you sort on a column.
  • You have the award for "GamesRadar's Game of the year 2013" down as "Game of the YEar"
  • Sorting for recipient is messed up- the songs are sorting by ", and names are sorting by first name instead of last. To solve: put the songs down as {{sort|song name|"song name"}} and the people down as {{sortname|first|last|optional article title if different}}
  • If a source doesn't have a specific author you leave the field out, rather than putting "GameSpot staff" or "Staff" etc. - it's taken as given.
  • Snuggums missed one - GamesRadar is published by Future plc
  • Slant Magazine, as an online magazine, should be italicized in references- stick in "work=".
--PresN 23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @PresN:, I think I've taken care of everything. Please take a look. CR4ZE (tc) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cowlibob/PresN, I think I've tended to most of your points but I'll be back later to do more. Let me know if there's any problems with my changes insofar. CR4ZE (tc) 12:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review by Tezero[edit]

  • 18. Canada.com should be linked in the source
  • 23./67. Same with Edge

Spotchecks:

  • 9. good, but you could probably get as specific as $817 million
  • 17. good
  • 20. good
  • 13. good

Tezero (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • All done. Canada.com redirects to Postmedia News, which is already linked in the publisher field. Do you think it needs linking anyway? CR4ZE (tc) 08:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tezero: I know you're probably busy playing the world's greatest sandbox game, but please look at my changes when you have a moment. CR4ZE (tc) 13:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hadn't noticed that about Postmedia; that's fine. Continue to support; source review passes. And yes, I've had a great time with Terraria; thanks for asking! :D Tezero (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk · contribs) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the articles, National Film Award for Best Actor and Best Actress, I have made it the way they are, the lists that are having the featured status presently. Apart from that the article is comprehensive, up to date and lastly meet all other FL criteria. FrankBoy (Buzz) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
  • ”Unknown” roles should be filled in.YesY
  • The line "Nana Patekar, Mithun Chakraborty, Prakash Raj, and Naseeruddin Shah are the only actors to win the National Film Award in this and Best Actor category." has no ref.
    • There is no source regarding the claim so I have removed the line.
  • It should be "It is one of the".YesY
  • Has the cash price always been this amount?YesY
  • Please mention that Ghare Baire was Bengali film.YesY
  • "in the Hindi film Satya (1998) respectively at the age". Whats the "respectively" for?
    • Removed.
  • And am against mentioning youngest and oldest winner as age has nothing to do here. Its trivial. Maybe if a child actor won such award ever then its worth mentioning. At age 30 its nothing but trivia.
    • Removed.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

All cleared up.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Redtigerxyz
  • There are some actors who have won the award for two films. This also needs to be noted in the lead. Also I will suggest a different colour key be used for these.YesY
  • The only tie also needs to be the lead.Redtigerxyz Talk 10:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)YesY

--FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • What is the selection process? Who selects them? Is there a panel? Who selects the panel, who are in the panel etc. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)YesY
    • There has never been declaration of such things. A ceremony is held annually and the winners are announced. That's it.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
See Dadasaheb Phalke Award. There is some committee I think. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good to me Vensatry (ping) 06:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Leader of Alderney[edit]

Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this is a comprehensive list of the known leaders of Alderney. It also consists of a comprehensive background section that gives a breakdown of all the various guises of the leadership. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments (first round) Comments on List table

  • Each date (when only a single year is listed) or pair of dates for the rulers’ reigns should have a reference
  • Some of the dates look incomplete when the prior or subsequent date should provide necessary information (e.g., W. Chamberlain II to J. Chamberlain II; J. Chamberlain II to Chamberlain; Colles to Le Febvre, etc.)
  • For consistency (I could be wrong on this) I suggest using the full four digits of the year each time.
  • What does “acting” for another mean (a note or definition would be helpful)?
  • Is the first name of Chamberlain (1630s) known?
  • Very little is said about a 200+ year vacancy from 1238 to 1546, but there seem to be two leaders (Eudes and Porteman) during that time. Is it a typo?
  • Le Breton (1683–1684) was acting for de Haynes. Who was de Haynes, they are not on the list?
  • Under Judges- Jean Gauvain, Thomas Le Cocq, and Nicholas Barbenson are all listed as "acting", but for whom? Do you mean "interim"? The same question goes for the remaining Judges listed as "acting".
  • Do you have any interest in making this list sortable (e.g., name, title, dates)? -- Godot13 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I am busy with work at the moment so I probably won't be able to address these issues until Thursday/Friday. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Godot13: I have tried to clean up the list as best I can with the dates available and realistic time periods. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • @The C of E: I see the changes. I have added a few references and tried to cite specific dates when possible. The main references for the list are websites that do not cite their own sources. Ideally, each leader's terms should have it's own citation. There is not a lot of readily available internet material on the topic making this a bit more difficult.-Godot13 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Given the scale of the task ahead and that I won't have the time to do the work that is needed for it soon, I wish to withdraw this nomination and will renominate at a later date when I am able to have the time to fix the issues. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

List of public art in the City of Westminster[edit]

Nominator(s): Ham (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For several years I have been creating this list of public artworks (very broadly defined) in the City of Westminster, the borough of London which includes the official centre, where that city's most important concentrations of memorials can be found. All the major works and the lion's share of the more obscure ones have been covered with citations, images, co-ordinates, notes and sometimes Commons categories, so I feel that the page meets the criterion of comprehensiveness. Only architectural sculptures have had to be excluded due to the sheer size of this list; for them there is a separate article. I eagerly look forward to your comments. Ham (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent list (I'm slowly working on some of the S/W outer London areas). I don't think it is comprehensive enough yet though (you've set yourself a tricky task with an area with as much public art as this). From a search on geograph I found various examples like this, this, etc. The first station I randomly checked on Art on the Underground had this. I don't think it is practical to expect comprehensive coverage, but where something has already been documented in a nice database like geograph I think it is practical to ask for everything there to be included. It's a horrible website to use but have you also checked the article against what's in the PMSA database?
Also you haven't put in any photos of murals on buildings. I'm no expert in copyright but the 1988 UK law explicitly grants an exemption for photographs of copyrighted buildings (including any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure). I can't see how something painted on to a building does not count as a part of that building even if it would count as a 2D graphic work if it was painted somewhere else instead. In the abscence of any knowledge of legal cases testing the exact dividing line I would say that we would be OK in using any images that are clearly of a 3D looking building but maybe not just attempts to reproduce the 2D artwork element of the mural. Has there been any discussion of this on wikipedia previously? JMiall 18:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@JMiall: Thanks for replying and for the kind words—​I was starting to worry that I might get no response! I know that there are more examples but haven't been able to find sources for them—​for instance the sundial on Pickering Place you've noted has a few mentions on the web but there's no information on who made it or when. The FL criteria define comprehensiveness as "providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items", and in my opinion it wouldn't be practical to include anything for which there's no verifiable information. I wouldn't have thought that images on Geograph count as a source in these circumstances.
I would say that they do count as a source of the information that there is a piece of public art in that location if nothing else. For something that is a bit ambiguous about whether it is actually art or public I'd omit them but if it seems obviously public art then I'd include whatever information is available. JMiall 10:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Re your other examples: Tottenham Court Road station is in the borough of Camden, and I counted John Maine's work at Green Park station as architectural sculpture on the basis that it's carved into stone and incorporated in the fabric of the building, but it can be tricky deciding what fits that definition when it comes to contemporary art. It might be better to have it in the main list after all. I wasn't aware of the Art on the Underground site; I'll go through it to see if there are examples I have missed. The PMSA's database doesn't have any entries for the City of Westminster, or, at least, the works in Philip Ward-Jackson's 2011 book aren't on it (unlike those in his 2003 book on the City of London, despite both books being in the PMSA's Public Sculpture of Britain series).
Re copyright, I'm not sure what you mean by "copyrighted buildings"—​isn't there Freedom of Panorama in the UK?—​but your suggestion about showing murals in their 3D context sounds like a good idea. I might mention this issue later at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, to see if there has been past discussion on Wikipedia about it. Ham (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is freedom of panorama but that doesn't mean that buildings aren't copyrighted, just that taking photos of them doesn't infringe any copyright. JMiall 10:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I see you reference one of the council's conservation area audits. They seem to have these for many conservation areas and some (eg St John's Wood) have decent lists for what the council regards as public art. Have you checked that their lists and yours match?
Also if you look at the map with all the coordinates there seem to be some suspiciously large gaps (St John's Wood is one). I know it's difficult to prove a negative but are you fairly sure there really isn't anything in these areas? This also shows a W/E error on the Norwegian War Memorial coord.
I would count listed benches as public art in the same vein as ornate drinking fountains etc. JMiall 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen this list of mosaics? It has a Westminster section. I've no idea how public most of them are but there's a picture of the Marble arch mosaics here. There's also a sculpture which seems to be designed to be easily seen from the road, not sure if the land it is on is publicly accessable. JMiall 22:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@JMiall: Thanks for all these pointers—​plenty of work for me to do! I've gone through all the conservation area audits now, identified the works to be added (the highest number is in St John's Wood) and started to add them. I think I can work out in most cases which works in the database are outdoors (this, for instance) and which are not. The sculpture at The Lancasters is worth including, provided that it's permanent (which looks likely). I'll call back here as soon as all those changes are made. Ham (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

List of ant subfamilies[edit]

Nominator(s): jonkerztalk 16:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my first nomination, with the list being written by myself, and the intro section, 'Clades' and 'History of classification' consisting of 95% [attributed] Creative Commons-licensed content from Ward, Philip S. (2007), "Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).", Zootaxa 1668: 549–563 .

In my opinion, the list meets the criteria; but it's worth mentioning that 1) English is not my native language, and 2) the previous dorylomorph subfamilies (Aenictinae, Aenictogitoninae, Cerapachyinae, Ecitoninae and Leptanilloidinae) were recently synonymized under Dorylinae by Brady et al. (2014).

While not very obvious, Ward's 2007 article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. From the website of Magnolia Press (mapress.com), the original publisher of Zootaxa: "All open access papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." (see [1]). Now, not all Zootaxa articles are open access (most are not), and the licenses are not mentioned in the PDFs. To confirm that this article is open access, you need to find the article listed on MP's website: search for "Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants" in the list of Hymenoptera-related articles, and you find that it says "open access" in the description.

Most refs are available online in one way or another; let me know if you need help finding any particular reference. Much appreciated, jonkerztalk 16:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick Comment I would link the captions of the photographs to the species page, especially if it's not linked already in the description. Looks like a good list! Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Mattximus: Thanks! My internet connection is very unstable at the moment, but I'll link the species as soon as possible, it makes a lot of sense. jonkerztalk 23:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • Why list the number of extant genera as "N/A" rather than "0"?
    • Changed to "0". jonkerztalk 20:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You should link the species names in the image captions (even if they will be redlinks)
  • I think it may be worth mentioning that there are some taxa which are incertae sedis. I'm not sure if it belongs in the table, but it certainly belongs somewhere in the article.
    • Added two sentences about the incertae sedis genera to the 'History of classification' section. jonkerztalk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the navigational list in the lead, surely incertae sedis should be at the bottom? Also, why do you list Formiciinae under "others" rather than on its own?
    • Changed both. jonkerztalk 20:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "In Bayesian analyses of multi-gene data sets Leptanillinae is sister to all other ants, while the poneroids form a clade that is sister to the formicoids, but this result appears to be confounded by data artifacts including long-branch attraction between Leptanillinae and other aculeate outgroups. It does not have statistically stronger support than alternatives in which the ant root lies within the poneroids or on the bipartition separating formicoids from other ants." This is a little jargony- I couldn't easily follow.
    • I've shortened the sentence to make it more readable. jonkerztalk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This may be difficult (I assume AntWeb and other databases would be helpful) but how would you feel about including a "synonyms" column?
    • Sourcing (without using 100 different sources) may be a problem, and one subfamily with tons of synonyms may make the list look messy with little apparent gain. I'll make some research. jonkerztalk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I've given it some thought and came to the conclusion that it's better to not include all synonyms in the table, but only mention recent or well-known synonyms in the comment cell. For example, Brady et al. (2014) created at least 10 new synonyms of Dorylinae (Acanthostichini, Aenictinae, Aenictogitoninae, Cerapachyinae (Eusphinctinae and Lioponerini), Cheliomyrmecini, Cylindromyrmecini, Ecitoninae, Leptanilloidinae), but not all of them are noteworthy. jonkerztalk 17:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, the apparent lack of a metapleural gland in Armaniinae fossils could be due to preservation bias" "Preservation bias" is unexplained jargon (and, unless it doesn't mean "bias" in the typical sense, I'm not sure how a bias could result in an ant not having a particular gland)
    • Changed to "poorer preservation". jonkerztalk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I made a number of changes; please check them! Good luck- it may be worth contacting some WikiProjects to bring insect specialists to this review, as I suspect not many of them will watch the FLC page. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and edits, J Milburn. I've made some changes to the list, more to come. WP:INSECTS has already been notified. jonkerztalk 20:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I have updated the article and addressed all comments. jonkerztalk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support
  • This is a very nice list, though I feel like a need a shower after looking at all those ant pictures
    • Thanks :) jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't link either taxa or genera, which is a bit strange since you're willing to link family and order
    • Linked both. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Aneuretinae row of the table, you say there's 8 fossil genera and then state there's 7.
    • Corrected. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Dorylinae row, you put both notes in the fossil genera column, but it seems that both notes are about an extant genera, not a fossil one- though they could be, you never state what the fossil genera is. If either of the notes are about a fossil genera, please state it in the note, and if they're about extant ones, move them to that column
    • The notes are referring the the fossil genera; I've updated the notes to make it clearer. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Formiciinae row: "With queens the size of a rufous hummingbird" - that's... an oddly specific comparison between an extinct ant and a modern bird. Is that the comparison made in the source, or is there some other reason you didn't just say 3 inches long?
    • It is from the source. The comparison makes more sense with this photo, showing a Titanomyrma lubei with rufous hummingbird for scale. Do you think this needs changing? jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I can tell from context that you put a dagger in front of any group that is composed solely of fossil species, but you never actually state that anywhere. You should do so.
    • Added a legend to the top of the list. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the sidebar, you have sources cited for... one subclade and one subfamily. And those sources appear to both be 2 of the 3 listed at the bottom of the box. Why are those special?
    • Removed inline citations to avoid confusion. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a particular reason you've chosen to stick notes on their own line in a cell instead of just leaving them next to the item like references?
    • "note 1" is too long to fit on the same line without messing up the layout. Adding the notes on their own lines makes sure that the number of species is still centered. This is what is looks like with lower case latin letters; maybe it is better? jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Type Genus column isn't sorting correctly- Formicium is getting sorted to the end. Appears you're missing a sort template for that one.
  • Fossil Genera column isn't sorting correctly; same row
  • The publisher for refs 16-18, 24 is AntCat, not "An online catalog of the ants of the world".
  • For ref 26, you don't need to list both work and publisher like that if they're identical and there's not another work by that publisher; in this case just list the publisher as AntWeb and leave out work.
  • Redirecting links are unavoidable for tree of life articles, given the constant merging and splitting of articles, but ones of note that aren't just redirecting to scientific terms or moving up/down the tree- Subfamilies in the lead, Carolus Linnaeus in the table and the history section (but not the refs), and Harvester ants in the table
--PresN 18:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, PresN, much appreciated. I have addressed all comments. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Switching to support. For the notes, I prefer the 'letter' method, but if you want to leave it as it is that's fine. --PresN 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I've changed the style of the notes to "lower-alpha". jonkerztalk 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list meets all of the criteria for a featured list. I have nominated this list three times before, however all of them failed, so I hope this time, the list will get the gold star. Simon (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment in the previous FLC, one user opposed this as a WP:CFORK. Before I proceed, in what ways does this currently offer more than Xtina's main page and tour pages do right now? Snuggums (talk / edits) 10:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Snuggums, Simon in what way do you think this passes CFORK? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Hammond organ players[edit]

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at FLC. The Hammond organ is a popular keyboard instrument used by a wide variety of artists. I have been steadily working on this list for about a year, trimming out questionable entries and ensuring it is comprehensive and properly sourced. I've recently tidied up the presentation to include images wherever possible, and after a short informal peer review I now believe it is a good introduction to the people who contributed to the Hammond's notability, and meets the standards for a formal FLC review.. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • As there's no real way to claim this list is comprehensive, it should use the {{dynamic list}} template.
Agreed - plus I considered the list should only consider people where a reliable source has documented their use of the Hammond as significant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Why aren't photos used where available, e.g. James Brown?
I took the view that photos should only be included where they specifically depict the subject playing a Hammond organ. For example, File:Jamesbrown4.jpg shows him playing a Roland synth. Same problem with all the images of Tony Banks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Not unreasonable, but you could include them if they're not playing anything, or crop existing available images to suit. But it's not a big deal. I have a natural inclination to dislike empty cells, they always appear to me as if someone's forgotten something... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair comment - in some instances the "models played" field is empty simply because no reliable source seems to document it, many just say "organ" or even "keyboards". There are plenty of unreliable sources that document models, but I am suspicious of some of the claims just being of the "oh, it's on the internet so it must be true" variety. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A typical Wikipedian after their best friend pointed out several violations of MOS:ENDASH in their edits
  • Not convinced that sortability is helpful since the tables are already split alphabetically. Would be helpful in a single table...
Done - was only really useful for names anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Names should sort by surname, using the {{sortname}} template.
Isn't this now obsolete, since sorting has been turned off? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, but now make sure that each table is in alphabetical order, e.g. put Bundrick before Burke. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The only one that I can see is contentious now is Money Mark, where "Mark" is not obviously a surname. How do we normally cope with pseudonyms in a list of real names? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Go by the stage name, so just list by Money. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Check for WP:DASH violations, e.g. in reference titles.
I guess this is an opportunity to install User:GregU/dashes.js and try it out - is that likely to fix them? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It's altogether possible. I use a script too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

More later, The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Martin has picked up the baton and is fixing stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
... am keeping a low profile, as I can't stand the powell Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment
The introduction outlines the instrument and its role in music, but, except for Smith, players are not mentioned. Since this list is about players, It would be of interest to the general reader to learn about some of the important figures associated with various styles, developments, techniques, etc. in different genres, time periods, etc. (something roughly similar to the List of jazz bassists, but with refs). Maybe open with a general statement like, "Players in several different musical styles have contributed to the popular use of the Hammond organ. Beginning with jazz players in the 19XXs, such as..." Otherwise, the layout and use of images are visually appealing. The Associated acts (shorter is better, but see Booker T. entry) and Notes are informative and it appears that there is at least one ref per entry. I agree with the comment about the empty cells though—the Ms look unfinished. May include a popular song or album under Notes if nothing else. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at fleshing out the lead with some of the obvious names. The problem I had with this is that I thought for a reasonable lead, it would be tricky, not to mention POV, to determine what names went in it and what got left out. Jimmy Smith crops up in multiple sources, but for the remainder I've made a best guess as to those players who have been predominantly associated with the instrument. I'll see what I can do about fleshing out the "Notes" field; I just didn't want to go overboard on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, there are definite improvements without going into POV territory. (BTW, did Korla Pandit play a Hammond?) —Ojorojo (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article's quality seems to have got worse recently. I have removed several unsourced entries (my last sweep of the article ensured everything had at least one reference to a reliable source). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this because I believe it meets the criteria for a featured list. It covers Hendrix's original recordings and is separate from the Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. It has been completely revised with the addition of new sections and many new sources within the last seven months. It is extensively referenced with inline citations and goes beyond WP:DISCOGSTYLE and most FL discographies. Recommendations made during the peer review regarding the format have been incorporated and it has been thoroughly fact-checked. In the past, comments have been made about tendentious editing, ownership, and vandalism of Jimi Hendrix articles. However, they now seem to be stable—Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced have been promoted to Featured Articles and several others are nominated as GAs. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Question, would the Jimi Hendrix Interview Album count as a release??Coal town guy (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Short answer: No, it is not within the timeframe of this discography, because it was released posthumously. Long(er) answer: By definition, a discography is "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings". If the release doesn't include music, it usually isn't included. Biographers McDermott (1992), Roby (2002), and Shadwick (2002) don't list interview albums in their Hendrix discographies. Shapiro (1990) lists two under "Miscellaneous"—a BBC transcription LP (1976) and Jimi Hendrix: The Interview album (Rhino 1980s). Portions of interviews are included in the film See My Music Talking (1968) and several posthumous videos, along with musical performances. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, you did a great job on this one, I don't see any problems with it. It always feels a bit weird for me to just support without having any comments that have to be resolved, but that is the case here. Though I will ask you, why is a filmography included on this page, as it regards Hendrix' discography?--Music26/11 15:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be the accepted FL discography practice (see David Bowie discography, Led Zeppelin discography, Nirvana discography, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, The White Stripes discography, etc), unless there is enough for a separate videography (Madonna videography, Beyoncé videography, etc.). The proposed style guide doesn't address videos; under "What should not be included" it lists "Non-musical releases or works." Hendrix's appearances in the films are essentially limited to musical performances and are listed along with his published discographies. Since these predate videos, the term "Filmography" was used. Maybe rename it "Music performances in films" or similar? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps that should be better, to avoid confusion with acting appearances.--Music26/11 02:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Renamed. Thanks for bringing it up. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

59th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1987 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Winners and nominees: Paul Newman's character was Fast Eddie Felson, not Nelson.
  • Presenters and Performers: Last word of this heading should be decapitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Done: I fixed both errors mentioned above.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support With all that taken care of, great list. If you want non-book sources for the Marlee Matlin facts: you could use these: youngest [[2]], first deaf [[3]]. Another minor thing, the article is tagged as having a citation with an accessdate but no url, look through your references to find the culprit.
Cowlibob (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Nicely done, once again.--Jagarin 18:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom food and drink products with protected status[edit]

Nominator(s): Sotakeit (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe if fulfills all of the FL criteria:

  • Prose: It features professional standards of writing;
  • Lead: I think the lead sums up the list and its scope well, including inclusion criteria and sourcing.
  • Comprehensiveness: List includes all items listed by the European Commission as having protected geographic status, with a brief description of the restrictions placed on each product.
  • Structure: The list is well laid out, and has been separated into section headings based on the 'classes' they are divided into by the European Commission.
  • Style: The list complies with the MOS. Is visually appealing and makes use of appropriate, free-use images.
  • Stable: The list is stable, and will only need updating if/when more items are approved for registration or removed (only one product has been removed since implementation of the schemes in 1993). Sotakeit (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - I will do a full review of this later, but don't have the time right this moment (lunch break about to end :-)). As a start, I noticed this:
    • "Limited to hops prepared, processed and produced in specific area of Kent" => "Limited to hops prepared, processed and produced in a specific area of Kent"
      • Fixed, thanks. Sotakei T 15:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • More to come........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • More comments as far down as the end of fruit and veg...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • No reason to bold "United Kingdom food and drink products" in the lead
    • "relatively few when compared to France (217 protected status products), Italy (267) and Portugal (125)" - would seem to make more sense to put these in numerical order, either ascending or descending
    • Same for the next sentence
    • "described as a "traditional unimproved breeds"." - if "breeds" is meant to be plural then the "a" shouldn't be there
    • "using only birds over 20 weeks old, have been dry plucked, hung to mature and eviscerated after this period of hangin" - this doesn't read grammatically correctly, suggest the word "which" is missing after "birds"
    • "Products must be no more than 12 months old at the time of slaughter" - seems a bit odd to refer to the animals when they were still alive as "products"?? This applies in a few places in the first table
    • "cows milk" (with an apostrophe) is used in a few places, this doesn't look right to me.....
    • "using tradition or commercial methods" => "using traditional or commercial methods"
    • "Limited to potatoes produced in an area bounded by Ardkeen, in the south," - first comma not needed
    • "Limited to rhubarb produced with the Rhubarb Triangle" => "Limited to rhubarb produced within the Rhubarb Triangle"
All fixed, thanks. Sotakeit 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Protected from what? The intro does not do a good job at explaining that. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Even more comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Nergaal above, it isn't really clear as it stands what the impact/benefits of the status are. Something along the lines of this should be added: "The purpose of the law is to protect the reputation of the regional foods, promote rural and agricultural activity, help producers obtain a premium price for their authentic products, and eliminate the unfair competition and misleading of consumers by non-genuine products, which may be of inferior quality or of different flavour. Foods such as Gorgonzola, Parmigiano-Reggiano, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Piave cheese, Asiago cheese, Camembert, Somerset Cider Brandy and Champagne can only be labelled as such if they come from the designated region" (copied from Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union)
    • "Products much be produced using traditional methods" => "Products must be produced using traditional methods"
    • "Limited to sardines that have been caught within six miles of the coast of Cornish coast" - ???
    • "Limited to Atlantic salmon caught up to 1500 meters" - we are talking about Britain here, so the spelling of metre is wrong
    • "Products must use grapes from vines growing at a height below 220 meters" - same here
    • That appears twice in the wine section, in fact............
    • abv is only wikilinked the fourth or fifth time it appears - it should be linked the first time
      • Fixed. In regards to the explanation in the lead, I've gone for: The purpose of the scheme is to protect the reputation of regional products, promote traditional and agricultural activity and to eliminate non-genuine products, which may mislead consumers or be of inferior quality or different character. - how does that sound? Sotakeit 08:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is that it needs to say explicitly that it is protected from being reproduced in other places and commercialized under the name listed here. People know what a patent is, but a protected drink? Nergaal (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Nergaal, any better? Sotakeit 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, looks clear now. I would use yhe Scotch example though since that is by far the most widely known entry, and give specifics in one sentence. Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, example updated to Scotch :) Sotakeit (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I took a closer look now, and I am happy with the first paragraph. However, the rest of the intro is just too much about the regulation, and too little about the actual list. I think a lot of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th para can be mover into the first section, and just keep the essence there. Then you could add another para about the items on this list, or some statistics (idk, maybe how many are edable and not, how many fit into the 3 categories?). Also, is there a rationale for these particular subsections (i.e. the legislation actually splits them into these categories?). And the former protected item: when was it removed? Nergaal (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal. Okay, so I've moved more information into the first paragraph and extended what is now paragraph 2 to give a little more information on the list's contents. I've also attempted to explain in paragraph 3 why the list has been categorised as such. Finally, I've added the date that protected status was removed for Newcastle Brown Ale. Sotakeit (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks a bit better, but what I was thinking is move most of the legislation stuff into the first section and maybe call it something like legislation. That way the "boring" stuff is not in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: I've moved some of it down into the first section and renamed it "legislation" as suggested. I wanted to keep some explanation in the intro of what exactly the scheme is, so haven't altered it too much, mainly moving the more technical part that actually talks about which laws govern the schemes. Sotakeit (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
See if the format I left works for you. I would prefer some more discussion on the actual 57 products but that might be impractical. The only issue I have left is with "meat, dairy and fish products, honey, fruits and vegetables ... beverages made from plant extracts, bread, pasta, pastries, cakes, biscuits and confectionery". What is with the quotes and the "..."? I don't know where you got this from, but how about actually list all the edible entries here and put in parenthesis how many of them are in the 56 items. E.g.: "meat (101), diary (2), beferages (5), bread (1), etc." Nergaal (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Your amendment is much neater, thanks. Regarding the ""meat, dairy and fish products, honey, fruits and vegetables ..." section, I've not listed all the edible entries and their numbers as this could be a little messy and, after all, that's what the list itself is for. I have listed the three most common types (cheese, meat and fish) and given their number. How does that look? Sotakeit (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but please fix the total. I counted around 66 items on this list not 57. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, try to wikilink a few of the less common terms like offal and rhubarb. Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the total. My bad - I was looking at the total on the DOOR database, forgetting that wines and spirit drinks aren't listed on there. Sotakeit (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You may want to also fix this bit: "Most of the products hold either PGI (32) or PDO (23) status, with only two products being designated as TSG." - that still adds up to 57 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Silly me! Fixed. Sotakeit (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Iggy Azalea discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list is fully comprehensive and is ready for the gold star. I will appreciate any comments/suggestions in order to help improving this list. Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, as my comments have been addressed. Great work! Holiday56 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of major concern here, and I trust that you will address my comments as needed, so I will give my support to this well-developed list. Nicely done! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

List of National Football League rushing champions[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it to the point where it comprehensively covers the subject matter. The article gives an overview on what the topic is, who the rushing champions are for each season, and also what major awards or honors they received. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after a failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. The article contains a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

List of English Heritage properties in Somerset[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well illustrated, referenced and comprehensive list of the properties of English Heritage in the English county of Somerset. The format is based on the recently promoted List of National Trust properties in Somerset. — Rod talk 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Note - Nominator will have no internet access from 29 July to 10 Aug.— Rod talk 19:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Support --PresN 22:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • "It has a broad remit of managing the historic environment of England and advises the relevant Secretary of State on policy and in individual cases such as registering listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. " This sentence seems to get lost in the middle. Presumably EH advises on policy and acts executively on listing, but this is not clear.
  • EH advises both on policy and individual cases. It has no power to list buildings it is the secretary of state that does this (although EH advises and then records the decision). I've added "both" is this clearer?— Rod talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Cleeve - could conventual be linked?
  • I'm not sure what to link it to. Have changed to ancillary buildings - as these were accommodation and refectory buildings etc.— Rod talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dunster. "The base and shaft which probably date from the 15th century remain, however the head of the cross has been lost." This does not sound grammatically correct to me - maybe change "however" to "but" (or semi-colon after "remain"). I would also put a comma after shaft and century.
  • Changed to "but" and commas added.— Rod talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Farleigh. I suggest linking anthropomorphic
  • "The Gallox Bridge in Dunster dates from the 15th century. In the 14th century it was known as Doddebrigge." Known before it existed?
  • The site with a previous crossing was known... Changed - is this better?— Rod talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stanton Drew. A bit curious to say the Cove is 1000 years older than the circles without giving the age of either. I think this is vital information.
  • This report p. 63 says "The three stone circles at Stanton Drew are thought to have been constructed during the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age between 3000 and 2000 BC."
  • Thanks. Although I'd included that report I'd not spotted that date. Now added.— Rod talk 07:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stoney Littleton. As above. Presumably the bones have been carbon dated?
  • Again Neolithic sems to be as accurate as we get.— Rod talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The Tribunal. "Iron Age possessions" I think artefacts would be a better word.
  • Changed.— Rod talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yarn. "It is in the guardianship of English Heritage but is managed by the National Trust." I am not sure what guardianship means here. Does EH own it?
  • I think the nation owns it & I am also unsure exactly what the relationship between EH and NT is.— Rod talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

1929 in tennis[edit]

Nominator(s): Lajbi Holla @ me CP 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because these types of pre-professinal tennis era articles better qualify for a list format. They are basically compiled of vast series of reliable sources. We've started these lists a couple of years ago and it's the third edition of them and I feel it has been forged into a readable, well-formatted structure by now. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • The lead does not seem to have been copy edited.
  • "The year 1929 in tennis was a complex mixture" I would strike 'complex' as superfluous.
  • "The professionals were mostly coaches who coached for a living, while amateur rules prohibited tennis players to benefit financially from playing." This is wordy and clumsy. Perhaps "Most professionals were coaches, and amateurs were prohibited from benefiting financially from playing."
  • "The amateur events were almost all all-comers' event and the majority included a mixed title contest." Repetition of all - the first could be replaced by always. I do not understand "a mixed title contest". Mixed doubles? But then why mention that and not men's and womens' doubles?
    I felt that this explanation is needed because even in the Wikiproject:Tennis people seemed to be confused that there are no separate Men's tour (like ATP World Tour) and women's tour (like WTA Tour). At the time a championship had both gender singles, doubles and mixed doubles, which could be surprising to casual readers as it only happens in Grand Slam tournaments nowdays (because those four are the only tournaments where men and women compete together). In 1929 it was a usual thing but I want it to be noted in the lede. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think this needs spelling out as I did not understand it - e.g. "There were no separate men's and women's tours and almost all amateur events had men's, women's and mixed doubles contests." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The women's most successful players in the European international championships were Esna Boyd of Australia and two players from the United States Elizabeth Ryan who was thuspunished by the United States Lawn Tennis Association for her commitment to European events compared to those in the U.S. and Helen Wills Moody who won the two most prestigious tournaments in Europe," This has 3 lines without even a comma and two words run together - thuspunished. Needs tidying and I would leave out 'thus'
  • "The Four Musketeers" - this links to a disambig. Needs correcting and I would add who they are in this article.
  • "Also the Australian Championships was won by a British player, Colin Gregory." The word 'Also' is ungrammatical and unnecessary.
  • "the Davis Cup (called the International Lawn Tennis Challenge)" - perhaps "officially called"
  • "the Mitre Cup (South American version of the Davis Cup)" I am not sure any edit is needed but it sounds as if politics was involved. Chile played in the Europe zone of the Davis Cup and presumably the other South American countries went off and had their own cup?
  • Wightman and Davis Cups. 'edition' is an odd word here - year or held for xth time?
  • International Tennis Federation should be linked.
  • "The tournament was split into the American and European zones. The winner of each sub-zone played in an Inter-Zonal Final." I do not understand this. If zones were split into sub-zones then this should be explained.
  • "The United States defeated Cuba in the America Zone, but would then lose to France in the Challenge Round," Why give the winner of the American zone but not the European. Perhaps something like "The United States won the American zone, but lost to the winner of the Europe zone, France in the final, called the Challenge Round."

Table

  • N/A seems to be used inconsistently, sometimes no competition, sometimes opponent retired. Perhaps sometimes previous year's winner only played in final and had not entered, or had that rule been abolished by that time? I think it would be better to explain in each case, not put N/A.
    I used N/A for the "no information" (currently). That's its sole purpose. If there was e.g. no women's contest I greyed the whole coloumn out. Retired in the final is abbreviated "ret." as explained in the Key section. No competition is always phrased like "prizes shared" or "remained unfinished due to [rain]" or simply "suspended" depending on what sort of source is available to verify it. As for your last question no Challenge round was in effect at the time except for the Davis Cup (which is obviously called the Challenge round, which is in the lede) but do I have to explain the rules of tennis within a list article? I mean I already listed the change of rules that happened exactly in 1929 but do I have to present tennis to readers? Or mention that challenge round was abolished sometime before WWI? Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    The problem is that N/A is ambiguous. I took it to mean Not applicable. I think 'Not known' would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mixed doubles Cannes January shown as suspended. The source says due to bad light. If not resumed it should be shown as abandoned.
  • February Bill Tilden. "His US number one ranking was also due to be regiven to him." I don't think regiven is a word. Why not restored?
  • David Cup May 2nd round. The winners and losers do not line up on my screen.
  • June. "The British ladies' team beat the French rivals without losing a match." should be their French rivals or leave out the word 'rivals'.
  • I do not like the Footnotes and Works cited in boxes so that you cannot see them all at the same time but that is personal preference.
  • A first rate list but text needs tightening. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and the in-depth details. I will work on it and update this page accordingly. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Millennium characters[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Another topic from a little-loved show. I took a bit of licence with this one as it's not a style of list that's been covered much, and what samples I could find seemed to focus mostly on "in-universe" material. I've defined a scope and stuck to it, but for the most part Millennium was a series devoid of any real weighty characters beyond the lead role. I am a little underwhelmed by the lead; I think maybe it needs something visual to break it up but nothing leapt out beyond possibly moving the Henriksen image up (two attempts at PR led nowhere at all). As always I'll be watching this like a hawk to reply to any concerns as quickly as I can. Thanks in advance, guys. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor comments - Haven't had a chance to look at prose in full (yet)

  • Could rowscopes be added in the summary table?
  • There are some cases where a character's full name is written many times over; the surname would just suffice after the first mention. For instance "Hollis was conceived as a "skeptical" partner for Frank Black", paragraph before gives his name in full. Likewise "Andrews turned on fellow group members Black and Peter Watts."
  • "Black's initial mentor in the group, they work together", reads a bit shorthand compared to the rest of the character's profile
  • Accessdate for Ref 64? Lemonade51 (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

List of How I Met Your Mother characters[edit]

Nominator(s): Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because in the 76 edits I have made to the page, I have given it several thorough copyedits, added images and reorganized and do not think I can improve it any further. A recent peer review had little input, which I hope means that there were few issues. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Great list overall. Well done! Simon (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Bleach video games[edit]

Nominator(s): Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. The issues from DragonZero's peer review has been resolved. Thank you for your time and patience. (Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC))

    • Hi there. I solved most of the issues! Also, I removed a line for "36 playable characters" cause I couldn't find an appropriate source. Cheers! (Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC))
      Thanks for your contribution!--222.82.228.174 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work, Nightwolf! My comments have all been addressed. I hope you keep on writing these video game FLs! Nomader (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, good job. My only remaining comment would be that I would have preferred if the template format was the one used in List of Mystery Dungeon video games, since the one you used puts more emphasis on which systems the games came out for even though most of them only came out for one, but that's well outside the scope of an FLC review since it's an aesthetic judgement and the one you used works just fine. Just something to consider if you make another list like this in the future. --PresN

Just chipping in here to say that when I put those templates in at the time the List was being based off List of One Piece video games and List of Harvest Moon video games. Both of which were fairly new Featured Lists at the time. The template you showed had only just recently been created and due to the focus of that template appearing to be on the release dates in different regions and with PAL being combined as one instead of separated into it's own regions (as seen in EU and AUS in the list with differing release dates), as a result I decided to stick with the ones currently in place. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support after a few small edits to the lead. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if I'm allowed to support this nomination given I was the nominator from the previous archive. Nightwolf you've done an amazing job updating the article with new games, fixing all the templates and bringing the article up to the current guidelines and cleaning up the references. I'm so happy to finally see this list looking like it'll reach featured status, it was really disheartening to get only one support back then, and since, life has happened. I have two points of recommendation though, it may be worth mentioning that certain online surfaces have been discontinued, such as in the Heat the Soul games and those that require the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, which was discontinued earlier this year (I know all Pokemon games were affected, I assume Bleach was the same) I'd do this in the same line as the online mobility was announced something along the line of "Multiplayer functionality was available, however as of <date> have been discontinued.". I also feel that any pre-order purchase goods should be mentioned if a reference can be found. I noticed the one for the Kon 'purse' I put up the website died, but for Bleach GC: Tasogare ni Mamieru Shinigami I know there was a Gamecube skin released in the reference used. I'd also like to point out that the mentioning of specific character counts is odd for me. I'm not sure if that was me, you or someone else, I initially only did this for the Jump games since they were not set within the Bleach universe. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lightlowemon: I'd say that, given all the work Nightwolf has done since the last nomination (five years ago!), there shouldn't be any problem with you supporting. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lightlowemon: Hi mate and thank you for stopping by. Well, its your choice to support or not :) I must also give you the credits if this list pass because you were a first nominator and things that you have done are still visible. As you suggested, I added notes about termination of online services for Nintendo Wi-Fi and Heat the Soul series. Cheers (Nightwolf87 (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC))

List of cruisers of Germany[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This list covers all of the cruisers built by Germany, from the early 1880s to 1945, and spanning three navies. This list is the capstone for this monster Good Topic. This list is based heavily on the sub-lists it summarizes, and it was reviewed at MILHIST's A-class review process in May (see here). Thanks to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • no dablinksYesY
  • checklinks okYesY
  • alt text is needed for all images
  • reflinks okYesY
  • redir checker okYesY
  • no copyvios according to earwigYesY
  • no overlinkingYesY
  • dashes are okYesY
  • while redlinks are obviously acceptable on a work in progress like WP, I have been chipped for them in FLs myself, and think there are a total of nine redlinked guns, as well as the "list of avisos" redlink. I'll leave it to the moderators to decide if that is too many redlinks for a list of this size, but I'd suggest creating the gun articles, even if they are stubs.
  • no citation for the propulsion for Mainz
    • Oops, good catch.
  • not clear why some terms are linked in some cells of tables, and others are not. The types of engines in the light cruisers section, for example. I suggest that these are terms people are familiar with, and don't need linking. But given they are not sortable tables, if you are going to link, just link the first mention in each table.
    • I doubt most readers know what a steam turbine is - I always link engine types on first use. There was some overlinking in some of the tables, but I've removed those now.
  • "were intended to break Versailles" needs rewording, "were intended to break the Versailles restrictions"? Perhaps a little more explanation?
    • See how it reads now.
  • I'm unsure of whether the tables meet accessibility requirements, but will also leave that for the moderators or reviewers with better knowledge of what that looks like.
    • I'd assume they're fine - I cribbed them from the already-FL sublists.
  • given the long reference list, I suggest you use the refbegin and refend templates to reduce text size
    • Fair enough
  • I don't think you need ISBN and OCLC for Conway's 1922-46, Gröner, Halpern, Staff or Tarrant, one book identifier is all that is needed.
    • Good point
  • Lenton German Warships of the Second World War (1975) pp. 65–66 mentions three "scout cruisers" Sp.1-3. Only one was laid down, and the other two cancelled, but I think they should be included for completeness? The rationale for their design is described in some detail on p. 29, they were originally planned as 1936A (Mob) destroyers Z.40–42.
    • They're really more like large destroyers -and Groener and Conway's include them with the destroyers, not the cruisers, so I followed their lead.
  • Lenton (p. 55) states Emden (the latter one) was scuttled Heikendorfer Bight 3 May 1945 after being bombed by RAF Kiel 14 April 1945
  • Lenton (p. 57) states Karlsruhe sunk 10 April 1940 (by HMS Truant), Köln bombed by USAAF Wilhemshaven 30 March 1945 and scrapped 1946, Königsberg bombed RN aircraft Bergen 10 January 1940, salved 1943, capsized 22 September 1944 and abandoned
  • Lenton (p. 58) states Leipzig scuttled southwest of Lister 20 July 1946
  • Lenton (p. 60) states Admiral Hipper scrapped 1946
  • Lenton (p. 64) states Prinz Eugen expended as target Kwajalein 15 November 1947, and Seydlitz scuttled incomplete Königsberg 10 April 1945, salved as Russian Poltava, construction abandoned 1950, also Lützow sold to Russians 1940, completion abandoned May 1941, bombed German aircraft Leningrad April 1942, floating battery Tallin 1942, Petropavlovsk 1944, construction abandoned 1950
    • I don't know what you want me to do with the several points above - this info (though from other sources) is present in all of the individual ship articles and in the relevant sublists, but it seems all too detailed to be in this one. And there are several errors: in the case of Karlsruhe, Lenton is wrong - it was the 9th, not the 10th, Koenigsberg was sunk on 10 April, not 10 January (and was raised in Jan. 1942, not 1943), etc.
  • Lenton (p. 65) states light cruisers "M", "N" and "O" were scrapped on slip 1941–43, last three cancelled.
    • According to Groener, O was never laid down and the other two were broken up in 1939 after the start of the war.
  • Lenton (pp. 381–384) lists 11 auxiliary cruisers, including the Kormoran that famously accounted for the HMAS Sydney (D48) in a battle of mutual destruction. They were Orion, Atlantis, Pinguin, Widder, Thor, Stier, Komet, Kormoran, Michel, Coronel, and Hansa. If they are not to be included in this list, it needs to be explained in the lead in terms of defining the scope.
    • Those are only the WWII raiders - they are nonetheless not proper cruisers, which is to say they're not purpose-built warships. I've added a note explaining that.

That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
A pleasure, I am happy all my points have been covered/addressed except the alt text on the images. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I overlooked that - I've added some, but don't really know what's helpful and what's not. Let me know if anything needs work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, supporting now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph comments

  • The first sentence has about twice as many words as it needs to be.
  • Why start these sorts of sentences with the dates? "By the 1910s, the protected and unprotected cruisers had been withdrawn from active service, though some continued on in secondary roles."
    • Moved to the end of the sentence
  • "Most of the armored and light cruisers saw action during World War I in all of the major theaters of the conflict, ..." Again, too wordy. "Most of the armored and light cruisers saw action in the major theaters of World War I ..."
    • Good suggestion
  • "The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to surrender most of its remaining vessels and to retain only six old pre-dreadnought battleships and six old light cruisers on active duty." "to ... to", etc
    • See how it reads now.
  • You're using "most" and "many" a lot
    • Switched one of the "most"s to "the majority"
  • "twenty years of age" is stilted. Why not "after twenty years of service"?
    • Well, the 20-year timer started at the launching, not the commissioning, so counting years of service isn't accurate.
  • "It began with the first new light cruiser, Emden, in 1921 ..." began and first are redundant
    • Removed the "first"
  • "Mid-1935s" ... really?
    • That's embarrassing :(
  • Are the naval name changes needed in the lead?
    • I figured it was worth noting
  • "... and cancelled before the end of the year following the outbreak of World War II." why "and"? Shouldn't you be using "but"? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Good point. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • development of ships suited to each task wouldn't "optimized" be better than "suited"?
    • Sounds fine to me
  • Link mine
    • Added
  • Add a bit about the FK design studies.
    • Added a line on them
  • after sustaining two nuclear detonations howabout "enduring" rather than "sustaining"? Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

List of currencies in North America[edit]

Nominator(s): Matty.007 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because (fairly obviously) I feel this meets the requirements. Hopefully this will be third time lucky, the previous two nominations seem to follow a pattern: small issues are raised, I try and fix them, a large issue is raised, I try and fix it, then no-one else votes. I have done the things suggested in the previous FLCs (sort by currency rather than country, remove all sorts of things, and re-jig it). Now, I hope there is nothing too major needing doing. Third-time lucky? Thanks in advance, Matty.007 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • First of all, I apologize for not getting back to the previous nom, things got busy. That said:
    • Guadeloupe and Martinique are not dependencies of France; they are part of it. Listing them separately would be akin to listing each U.S. state or Canadian province. Likewise, San Andres etc. is part of Colombia and should at least use the Colombian flag, if not simply say "Colombia". I'm unsure if the same applies to some or all of the Netherlands islands.
    • British Virgin Islands is missing.
    • No need to say "United States of America", few other long-form names are used.
    • The intro states that "all de facto currencies" are listed here. I know you mean this instead of de jure, but that leaves out a lot of currencies. For example, I know that Mexican pesos are accepted at some stores inside the U.S. along the border; does that make it a de facto currency of the U.S.? So my thought is this should focus purely on de jure currencies, with the major de facto ones (i.e. ones with official or semi-official support) mentioned either separately or with a healthy footnote. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Golbez, sorry, thought I had replied to this. Fixed first three (though US Virgin Islands is doing something odd, would you be able to fix it please?), but I don't quite understand what you suggest with the fourth point, please can you clarify? Thanks, Matty.007 15:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, is it listing de facto or de jure currencies? It claims de facto; where does that diverge from de jure? And "USA" is also too informal, "United States" is quite fine, sorry I didn't clarify that before. Also, the table is now a bit weird around the USVI. And... France appears to have disappeared entirely? As well as Colombia? I didn't say remove them, they're still in North America and their currencies are still used there. --Golbez (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
          • No idea regarding USVI, I'll have to try and see if I can get someone who knows their way around (Godot 13?) to help. Re-added France and Colombia. I think it is probably de jure, as you say. What are you suggesting is changed though, other than the opening statement? Thanks, Matty.007 16:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Well, is the U.S. dollar de facto or de jure a currency of Panama? Or Ecuador? If the list states itself to be a list of de jure currencies, but it's not a currency by law in those countries but is widely spread enough to be considered a national currency, they should have a note explaining why they're on this list. --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Ah, think I get you. Changed to de jure. Are there any currencies such as that, widely circulated but not the official currency? Thanks, Matty.007 10:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how many of those people have been to/seen an actual exchange office recently. Nergaal (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I also commented on this last FLN but they were not added. I really think they should include the 3 letter ISO codes, not just for exchange offices, but it's on plane tickets, train tickets, stock markets, etc. Quite useful to have. Mattximus (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As I have explained, Crisco 1492, Godot13, and Dudley Miles gave consensus to remove them. If they have changed their minds, I will add them but until then I cannot see the point of adding something which seems 50/50. Thanks, Matty.007 18:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead needs quite a bit of work.
  • A commonly used North American currency is the United States dollar". What are you trying to say here. What do you mean by commonly. Is it the most? The currency with the highest circulating value?
  • As I explained to Bloom further up this page, it is a common currency. I can narrow it down if you want, but there are several options (by amount of currency, by number of people using it) which it could be narrowed down to, and I think that disambiguating to that level is a step too far. Thanks, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But why does this sentence even exist? It adds nothing without some qualifier. A nice opening sentence for that paragraph would say something like the US$ is the most used currency by number of people and amount in circulation (with a ref). As is, it serves no function.
  • "It is the world's reserve currency." There are several reserve currencies, not just the US$. The US dollar is currently the one with the largest foreign exchange reserves which should be made clear.
  • Clarified. Thanks, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You have a mess of passive sentences. For example " In international commodity markets, the United States dollar is also standard." Should read "The United States dollar is also standard in international commodity markets". But you should probably qualify what standard means.
  • Attempted fix. Thanks, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Many more tweaks are needed. Please be careful of passive sentences one after the other. It makes for a tough read.
  • I changed a little, but there may be more instances. Thanks for the help, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is another passive sentence that should be made active: "By the number of countries in North America sharing a currency, the East Caribbean dollar is most used."
  • Please strive for one idea per sentence. This extremely long sentence needs to be broken up, it's unreadable:

In the phenomenon known as 'dollarization', the U.S. dollar has been adopted as the official currency of several other countries;[6] but semi-dollarization also exists in a few other countries where the U.S. dollar is recognised as legal tender alongside another currency, and unofficial dollarization exists in many areas where the U.S. dollar is widely used and accepted-although it is not recognised as legal tender. Mattximus (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed both. Thanks, Matty.007 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have the feeling the lead needs a thorough copyedit. It's quite poorly written. Paragraph 2 should start off with something like "The United States dollar is the currency with the highest value circulation in North America", then talk about how it is a reserve currency. Then talk about how is is used outside of USA borders. That would be a logical paragraph. Words like "However" and "a commonly used" are not useful and should be removed. The third paragraph is mostly about the East Caribbean Dollar, but then switches to talking about countries with 2 currencies, then back to the american dollar which was the subject of the 2nd paragraph. Needs some work. Oppose until a copyedit is done to the lead. The table itself however is looking much better. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • You may want to consider defining (in the first or second paragraph) exactly how many countries and/or dependencies exist in North America (with a few good references).
  • Both “A commonly used North American currency is the United States dollar” and “The East Caribbean dollar is the most used currency by the number of countries in North America utilising it.” are somewhat ambiguous sentences because there are no concrete anchor points (which would be possible if North American inclusion was defined with a finite number).
  • It may read better if you could make statements like “10 of 40 North American countries and dependencies (25%) use the U.S. Dollar” or something along those lines. Same thing for the East Caribbean dollar.
  • Also, if ISO codes will help garner support, you might want to use them... - Godot13 (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

World Fantasy Award for Best Collection[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, after two months that video game list is off the nominations page, so it's time we turn back to sci-fi/fantasy award lists! Following in the footsteps of the World Fantasy Awards for Best Novel, Best Novella, and Best Short Story, (not to mention the dozens of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, etc.) we have my latest: the World Fantasy Award for Best Collection. And it's a strange one. Not so much for what it is now, and what it originally was- an award for the best collections of fantasy works by a single author- but because for 10 years in the middle of the 40 it's been around, anthologies of works by multiple authors were eligible, until they so overran the category that they got split out into their own. I've tried to make it clear what's going on, though, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Anyways, this list follows the same format as the previous 28 sci-fi/fantasy award FLs- table, winners, sorting, yadda yadda yadda, and as always comments from those previous FLCs have been replicated for this list. Thanks all for reviewing, and hopefully this won't take another 2 months! --PresN 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments "hopefully this won't take another 2 months!" - You do understand what tempting fate is, I would assume...
    • The 2014 winner not announced yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, they announced the 2014 nominees a couple weeks ago, but they won't announce the winner till October. --PresN 17:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Might want to be explicit in the list. I don't see any footnotes or anything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. --PresN 00:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost there. CN for the announcement date, and then we're golden. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done as well. --PresN 21:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Really nothing to pick at. A very well written list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

List of nearest exoplanets[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

After quite some work I think this is a neat list. Let me know how can it be improved further. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

ST11 comments[edit]

  • the age on 82 G. Eridani is clearly wrong, since that's older than the universe itself. It also contradicts what is in the 82 G. Eridani article itself. This needs to be fixed since it's a blatant factual error.
good catch, I didn't even notice it. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it myself. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is V = 6.3 the cutoff for naked-eye visibility, when the commonly-agreed upon value mentioned in most places is 6.5, and the Bortle scale gives even lower values?
I'll change it to 6.5 and update the note. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The tables in the exoplanets statistics section should probably have different cutoff values. Nearly all have most of the planets in a single category, such as most of the stars in the orbital radius table being in the first bin, which doesn't tell much to the reader.
That is an artifact for exoplanets in general, Mercury-like planets are easier to detect. I don't see how should I choose the cutoffs such as a reader can get something out of it, if not taking them from Mercury. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, you make a good point. You might want to say in the tables that the cutoffs are based on the mass of objects in the Solar System then, for clarity. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You have any ideas how to make such an addition "elegant"? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I found a solution for this. Let me know what you think of it. Nergaal (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead is too long to read comfortably. Please consider adding sections.
I tried to have the lead summarize key points in the table. Any ideas what could be moved into a section? Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I moved the technical stuff into a criteria section. Nergaal (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a way the statistics section could be presented more neatly? I think splitting it into two columns would be great for readability, since even on my 1280x800 monitor, it only really takes up the left half of the screen (note that this isn't a requirement for me supporting, but would be nice).
Good idea! Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Gliese 370 entry needs to be renamed to its HD number, considering that is what is most commonly used to refer to the star. So does the Gliese 785 entry. The Gliese 892 mention in the notes needs to be changed to its HR number for the same reason.
Done. Nergaal (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would remove the mention of the UPGS object from the 4th paragraph of the inclusion criteria section, since it is not currently confirmed as a rogue planet, and may be a brown dwarf instead.
That article gives it a min mass of 4 Mj. Wouldn't that make it a sub-brown dwarf? Anyways, I've added "potential" modifier to the sentence. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The "potential" addition solves the problem too, so this is fine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the table, I would change the "notes" column to a "references" column, and add the actual notes to right next to the planet designation.
Done. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

After all of these are addressed, unless I see something else, I will support. Only thing left is the age of 82 G. Eridani. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Support per content review. Btw, sorry to see the trouble at WPELEM; you're clearly in the right there from what I can gather. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pertinent comments. The WP:ELEM thing is history for me now. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

--PresN 18:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I fixed all these issues. I will double-check once the doi bot decides to update the links. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing to Support --PresN 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support! Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Regretfully in this case. But several editors, myself included, have offered suggestions for improvement to this list candidate at its Talk page, basically on the grounds that the article's lead can and should be improved on WP:LEAD grounds, and that the article needs to be divided in to more sections. But the article's original author has rebuffed not only these attempts, but pretty much all attempts at discussing the issue, and is completely uninterested in any consensus-building on solutions. --IJBall (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

One should note that this particular opinion comes from somebody who thinks the article should look like [6] - that is splitting the text into eight sections with one sentence per section. I would prefer if some experienced editor, be it a coordinator, tries to explain why such standards are inappropriate, at least for a FL. Also, "several" equals two in this aprticular case, with one editor having less than 6 months experience of editing. Nergaal (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if you ignore the accompanying Edit summary that I did with that reversion. I also have already made clear in the Talk page comments that I personally feel that User:Cliffswallow-vaulting's version is probably too far in the other direction (i.e. over-sectioned), but at least it's a starting point. And it's not "two" editors: it's at least three (myself, Cliffswallow-vaulting, and the IP editor (assuming that the two IP editors are the same person)). But, by all means – keep clinging to your WP:OWN tact on this, and I'll continue to oppose this list as a 'Featured list' as you seem completely unwilling to work towards a consensus solution here, which is all the rest of us are really asking for. --IJBall (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Haha, how about use the current version as a starting point instead of some joke of an article. Nergaal (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
As a note, I completely disagree with restructuring the list to have a bunch of tiny sections- it's almost never okay to have one-sentence paragraphs to start with, much less as one-paragraph sections, much less multiple one-paragraph sections. The current list has descriptive summary information in the lead section and details about how planets get in the list in the Inclusion criteria section, and that seems entirely reasonable. --PresN 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


JR[edit]

  • Comment. New here. I came in response to an RFC call and got redirected to the FLC. The following remarks are substantially what I already have said in the RFC. The article does have shortcomings, but the operative ones are not to be ascribed to paragraph length in particular, nor section length, nor (much) to the quality of writing within paragraphs. It has to do with the structure and function of this article, which is a problem in its own right, because this is a list article and most of its non-list content should be covered in associated articles such as Exoplanet, leaving mostly material that aids in the use of the lists. For a start, a quick scan suggests that the data in the various Exoplant-related articles do not necessarily correspond. ("Over 1800 exoplanets have been discovered right?) It is hard enough just to keep the lists up to date in one article. Keeping the individual articles mutually comprehensible is even harder, not to mention keeping them in substantial agreement.
Let me try to do this item by item. This list is not about 1800 exoplanets, but about less than 100 entires. What is the problem you have? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
There also is a perennial misunderstanding of what the lede is for; you see it in article after article. A surprisingly large faction seems to think that a lede is a formally required block of text, measured in paragraphs, that one puts at the start of the article to hold up the hat notes, and that the right dose is four paragraphs, independent of paragraph length, content or mutual coherence.
It isn't. Shouldn't be anyway.
And I think that the intro is meant to summarize the article/list. Where does the current intro not adequately summarize the list? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A lede is whatever will suffice to tell the reader why he should, or should not, read on. If you need more than a few lines for that you should re-think what you are saying, and why you are saying it. I am unconvinced that this article needs any lede at all, but if it does, I am not sure that anything in the current lede is suitable. If it is, then that part is in the first paragraph, but then someone needs to get in there and in 23.37 words explain what this list is intended to achieve. Having done so, he will probably realise why none of the current "lede" belongs in the lede at all.
I have done so and I have not been able to "realize" why the text does not belong to the "lead" at all. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Then there should be a section heading along the lines of Status quo or The current situation or something similar. The remaining three paragraphs currently in the lede might go into that, possibly augmented in the light of the blinding revelation that that section actually has a function, and that the function is to fill the reader in on the plot so far. The most worrying aspect of this proposal is that some poor sucker will have to keep an unwearying eye on those figures. In case some innocent out there thinks that in this field of study those figures will stay put... weellllll....!
By status quo you mean what is the summary of the present situation? How is this not summary of the table below and how it shouldn't be part of the intro? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The Inclusion criteria section currently is a dogs breakfast. Its third paragraph ("Usually, nearby exoplanets have been discovered...") should be extracted, labelled with a section heading something like Search technology, and placed after the then more coherent Inclusion criteria section; that third paragraph does not deal with inclusion criteria. The paragraph starting "There are known examples of potential free-floating sub-brown dwarfs, sometimes..." should be appended after "...above it, an object is classified as a brown dwarf." In that position there is little reason to make it a separate paragraph, but suit yourself.
Please go and read the entire paragraph and in your own words, "having done so you will probably realize why the text" ... belongs there. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The remark "Notable uncertainties exist ..." could be left where it is to close the section (my preference) or put into the Search technology paragraph. Take your pick according to taste.
Let us take a parallel example: if there is a list with "cities over 1 mil pop" how would you treat the cities that according to some sources have over that threshold while others are below that? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This article should have the minimum of possible explanation and general exposition; it is a framework for the lists, not a lecture. Or anyway, it should be. Much of what is in it at the moment could better be clearly fitted into related articles and linked to. Just think: what do you have at the moment? A "See also" paragraph that contains a list of list articles and no expositionary articles! (No I am not joking! See for yourself.) Enter Exoplanet into a Wikipedia search. There are over 2000 hits, most of them irrelevant of course, but at least a couple of dozen are directly relevant, and frankly, some of them make it look as though either they or this article must be superfluous, or at least painfully redundant, crying for a merge or needing linkage. Even if this article remains, some of its paragraphs could be excised or at least pruned and replaced with links such as "(main article on detection at:...)"
What do you mean by expositionary articles? I honestly don't understand what are you trying to suggest here. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Having done all that, read the whole article (minus the lists of course) aloud to some uninvolved, literate party and look for sticking points. Never mind whether the audience has a degree or is an English Colonel or whatever it might be, or is illiterate. If you have to explain anything you may conclude that you have boobed and it is back to the drawing board. And that will have nothing to do with whether you are addressing the Simple English crowd or not. Or how many paragraphs you have or how long they may be. Churchill, who was a natural and imposingly excellent writer, said something somewhere on the separation of paragraphs, but nary a word about how long or short they should be. He spoke, more or less, about their sense and flow or something along those lines. If I have a spot of time I'll try to find the source, but don't hold your breath. JonRichfield (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, I honestly don't understand what are you trying to suggest here. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot how fulfilling editing wikipedia is so I'll try to be nice so I'll just say I am not sure what JR is trying to say. Anybody care to translate? Nergaal (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Why bother? It's pretty clear that no matter how many other editors offer style and formatting suggestions on this article, you as the original author, and at least two other editors here at WP:FL, see absolutely nothing wrong at all with it. So it's pretty clear that you all are just going to do what you're going to do. The rest of us see that it's pointless, and I'm sure no other "suggestions" will be forthcoming. So just go to it – there's no need for "snark". You've won – go buy yourself a beer. --IJBall (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Well, you did ask, so try this and like it. This is an FLC. Something to do with ranking with the best WP article standards. OK? (Stop and ask again for a bit of assistance when I lose you; I won't mind.)
Fine, I tried to assume good faith and be considerate but it seems that you seem to have very little respect for other people's work. So here we go. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
As it stands the article not only is far from the best standards, but isn't up to normal standards. Maybe you omitted to do so, but I have now had a quick look at the documented FLC criteria. They included:
THIS IS A LIST. In case you have a hard time understanding, the "L" in FLC stands for list. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"Professional standards of Prose." ('Nuff said on that point?)
Dear Mr Smug: WTF are you talking about. Can you care to give specific examples or you just like to hear yourself fart over somebody else's work? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"An engaging lead that ... defines the scope and inclusion criteria." If you go back to what I said, you will find some very specific hints on how to do something about that. Pretty close to the start in fact. At the moment what you have in the position of the lede isn't even coherent, never mind introductory. I can see why some folks said split it up, because it made hard reading. Unfortunately, splitting and simplification are not what it needs; it needs revaluation and redeployment. Which is what I recommended, right? Possibly the best options would be omission or replacement, but that is an open question just now.
Again, can you enlighten me and give me an example of what it should look like in your "humble" opinion? As I've said before, I really have a hard time understanding your points. You seem to have a problem with a scientific article trying to explain things, but I am having a hard time understanding what you are talking about. You know the saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Skip a few items in the FLC for now, since you don't seem to like text walls, however attractive...
What are you talking about Mr Babble? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"Structure." This could be embarrassing. "Easy to navigate? Section headings?" For an article of this size it is hard to read, never mind navigate. It doesn't have any section headings. Yes, certainly there are lines in section heading format all right, but they don't match what appears in the "sections", and much of what does appear in the "sections" does not clearly belong in the notional section topic and is incoherent. Again, I did suggest some improvements. You are welcome to ignore those proposals of course, but if you don't do something of your own, something at least as radical as those suggestions, and equally calculated to improve the current status, I don't know why you are bothering with editing at all, let alone FLCs. As things stand, the article hardly earns its WP space, let alone FLC nomination.
"Style etc." Yer. Riiight.
Again, this is a list not an article. Quote from FL?: "and includes, where helpful, section headings" you seem to have a hard time understanding the "where helpful part"; it is surprising, considering you seem to be so full of opinions that you have a hard time explaining, that you seem to have a really hard time understanding a 15 word sentence. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
.... More elisions
"Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars..." I hadn't previously looked at this article, but in response to this point I did take a look at the history. Fortunately I forgot what I saw there, so I shall not ask myself any embarrassing questions about that, because I had made no suggestions on the subject and hope that I never need to.
Well, if people would have a brain and use it to communicate and not just throw farts around, then this (and wikipedia in general) would be a very peaceful place. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. Are you getting the picture now? Since I do actually have other matters on my hands, please this time try to make some sense of what you have written and then of what some other folks have written before asking again. Then ask again. JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, I don't understand what are you suggesting. You have a problem? Then you should probably check out some of the instructions at for reviewers like you: To oppose a nomination, write 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... Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. So again, what are your specific objections? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note for FLC directors. The opinion of the editor above seem to be summarized in his words at: "As things stand, the article hardly earns its WP space, let alone FLC nomination... Yer. Riiight." Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from 77.57.25.250[edit]

Couple of issues:

  • Splitting terrestrial/gas giant based on mass values is utterly misleading, it isn't supported by the evidence from actual exoplanetary discoveries. E.g. consider Kepler-10b vs KOI-314c. Yes I know Planetary Habitability Laboratory does this but that website is so full of unfounded speculation and bogus values that it should not be considered a reliable source.
That was not intended to be misleading. The point is to have some sort of categorization among the 60+ entries. Any ideas how to fix that? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
As noted in my comments below, I think this is not an easily fixed problem. It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we reflect reliable sources and don't do original research. If there isn't a categorization that is well-supported by reliable secondary sources, then we can't categorize, full stop. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
So you think I should remove that table altogether? Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Systems visible to the naked eye" - to be pedantic, the system is not visible though the host star(s?) may be.
At night people say that they see a car passing by, not some headlights. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

77.57.25.250 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And if I see Pollux, I say I've seen a star, not the Pollux system. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the categories. The table should not be viewed as a categorization but as a data binning as used in a histogram. In the comment by 77.57.25.250 the Kepler-10b is presumably meant to be Kepler-10c - a Neptune-mass rocky planet. This page is getting difficult to follow with comments being inserted into the middle of other people's comments. Astredita (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, glad this is resolved. Actually the comparison was definitely intended to be Kepler-10b: a 3-Earth-masses terrestrial versus the Earth-mass gas dwarf KOI-314c. Kepler-10c is not such a good contrast because of the relatively high volatile fraction (5-20% by mass), which is orders of magnitudes larger than a terrestrial planet. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Peter coxhead[edit]

Generally I agree with the central point of JonRichfield's comments. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article; basically there shouldn't be any new information there. It doesn't.

Why am I having such a hard time getting myself understood. STOP quoting guidelines and give me SPECIFIC examples. I totally agree with following guidelines, but can you please show where exactly the text does not follow guidelines? Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Because you are not reading what Jon wrote. He explained very clearly. This is a list article. The lead section should summarize the content, i.e. the list, not go into complex details.
@Peter coxhead: And could you please list these "complex details"? Nergaal (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as ... – the article also seems to be based on significant original research. Wikipedia doesn't decide what an exoplanet it; it just reports what reliable (secondary) sources say. I certainly can't support it as a featured list. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
And the continuation to that is "as unconfirmed when there is only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, but there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence." Can you please tell me what is wrong with the sentence and not with part of it? Did you even read the section? The list DOES NOT DECIDE WHAT IS AN EXOPLANET and what that section is saying is that the unconfirmed planets don't get confirmed through an official process. For example, in order for a new element to be officially confirmed, a specific agency WAITS to see that other people observe the same thing, and only after that accept it; by parallel, if there was an agency accepting official claims for planets, they would wait more than a single report of a planet. Since you obviously did not go through the list before expressing your opinion, there are a couple of planets reported in 2014 alone, and these have only received a single primary report. In science, unbeknown to you, reviews can take even years, so if there is somebody out there that already has the data to prove that these claims are wrong, he will take several years to write the report and get it accepted in a journal and by the research community.

Now, for the purpose of keeping this away from turing into some bashing, can you and other future reviewers please explain how to IMPROVE the current text with specific examples of problems and sensible solutions? Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to be interested in constructive discussion, unfortunately, so I'll stop after this attempt. The continuation of the sentence (which of course I'd read) doesn't alter my opinion that it's OR. If there is only a single primary report, why is the item present in the list at all? If I put "citation needed" after your there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence, what reference will you add to support this statement? Answer: there isn't one. Why? Answer: because it's your statement that there are no follow-up papers, not that of a source. I know perfectly well how long it takes for there to be reliable reviews in secondary sources, but if there are no secondary sources supporting the existence of a particular exoplanet, why is it listed in the article? Answer: because you (not a referenced secondary source) decided that "unconfirmed" as applied to an exoplanet means "I know of only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, and no follow-up papers discussing its existence". I quote from WP:OR "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You are interpreting primary source material – a single report with no follow up – as meaning that you can list the exoplanet as "unconfirmed". Again from WP:OR, including the bold text: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You are are doing precisely what is proscribed there unless there is a reliable secondary source that lists exoplanets as "unconfirmed" on these criteria.
ACTUALLY if you would have bothered to check a single reference from the table you would have seen that those are links to databases, that THEMSELVES list all the papers that have been published on each item in the table. There are currently 6 items listed under this category and since you seem lazy to check them out here are the direct links to the references supporting the statement made in the body of this list: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You ask what to do. The answer is (a) ensure that the lists presented in the article are taken from reliable secondary sources, removing entries that are not (b) as JonRichfield suggests, take out all the text which does not directly relate to the lists. Of course you need to include a brief account of the criteria employed by the reliable sources from which you took the list(s), but it should only be brief, with links to other articles where readers may need more explanation. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
a) If you doubt the reliability of the sources the please be specific in which are these that you consider unreliable; had you paid any attention to the discussion in the talkpage you would have noticed that discussion on such entries did exist, and the sentence ending in "have been widely disproven since, as was the case for Teegarden's star and VB 10" is a direct result of that. b) Again, please tell me specifically and explicitly which text does not relate to the list. Nergaal (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

JR2: Is this what you want?[edit]

@Nergaal: Choose the action and you choose the consequences. Get snitty, and you needn't expect much sympathy. Ignore counsel, and soon there is not much use asking for comments, much less sympathy. Let's get back to basics and forget whatever was getting up our respective and collective noses. This will require flexibility as well as restraint on both sides.

So let me try another tack. You said in effect "...less guidelining, more specific examples..." right? In my wall of text that you dismissed unread as unreadable, I told you precisely what to do; twice, counting what I, in my innocence, said on the talk page. A good start on your part would be to go through it systematically, apply the recommendations and see what you get. Then add any changes or improvements that occur to you, run it up the flagpole and count the salutes.

@JonRichfield: Ok, I am going to repeat my previous thought: you seem to complain about the text that is not about the article, yet your "wall of text" doesn't seem to be much more than blabbering. Try bullet points as specific examples and you will see that that "wall of text" of yours doesn't say much about the actual article. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If that sounds too much like hard work, let me know and I'll do it for you (I have no difficulty reading what I wrote!) You need not of course commit to my changes, much less acknowledge them; I would recommend if you do take me up on it, that you most certainly make sure that you carry on after I have done, till you like the product; you won't wound my feelings, for sure! I have refrained so far, partly because this is not my subject, but largely because it is not often a good idea to fiddle with someone else's article (yes, yes, I know about possessiveness with articles!) while an RFC or other debate is under way.

I don't care about having people actually working on the article. The only think I had a problem with was dumbing this article to a level where it looked incredibly "unprofessional" and more of a joke. If you have constructive suggestions I will be the first one to take them into consideration. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, and IMO, much better, see whether you can put up with another wall of text, but read and interpret it before continuing:

This "article" is a list article. The text should include a lede saying what it is about, not explaining the technology, history and politics etc. If your lede is more than say... three lines long, polish and prune it. Not because anyone round here can't understand long sentences, but because that will be good evidence that you are talking about stuff that doesn't belong in this article.
Please show me a featured article that has a lead 3-lines long. Currently, the lead is mean to be (from my perspective) a summary of that long table below. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
In the body of the article (not counting the actual lists of course; I haven't checked them in detail, but I expect that they are OK) you can give a very brief explanation of the criteria. Not the technology; that belongs in the main article, together with a few cross-links where they would be helpful. You might want a few footnotes to some of the table entries, but avoid them whenever a link would be equally useful.
The section you are talking about has nothing to do with the technology, and only mentions an artifact of the technology that influences the quality of the data listed, and therefore the quality of the assignments. (I.e.: criteria is below a threshold, artifact yields an error in the order of magnitude of the threshold) Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Either before or after the lists (suit yourself, but I think after hath its charms), put a section comprising mainly a (possibly annotated) list of links to related articles, covering ALL the tech stuff you want in this list article, apart from what is in the list, If you feel like including a suitable list of list articles at this point, go ahead, but that is not the main point of that section.
I don't fully agree with this rationale, but I've added a link to the detection methods in the see also section. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You will find that you wind up with a lot of material missing, material that you and the users either need, or would like to have covered. For each such item create links to the articles that cover that information, or if they SHOULD cover it but do not, YOU go there and add it (in proper context of course!) till all your links are functional. JonRichfield (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I am not aware of ANY material missing, otherwise I would have not brought it here at FLC. One of the points of a FLC is that reviewers bring to attention different perspectives and give specific opinions/examples, not "feelings", where is the text lacking, and explicitly and specifically what is missing. "You will find that..." is IMO a synonym of "I have a feeling of something missing but I don't know what and/or don't bother me with asking for more explicit, specific details because I am too important to be bothered by such trivial activities." Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active season in recorded history. With a large number of tropical cyclones, impact was widespread and there were some interesting systems. Felix threatened the East Coast of the United States once and Bermuda twice. Luis was a strong hurricane that brought destruction to the Lesser Antilles that rivaled Hurricane Hugo. Marilyn dealt similar amounts of damage to the Lesser Antilles as Luis. Opal brought severe impact to the Gulf Coast of the United States. Finally, Roxanne's bizarre path in the Gulf of Mexico allowed the storm to produce extensive flooding in Mexico. Personally, I believe this timeline satisfies the requirements of a featured list. Enjoy!--12george1 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment from Golbez (talk):
    • "Although Hurricane Allison formed on June 2, 1995,[3] the season officially began on June 1" This is an odd construction, is it common in the featured hurricane timeline articles? It seems better to just say "The season officially began on June 1, with the first named storm forming just the next day" or something. --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I did something similar to your suggestion.--12george1 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments from TropicalAnalystwx13:
    • Hurricane season begins and ends at 4z, not 0z.
  • I think I will just say "The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season officially begins", which is what you did in the more recent timelines.--12george1 (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "Tropical Storm Allison intensifies into a Category 1 hurricane. Simultaneously, Allison additionally attains peak intensity with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 987 mbar (29.1 inHg)." - you could combine these two sentences (and other instances throughout the timeline) for better flow.
    • "Tropical Storm Allison makes another landfall near Saint Marks, Florida with winds of 65 mph (105 km/h)." - could we use numbers for clarity? This is the second landfall.
  • I don't understand.--12george1 (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nothing important, but try to be consistent with wording. If you use "area of low pressure", use that for all of them. Also, no need to say it formed from a tropical wave. It formed from a low that developed along the wave axis.
  • Let me fix that "tropical wave" thing. Only mentioned it like 14 times :P --12george1 (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • We need a lot more reference points. You can take the latitude and longitude values as provided by the preliminary reports, plug them into Google Earth, and get distances relative to specific cities to add to the timeline.

TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

List of heads of government of Russia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A list of heads of government of Russia. Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose
    • Too many redlinks. One assumes the head of government of Russia is sufficiently notable that everyone in it should have an article.
      • If I get the time I will create them. Articles about Russian politics before 1917 are underexposed in enwiki, but I try to do the best to create at least stubs
        • Thanks
    • Why so few pictures during the Soviet era?
      • There are several reasons, one is the traditional copyright issues
        • Perhaps, but three random ones I picked from the Soviet era all had photos in their own articles. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
          • The pictures are non-free, so they should be used sparsely in articles--Tomcat (7) 10:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
            • If they qualify to go in the individual articles, it seems that they qualify for the list article. They aren't being used under fair use, presumably, since none of the articles are about the pictures. But I admit to not being an image copyright expert. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Delegate comment: No, inclusion in another article does not give an image a "free pass" to be used in a list. There is a need for contextual significance for all non-free images. @Crisco 1492: will be able to clarify or correct on this point. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "Russian Soviet Republic" is a term used several times in this article, yet so far as I can tell is not in common usage. It redirects to the article on the Russian SFSR, where the phrase "Russian Soviet Republic" never appears.
      • Changed to Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR)
        • Thanks
    • I don't think we should rely on a line in the intro to explain the date change; they should be specified by stating which states are old style. Likewise, the treatment of old style dates in the intro can be improved.
      • I added in-line clarifications.--Tomcat (7) 11:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Why are there gaps from 1801 to 1810, and 1917 to 1923? Just because these gaps might be explained in the intro, there still needs to be in-line explanations about them. Don't expect the user to have to jump back and forth within the table.
      • How about now.--Tomcat (7) 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Why include a political party column in the first table? This might make sense if it was actually linked to the other tables, but it's not, so the column goes entirely unused.
      • Because it will look too odd and small. I would keep it consistent. Secondly, the Russian Provisional Republic was a temporary republic which chronologically neither belongs to the Russian Empire, nor the Soviet Union
        • Except it's not consistent; none of the earlier tables have a Cabinet column. I would say remove unused columns, or combine everything into one table. There's no need to create a false consistency.
          • See below.
    • Inconsistent date styles, for example in the 'Cabinet' column for Silayev.
      • Overlooked that
        • Thanks
    • Why are some acting?
      • The answer would be the same as for all acting politicians. Acting politicians come to office after a tragic event, after resignation, etc. Vladimir Nikolayevich Kokovtsov was acting after the assassination of Stolypin
        • In the lists of U.S. governors I've made, I made sure to be very clear why a position changed hands, if not through normal electoral means. So if someone was acting, the list should inform us if it was because the previous person resigned, or died, or what not. This should not just be a simple list of the people who held the office; it must also educate the reader as to how they came to occupy it.
          • Added notes. Not sure why Kokovtsov became acting on 2 September 1911, probably ten assassination attempts of Stolypin by socialists was the reason to change the chairman. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned about scope. The Russian Empire, Russian Federation, and Russian Republic were independent countries, as was the Russian SFSR for five years. But then it became part of a larger country, and thus its head of government was not analogous to the head of government of a country. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Please clarify what you exactly mean. Especially the last sentence is not quite understandable. But I try to answer of what I understood. This article does not list secretaries of the Soviet Union, we have a separate article. The Russian SFSR with the future Soviet Union is the successor state of the Russian Empire, as is the Russian Federation of RSFSR.
        • I mean... the Russian SFSR was not an independent country. So its head of government had a much different definition than that of a country. Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR or the Russian Federation? My point is, you're jumping between independent nation and subunit. I know the Russian Federation was the successor state to the Soviet Union but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying, the offices are not analogous. One is the head of government of a country, one is the head of government a part of a country. No one would combine a governor and president into the same list with a U.S. state, even though they're both chief executives of their respective areas. However, I don't think this is quite a huge issue. After all, the only solution would be to split it out, which I might recommend, but there are enough other issues with the list that that can be tabled for now. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
          • "Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR" - probably yes; since Rykov the chairmen of USSR and RSFSR varied. Lenin, Rykov, Molotov, Stalin, Malenkov, Bulganin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Tikhonov, Ryzhkov, Pavlov and Silayev. [12] lists heads of government of RSFSR as Russian heads of government.--Tomcat (7) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm withdrawing this objection. The offices are not purely analogous, but the only other option is to split out the list. And, this isn't a list of prime ministers of Russia, or or chief ministers... it's a list of the heads of government of Russia, which means it's less concerned about the actual office or title. I mean, heck, the office of Prime Minister of Russia probably has less in common with being a member of the Supreme Privy Council than the office of chairman of the RSFSR had to do with the head of government of the Soviet Union, yet they still belong on this list. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comments. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A new one to add: There's a difference between "Independent" (like Zubkov) and "No parties" (like in the imperial era). All the more reason to remove party from the imperial era, and be specific what a dash means in the modern era, perhaps simply replacing it with "Independent". --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Removed the column. I think the dash should stay, as it may confuse the reader.--Tomcat (7) 22:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying remove the dash, I'm saying replace it with either "Independent" or "No parties". --Golbez (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I know, but I changed it anyway. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Did I miss something, or why has the review become staled? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 11:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope, switching to support. Oh, one more thing - the left color bar by Chernomyrdin's acting term isn't the right color. --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I changed the colour. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The list itself looks OK, although Kerensky's resignation date is wrong and there is no explanation for the additonal column 'Cabinet' for later governments, but the lead is badly written, and in parts I find it incomprehensible.

  • "Since its official commencement, around 57 people had governed the Russian government, one of the country's highest organs, which is composed of ministries, such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Culture." "had governed the Russian government" does not make sense and "one of the country's highest organs" is superfluous. Perhaps "Approximately 57 people have been head of the Russian government since its establishment in 1726. The government is composed of ministries such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture."
    • Fixed the date. Reworded the sentence
  • "The virtual chairman of government was a member of the Supreme Privy Council" What is a virtual chairman and what is the difference between the government and the Supreme Privy Council as according the table below they were the same.
    • Changed to factual
      • "The factual chairman of government" I still do not understand what a factual chairman is. Why not just "The chairman of government"? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Done
  • It would be better to settle on one date format with an explanation in a note rather than showing both as e.g. 8 (20).
    • I don't agree, as it would be confusing, especially when using one style. Will resume later.--Tomcat (7) 13:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "created on 8 (19) February 1726 by Empress Catherine, but usual ministry duties were implemented into the Committee of Ministers, which was established on 8 (20) September 1802 in accordance with the manifest of Emperor Alexander II." This is worded as if duties were 'implemented' in 1726 into a body which was not created until 1802. What do 'implemented into' and 'manifest' mean? Perhaps created 1726, but from 1802 ministerial duties were delegated to a Committee of Ministers.
    • They were introduced in 1802, but the office was created in 1726. In several sources the document is called "manifest". Changed implemented to introduced.
      • "but usual ministry duties were introduced in the Committee of Ministers, which was established on 8 (20) September 1802" This still does not sound right. Suggest "and from 8 (20) September 1802 ministerial duties were allocated by the Committee of Ministers" Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Done
  • the word 'count' as part of title should be capitalised.
    • Done. It was changed by a copyeditor, so I thought it was correct.
  • "Eight years since the inauguration of the manifest" What does this mean? Eight years after?
    • Done.
  • Entity is an odd word in this context. Body would be better.
    • Done.
  • "The Council of Ministers consisted of chairmen of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers" What these bodies were and their relation to the government is not explained.
    • I did not include that as it would be off-topic. --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The first session ended on 11 (23) December 1882, after insufficient number of files" I do not understand this.
    • Reworded, added English source.
      • "The first session ended on 11 (23) December 1882, after the number of files to the Council greatly decreased." I still do not understand. Why is the ending of one of the sessions worth mentioning in the lead? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
        • The source at the end of the sentence says "From 1863 the number of files received by the Council significantly reduced, it assembled more and more rarely, and after December 11 (23), 1882 its sessions stopped to take place." It means that the Council became stagnant, so another session was opened. I think it is important to mention the two sessions.--Tomcat (7) 13:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the liquidation of the committee" Were they murdered? If not, abolition would be a better word.
    • Done.
  • "the two Minister-Chairmen became Georgy Lvov from the Constitutional Democratic Party and Alexander Kerensky from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party" This is ungrammatical. Perhaps "Georgy Lvov from the Constitutional Democratic Party and Alexander Kerensky from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party became joint Minister-Chairmen."
    • Done.
  • " Latter entity took the previous name "Council of Ministers" This is ungrammatical.
    • I changed to "The latter".
  • "and non-partisans and acting office holders followed next." What does this mean?
    • Reworded.
  • " Since 8 May 2012, Dmitry Medvedev governs the office." Governs the office does not sound right. Perhaps "Dmitry Medvedev has been the prime minister since 8 May 2012."

Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, but avoided the formulation prime minister--Tomcat (7) 13:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is now better but I still have a few queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support - My concerns from the last FLC were addressed, with the exception of the optional one- well over half of the wikilinks are redirecting to alternate spellings or with/without the middle name. Remaining concern is that you don't list a publisher/work for your rusempire.ru cites. Additionally, if you insert "deadurl=no" into an archived citation, the main link changes to the live page, not the archived one. --PresN 19:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Nominations for removal[edit]

List of municipalities in Tennessee[edit]

Notified: Orlady, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Tennessee

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... it is no longer one of Wikipedia's best:

  • Bolding of "incorporated municipalities in the state of Tennessee" violates WP:BOLDTITLE
  • The census and land data need to be updated from the 2010 census
  • The population comparison should be updated/removed; 2000 is out of date
  • I don't see a need for the background colors
  • Ref 10 needs proper citation
  • The lead should be more descriptive of "municipalities in Tennessee", including the first municipality incorporated, a summary of the "Municipal charters" section, the most populous v. least populous municipality, etc; see List of cities and towns in California as an example.
  • The "As of 2007, 212 of the state's municipalities were operating under charters established ..." is seven years out of date
  • The caption requires a reference
  • The color indication of the "County seat" requires a text indicator, or a {{dagger}} or {{double-dagger}}, or something of the like
  • The "disincorporated" municipalities have no explanation in the text
  • Note "A" needs a reference
  • Reference 9 looks more like a note
  • Citations with page ranges need ndashs; references in general could be better organized by following the appropriate citation templates
  • The "Municipal charters" section is rather disjointed and could use a reorganization, and explanation of how the various forms of municipal charters differ in terms of administration and application

Not one of Wikipedia's best. Seattle (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

Nice list but the criteria from when this was promoted in 2007 changed a lot. The list is complete, it just needs someone to give it a decent intro and body text. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

YES, seems to be up-to-date with the latest available technical information afaik atm - also Yes - seems text (esp lead & body) - could be better - improving text *always* welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

Around 2 months ago, I raised concerns about the quality of this article on its talk page, which led to a helpful discussion but ultimately no apparent action. I am concerned about the quality of the referencing on the post 1910 wranglers, with tags and even a few helpful links to facebook. Whether somebody with access to a mine of information can get proper sources, or that section is simply removed, something needs to be done. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It used to be a pretty good list, but I agree that at the moment it falls rather short of the required standard. I'm pretty sure that the article used to be called "List of Wranglers (University of Cambridge)", but at some point over the last couple of years a number of well-meaning people have added extra content - in particular a fair amount of historical information about Wranglers, and also an incomplete (and, in most cases, rather poorly sourced) list of post-1909 Senior Wranglers. Somewhere along the way, the article got renamed to "Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)" on the grounds that it wasn't primarily a list any more.
It seems to me that a sensible and relatively straightforward approach to fixing all this is to:
  • Strip out most of the historical content and merge it into Wrangler (University of Cambridge) (there's at least some overlap anyway).
  • Separate the incomplete post-1910 list into its own article, something like "List of Wranglers (University of Cambridge) since 1910".
  • Rename what's left to something like "List of Wranglers (University of Cambridge) 1748-1909". This should now be featured list standard again, or not too far off.
I think we were converging on something roughly along these lines a couple of months ago, and then the discussion stalled. In my case, other stuff got in the way and I never got around to it. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The content of the article outside of the list sections is of good quality. It is not waffly or opinionated, and is sufficient to justify the existence of a separate Senior Wrangler article, as is the importance of the notion of 'Senior Wrangler' itself, which once had enormous significance nationally and further afield, and is still well-known within Cambridge University and the English-speaking maths world, to the extent that several mathematicians are widely known to have been SWs and this is considered to be a significant thing. So I disagree with merging it into the Wrangler article. In terms of content, it's the Wrangler article that could do with more attention. (That said, the Polya bit in the SW article needs revising, which is something I have meant to do but not found time to work on. There are conflicting accounts of how well Polya did.)
If you think there's scope for having both a "Wrangler (University of Cambridge)" and "Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)" article, then that's fine by me. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we all agree that changes to the article have meant that it no longer meets the requirements to be a featured list. I therefore suggest that we simply remove that status.
If there are some straightforward changes we can make to get it back to featured list quality then I'd rather we did it that way than demote it first and then reapply for featured list status afterwards. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Being a featured list as distinguished from being an article that isn't a featured list isn't always a question of quality, and I would argue that in this case it isn't, and that removing FL status wouldn't be demotion. It has become a different kind of article from a FL, in a healthy way. I don't see that as a problem at all. If nobody agrees with me on this, I suppose the pre-1910 list could be taken out and made into a separate article with FL status. I'm not sure I'd view that as optimal, though, given that many people who come to the SW article will probably want to read about the notion of SW and have a scan through the listed names. As for the post-1909 list, I think it is worth keeping in some form, principally because I think it is of interest to many people, even if it will probably never be complete, and most of the references are OK.Mhairis (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Many of the post-1909 references are OK. Not all, for sure; but they're by no means all or even mostly from Facebook. Several could do with more reliable sources, though.Mhairis (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Many of them are ok, but relatively few of them are of a similar standard as the pre-1910 ones. The post-1909 list is necessarily incomplete, anyway, and has only semi-official status compared to the pre-1910 list. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - I've been away for a while so haven't been able to get back. I plan to do make some changes to this article over the next few days. Jamesx12345 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've put the 2011 and 2013 SWs back in. 2011 2nd source is his old school, as it is for 2012 SW. 2013 2nd source is the Daily Telegraph (WP:NEWSORG). 1st sources for 2011 and 2013 are copies of the class lists kept at sites requiring login, but there's no ban on such sources, and even if there were, the other sources would be sufficient for these two years.Mhairis (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate you are being bold, James12345x, but think you went a bit too far in commenting out some of the post-1909 SWs. I've uncommented the following: 2007 (existing source OK: Varsity), 2008 (ditto: Tuoi Tre (Youth), largest-circulation daily newspaper in Vietnam), 1970 (better source now found: Independent newspaper), 2000 (existing source arguably OK: Fields Medal winner Tim Gowers's blog).
An interesting case is 1970. The first I heard of Derek Wanless was when I looked at what was commented out for that year, which was sourced inadequately, but in good faith, to Les Hatton, described as a close personal friend of the subject. It didn't take long then for me to find a reliable reference. This suggests that there is sometimes some utility in leaving references up with tags, so that people who have got the time can seek and in some cases find reliable sources.Mhairis (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)