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, 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]

List of Dharma Productions films[edit]

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90  06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

After successfully working on the List of films released by Yash Raj Films, this listing provides a fully-sourced account of the films produced by another leading production company, Dharma Productions, that has produced some of the most widely regarded films of mainstream Hindi cinema. Look forward to constrictive comments to help improve the list. Cheers! KRIMUK90  06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG
  • "comedy Duplicate (1998), both of which were directed by Mahesh Bhatt". This one's not a requirement.
  • Add author/s for ref 3 as it can be seen there.
  • Perhaps romantic drama would describe Kuch Kuch in a better way.
  • Add a noun after "overseas" in the third para as it looks so weird. You might add "sales" or something.
  • You might want to add about Dostana (2008) as it depicted homosexuality, very rare in Bollywood; it was a commercial success and to some extent, it was a critical success, too.
  • "Dharma Productions' greatest successes". Something is wrong with this. Perhaps "greatest", as it sounds too fluffy.
  • "the 2012 remake of Agneepath" of same name?
  • Ref 12 seems to go nowhere. Fix it.
  • Also there are some redirected sources as per this.
  • A redundant use of full stop (.) in the caption under Bachchan's image.
  • You do not need to repeat company's name in every caption of the image. You can simply use "the company".
  • No source for the 1980 film Dostana's plot?
  • And the same thing for several other films.
  • Not sure about this one, but I think that Indiatimes needs to be in italics in ref 20 as it seems to be a piece of news.
  • The link for ref 25 is dead.
  • Perhaps you can add Rani's names in K3G's cast. Not necessary though as she was in a cameo role.
  • The reference for Kal Ho Naa Ho's plot does not say that the lead actor had a disease. However, this source does.
  • Ref 32 does not support that Rani's character was a school teacher, but you can use this source. You won't need ref 31 as well as this source also names the actors' names.
  • I would probably link "vigilante" as I think that not everyone knows about the word.

I was closely following this list while it was being improved. I wanted to inform you about the DYK nomination of the list as you had completely forgotten about the nomination. Anyways, I hope that these suggestions help you improve the list. I think that you have done an amazing job as always. Thank you for working so well. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of women's international cricket hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Another cricket list! This one is based upon the already featured and subtly different List of Test cricket hat-tricks and List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks. As always, all thoughts, comments and otherwise are welcome!

Note: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tied Twenty20 Internationals/archive1 is still open, but all the comments made there have been resolved, and it has received significant support. Harrias talk 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Star Trek (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This was previously nominated for FL, but failed due to the issues here. But following the points raised there and the successful FL nom of List of accolades received by Star Trek Into Darkness, I've made those edits to the article and am now renominating. Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

SupportFrankBoy (Buzz) 21:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

63rd Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1991 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

SupportFrankBoy (Buzz) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants[edit]

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

During the GA-review it was decided that this was more a list than an actual article. Because the article was written like an article at first, It's very detailed and comprehensive for a list. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Has this been nominated for AL? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
For what? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jonas, I'm asking whether you considered nominating it as a Milhist A-Class list? I see it went to GA and was rejected (for being a list), the usual next step for a Milhist list would be to nominate it for AL. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Peacemaker67. What exactly does "AL" stand for? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Argh, stupid me! After reading your comment properly I understand what you said. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
But you answer your question, no it has not; the editors of this article have primarily been me and Kierzek, and he usually copyedits new inputs of mine. And also, it's a list so I, personally, don't see the great need to ask for an A-Class review. With that being said, I'm sure problems voters of this candidacy find will be voiced on the page. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Although going through the A-class review is not a requirement for FLC, it often offers subject-matter expert feedback. Rather than withdraw the FLC, perhaps some editors interested in WWII can be invited to comment? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Minor comment only: there are a number of short citations in the references section to "Shirer 2000"; however, the only corresponding work in the sources section is "Shirer 1960" is this the same work (possibly the 2000 relates to a reprint?). Can this pls be fixed? Anotherclown (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Well spotted, I will look into this. Cheers. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Minor comment: Coming to this topic from outside a military history background, I read the section heading mentioning the "Air Force", a generic term which didn't register with me, then realised that this was the Luftwaffe. (Ja, ich weiss dass mein Deutsch furchtbar ist!) I looked up the article and, sure enough, its title is Luftwaffe. Could it be argued that this is the WP:COMMONNAME and should be used in the section heading? Ham II (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Sie hast recht. Fixed :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MisterBee1966[edit]

Generally very good list, I would recommend expanding on the role of an adjutant a bit more in the lead. I would also suggest classifying them into political adjutants, military adjutants (Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS), etc. What about his secretaries, should they be part of the list? I would also recommend that in the individual biography sections more focus is placed on the role the individual played as adjutant. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions. I will add a part about the role of being an adjutant to Hitler and also categorize them into Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS sections. Regarding his secretaries, I think Kierzek would agree with me that they should not be included; we previously discussed adding valets to the list, but decided to add them in the "See Also" section instead, click here to see the discussion. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The secretaries should not be included in this article; there is a better argument for the three valets, but then the title would have to be changed to "List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants and valets"; and some re-write and additions made, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

More specific comments:

  • I have concerns regarding the use of "Scherzer, Veit (2007). The Holders of the Knight's Cross 1939-45. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2." The article currently claimes that information in the "Gerhard Engel" section was taken from pages 290–295. I own this book with the same ISBN but different title, I can say that in my version of the book, Engel is mentioned on page 294 only. The book does not go into the level of detail claimed to be taken from pages 290–295. Maybe the wrong Scherzer book is listed in the "sources" section? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Virtually all information, including the sources used to cite the info, is borrowed from their main articles. As none of them are that developed, I'd say it's possible it's either the wrong Scherzer book or simple a cite error; I will look into this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I checked into the article history. It looks like DocYako introduced these citations. I can only say that Scherzer cannot be the source of this information. Therefore the entire Engel section is without valid citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a serious problem; I will do my best to fix it ASAP! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
MisterBee1966, it's done - everything is replaced by new sources. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The correct reference to ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2 is Scherzer, Veit (2007). Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives [The Knight's Cross Bearers 1939–1945 The Holders of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 by Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Allied Forces with Germany According to the Documents of the Federal Archives] (in German). Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2. . I would refrain from giving the readers the impression that the book used as a reference is in English, use the correct title. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The article is a list. I will ask someone to crop the images so they can be used. Well spotted. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I will do my best. Thanks for all your comments. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by ÄDA - DÄP[edit]

I am afraid there is some kind of mix-up here. Hoßbach, Schmundt, Below, Engel, Puttkamer and Johannmeyer were ADCs not mere adjutants (the German term has a slightly wider range). Incidentally, Belows predecessor - Mantius - is missing from the list, as are Schmundt's successors Amberg and Burgdorf and Engel's replacement Borgmann. Bormann, however, never served in the Wehrmacht, as far as I can tell. These appointments would be more suitably described in an article on the "Adjutantur der Wehrmacht beim Führer und Reichskanzler" which was actually part of the OKW command structure.

The other individuals were more in the party line, so there is the question whether they represented their organisations or were merely picked by Hitler as he saw fit.

Max Wünsche was seconded to Hitler's personal staff in 1938/9 in a role that fits more the Wehrmacht ADCs than Schraub or Bormann. It seems that he is considered a predecessor of Darges and Günsche. Apart from that, there are numerous factual errors and inconsistencies (e.g. Schmundt was Wehrmacht, not Army ADC). I am not sure, though, if it is worth the effort to go through the list and fix it, until the scope has not been defined more narrowly. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

good point about Curt Mantius MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I won't be able to be on Wikipedia for a few hours, but will make series changes tonight. And thanks for you comments of course. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The "problem" is that the list includes both military and Party "adjutants". Certainly, Hitler both allowed certain adjutants and picked others as he saw fit; that was his prerogative. As to the list information, MisterBee already said the distinction of each should be noted in greater detail. Remember that most all of the information is from the articles of each person, so if there are "numerous factual errors" as to certain men listed then their own articles should be corrected, as well. Kierzek (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Comments: thank you for your hard work with this list. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • in the lead, I think it would look a little less clutter if you changed the "(from DATE to DATE)" next to each name to an endash. For instance, "(1940–45)";
Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the first two paragraphs of the Puttkamer section appear to be uncited, could you please add an inline citation to both (at least at the end of the paragraph)?
Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the images, where possible should probably face into the article. For instance, Johannmeyer's photo, if possible should be moved to appear on the right, or rotated. Same same probably for Puttkamer;
Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bormann believed he was serving the greater German cause by being Hitler's adjutant and did not use his position for personal gain" - I think it would be wise to attribute this, as it seems like an opinion. For instance, "According to WHOEVER, Bormann believed he was serving the greater German cause by being Hitler's adjutant and did not use his position for personal gain". Please look for similar statements;
Tweaked. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Since there apparently was still some lingering query, I tweaked the sentence; the statement is based on what Bormann said and actions he made; I cited to two different historians. Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the list would benefit from a bit more copy editing, as there are still some instances of typos and awkwardness. For instance, this is grammatically awkward: "Bormann was significantly different than his brother; tall, cultured, and was careful not to steal any "limelight" from Hitler, but was shown on most of the private home films of Hitler at the Berghöf which were made by Eva Braun". (specifically "tall, cultured, and was careful...")
Will look into this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Copy edit done and cited. Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Bruckner section "World War I" is used in the first paragaph, but in the second "First World War" is used. I think this should be consistent (either term would be fine, IMO, so long as you are consistent)
Never known this was problem, but will tweak it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Sources section, is there a publisher for the Bradley 1984 work?
Added. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • as this is a featured list candidate, is this source the best that could be used: [1]? Is it a WP:RS? Would it be better to replace it with something else? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The website strikes me as A-Okay when it comes to reliability, but this is just an assumption. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As for Bormann, I have re-worked the sentences. As for Puttkamer, I very recently added what citing I could find in both his main article and herein; I agree inline citing was and is in fact still needed for both; I hope someone else can add cites to each, accordingly. Jonas Vinther, make note of the above and see what you can do. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is not a list and the "List of" should be dropped from the title. 23:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier on stage and screen[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier was a superlative actor who was—alongside Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud—one of the finest of his generation. He was a huge presence on the stage, in film and in theatrical management – and he was active in radio and on television too. This list has had a major makeover recently, in line with the Olivier article itself, which is now FA-rated. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I worked with SchroCat on the Olivier biographical article, but he has laboured alone on this list. (I forged a note from my mother asking for me to be let off.) I am filled with admiration for the comprehensiveness of the coverage and the precision of the detail. I've learned a bit from this fine page (e.g. that LO returned to the role of Stanhope in 1934, which I didn't know.) Three passing quibbles, barely visible with the naked eye:

  • I think, on a second reading, I might re-examine the 8 June 1970 – 1 August 1971 entry for The Merchant. Other NT productions at the Vic and round the country are not shown as "National Theatre (Xxxxx Theatre)", and I'd be inclined to blitz the "National Theatre" and the brackets. And ditto for the Long Day's Journey three rows lower down.
  • I believe I read somewhere while we were working on the biog that Akash was not technically a hologram but some species of film projection onto something or other.
  • We have "Co-Director" ("As director", 16 September 1968) and "Co-director" ("TV" 19 December 1976).

That's my lot. Thank you for a top-notch page, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 15:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld comments[edit]

  • " In 1946 he produced, directed and appeared as Henry V of England in Henry V" —1946? I'm very good with film years and could have sworn it was 1944! Timothy Dalton has the same problem!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He also won the Best Actor award for Hamlet", -can you state the year?
  • I think you might add a bit on some of his most prominent stage roles in the lede and the years he did them and a bit more on his later film roles from 1950s onwards, Sleuth and Boys in Brazil spring to mind in the 70s. Just something to ensure there's a basic balance I think. Perhaps something like "He later received Oscar nominations for roles in Richard III (1955), The Entertainer (1960), Othello (1965), Sleuth (1972), Marathon Man (1976) and Boys in Brazil (1978)". I don't think that would bloat it too much with mentioning that and would give a good balance and make it more comprehensive to read without looking at the list. Just a suggestion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Throughout his career Olivier appeared in radio dramas and, from 1956, appeared on television, in both acting roles, and as an interviewee." -seems like there's some unnecessary punctuation here, perhaps reword to "Throughout his career Olivier appeared in radio dramas, and he made his television debut in 1956" - I think that should suffice. I don't think I'd mention in acting roles and as an interviewee.
  • "with an Honorary Award honorary award " -how many honorary awards is that!
  • Who is Hall? I see no previous link of the full name.
  • Not essential but it might be more informative if you stated the actual channels in the television section in the notes section to make it more resourceful. In the United States rather than just "First shown on US television", if I was an American reader I'd probably want to know if it was NBC or ABC or whatever for reference purposes. If it's too much trouble don't worry.
  • Unknown, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 97- What is Genome?
  • It's a BBC project name/website name. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs 98 and 99. "Today's Special". The Argus. 3 January 1969. p. 16." -you state the author in ref 99, do you have the author for 98? "Willey, George (15 March 1970). "Majr Dramatic Event Due". The Argus. p. 39." -is that a typo of major? There's also an inconsistency there with dates with one in brackets, you'd expect the sources to be identical in formatting and content given it's the same publisher.
  • Yes, it was a (now corrected) spelling mistake, no there is no journo name given on the second one, and no, there is no inconsistency. For some unknown reason, the formatting of the date field changes depending on whether the journalist's name is known or not. Yes, it's bizzare, but there you go! - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Doc, I think I've covered all these points - many thanks for your time and thoughts here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support — Good job, will make a nice supplement to the main FA. And I'll be using it within the next few weeks as there's a few of his films I've been meaning to see!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers comments[edit]

Just a few comments from me:

  • Instead of talking about his Awards in the narrative introduction, I think you should only mention his most important (enduringly famous/admired) performaces on stage, radio and screen (whether they won awards or not), the way you do in the intro to the main article, beginning with "In 1930...." Also mention the most important broadcasts, since that is a section of this list article. Then, just note the awards and noms in the Notes section of the tables (but give the totals numbers in the narrative intro).
  • I think others (like Dr. Blofeld above) would expect the awards to be mentioned up top - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine, but I was suggesting two items of greater importance: (1) When people look at a List of performances article, they are usually looking at the tables for more information on particular performances than is given in the person's main article. So I think you should add the nominations and awards to the Notes column. (2) In the intro, you need to have some information about which of these broadcasts listed are of particular importance or were particularly well-received. Once you have done (1) above, I think that Dr. B. might agree that repeating the awards in the intro (except for the total number of Oscars, Emmys, etc.) is redundant and is not why people would come to this article. But, as I said, removing these redundancies is the least important part of my comment above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a long-standing consensus against including the awards as part of the notes column. Ordinarily there is a table (or set of tables) covering the awards on these pages unless, like Olivier, they have a page of their own. Re. your point 2, is that about the radio bradio broadcasts? If so, there is very little information about the radio broadcasts at all, so I'm going to struggle to come up with any detail to add I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, although I'd feel more comfortable about it if you would link me to somewhere that it was discussed, or an example or two that convinced you that it is a long-standing consensus, because the Notes column seems to me like an obvious place to look for this info, and generally more helpful than the bloated awards tables in awards sub-articles (which, I know, are customary, even if stupid). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll dig some strings out where similar lists have had his point discussed. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If a production played nightly, and you know both the opening and closing dates, you can give an estimated number of performances. If the production had Wednesday and Saturday matinees, that is 8 performances per week, except that London th eatres were usually dark on Christmas Day.
  • That's OR - any reviewer following would oppose on that basis. We cannot guess that all the runs had 8 performances, or that Olivier appeared in all eight. The sources are happy to leave gaps in their presentation of the figures if they don't know, and that is where I would feel more comfortable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that steps into WP:OR a little too much. In a 3-month run, we don't kno how many performances he missed, or whether he did all the matinees, etc. If it wasn't clear enough for the sources to identify the number, I don't think we should try and do it by guesswork. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you should remove the amateur theatre productions at the top of the table, and just put in a footnote that he performed in more than half a dozen productions at school, mostly Shakespeare, playing Brutus, Puck and also female roles, including Kate.
  • Yep, although I've left the note in the text above the table, rather than as a footnote: I think it's OK there, but happy to move if you think otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks good. I made a copy edit to conform the style of the sentence to the previous two sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you should say a little more about his radio career in the intro, since that is a whole section of this article.
  • A little more added, but there really isn't too much in the sources on this - somethong of a forgotten medium! - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said above, what I think is missing is some qualitative description about the broadcasts (why did he choose these subjects, or choose to broadcast at all) and which of these broadcasts were of the greatest importance or were best-received. For example, were the WW2-era broadcasts supposed to be morale-boosting, while the others were commercial sponsor-driven, and so forth. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why he chose a particular subject etc is outside the scope of any filmog I've seen, and this is a list of what he did professionally and when. Even in the main biogs of Olivier, his radio work is shoved into a distant third or fourth place, as he wasn't a radio performer: he was a stage performer who moved into films, and then TV, (oh and he appeared on radio too from time to time). It's a very much forgotten part of his career, but quite a minor too, when one looks at the bigger picture. This is also how we have previously covered Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the radio broadcast table show what role(s) he read?
  • Not provided in the sources, unfortunately - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Does that information appear, perhaps, in some kind of BBC listing? What source does Tanitch give? I'm only asking because this is a FLC, and so I just want to confirm that all reasonable sources have been pursued. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tanitch gives no sources, he just provides the list. I've looked at newspaper and BBC listings for the time and they show the programme name only too, unfortunately. This is how we've previously covered similar performers such as Richardson and Gielgud. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Ssilvers - much appreciated! I hope I've done justice to your suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – Thanks for the explanations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Ssilvers - your time and thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Really good list you have produced here, SchroCat. After getting Olivier's article to FA status, this sure looks like its on its way to FL as well. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 13:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Ssven2 - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Comments from A Thousand Doors[edit]

Looks good overall. These are my edits. I haven't had a chance to look over the lead yet, but I've got some comments regarding the tables.

  • I'm not that familiar with Oedipus Tyrannus – is "Suppliant, Guard and Servant" one role or three?
  • Three minor parts, often covered by one actor - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Was he in Oedipus, The Critic AND Uncle Vanya all on 1 May 1946?
  • The opening dates for the second run of Antony & Cleopatra look like they might be wrong.
  • Why is Henry VII italicised in All Star RADA Jubilee Matinée?
  • The date for the 1954 production of Night of a Hundred Stars looks wrong; could be a copy-paste error.
  • "Host/Performer White Tie and Tails" – I wasn't entirely sure what this meant. He hosted the evening overall, and he was also a performer in White Tie and Tails?
  • How come the 1958 production of Night of 100 Stars has no role specified?
  • There's nothing shown in the sources, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Assuming that the dates are correct, the Brighton run of Three Sisters needs to be below the 1970 run of The Merchant of Venice.
  • Similarly, Sybil needs to be below Saturday, Sunday, Monday.
  • Wrong date: now changed- SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Chances, The Crucible, The Proposal and The Tumbler need to sort under C, P and T.
  • "Dr Astrov" or "Dr. Astrov"? I'd go with the latter.
  • I've gone with the former, which is standard in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Actor table, roles such as Henry V and Richard III aren't wikilinked, but in the Filmography they are. Personally, I think wikilinking is the way to go.
  • I'd put the "All the productions were for BBC radio." note at the top, personally.
  • The radio broadcasts that begin with quotation marks all bunch together at the top of the table when sorted.
  • I'm not sure that "Filmography of Olivier" is the right caption for the Television table, given how there's another table with almost the exact same caption at the top of the page. Similar lists go with "Television appearances of [whoever]".
  • Was "Laurence Olivier: A Life a one-off programme or an episode of a series?
  • I think my main problem is the fifth column in the Actor table. With so many cells empty or with just single numbers in, it just doesn't look that pleasing aesthetically. Similar lists (such as the Terry-Thomas, David Niven, Hattie Jacques and Stanley Holloway ones) have Notes columns instead, and spell out "109 performances" in full, rather than just "109". Personally, I think this looks much neater. You could put the "Also director" info in there as well.
  • The other filmogs don't have as complete a list of number of performances to add, which is why this one has been split out (as we did with John Barrymore on stage, screen and radio). Its a judgement call when it comes to whether there is enough information to justify dedicated column, and in this case I think we can, as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also seeing title case in a few places where I would normally expect to see sentence case. "Birthday Gala", for example, doesn't strike me as a proper noun, but if "Bob Hope Birthday Gala" was the name of the production, then obviously it needs to be in italics. Similarly, "A Celebration in memory of Michel Saint-Denis" seems to me that it should either be "A Celebration in Memory of Michel Saint-Denis" or "A celebration in memory of Michel Saint-Denis".

Hopefully I'll find some time tomorrow to look over the prose. I doubt that I'll have much to say. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

All done which require no return to the sources to check: I will do the remainder shortly, once I am back with the material. Thank you for your thoughts and sharp eye. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Premio Lo Nuestro 2014[edit]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been researching the Lo Nuestro Awards history and I think this list meets the criteria. This list is based on several FLs, mostly the 84th Academy Awards and Premio Lo Nuestro 2013. I will be watching closely this nomination, to follow your comments. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support A very well-written list based on prose. Although the table is formatted properly, the empty space seems quite annoying to me and I do know that you have categorized. Can something be done to it? --FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments: Please provide context to the uniformed reader, who is Antonio Guzmán? You said who was Jenni Rivera but what about Tito El Bambino, Olga Tañón, Gerardo Ortíz, and Pitbull? The lead says "the telecast garnered more than 9.5 million viewers" but the article says "drew in an average 9.5 million people during its three hours of length" which is contradicting. There's overlinking problems in the article (Pitbull, Daddy Yankee, Marc Anthony, are linked twice). I also did some minor c/e on the article, feel free to revert if any are feared worse over the former. Best, jona(talk) 16:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank your for the comments, I did some changes in the lead, but I did not find more info about Guzmán, he produced several award shows in United States, but the imdb ref is all that I could find. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem. There's still an overlinking problem (in the musical performers section), also you didn't need to provide a source for who Guzman was (especially one from Amazon/IMDB) the concern was in the lead and not the infobox. Best, jona(talk) 00:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed (the overlinking). Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it. I still don't know who Antonio Guzman is, you've told us who everybody else is (in the lead) but have yet identified those who are unfamiliar with the topic on who he is. Best, jona(talk) 23:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

List of cricketers who have carried the bat in international cricket[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

An interesting list. Given that we have only 10 cricketers performing this "feat" outside of Test cricket, I thought it's best to have all the three combined. Look forward to comments and suggestions. Vensatry (ping) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – Only two queries:

  • You might center the references in the table as they look much better than being on left.
    • I don't think that's a requirement. All the entries are aligned to the left and this one is no different. Vensatry (ping) 07:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How about using {{Tooltip}} for more clarification for Ref? --FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Initial quick comments from Harrias talk
  • "Lords Cricket Ground" should be "Lord's Cricket Ground".
  • I would prefer the "Name" column left aligned, but that is personal preference.
  • The fixed column widths seem wrong, South Africa is across two lines on my screen when the home team.
  • The runs column does not sort at all correctly for me, it needs a sortkey.
  • The date is wrong for Test #6.
  • Merge the last paragraph of the lead, which is only one sentence, into the previous paragraph. Harrias talk 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Quick drive-by comment......
  • Is it worth putting something in to the effect that carrying the bat is far less likely to happen in ODIs and (especially) T20Is because it's much less likely that a team will lose all twn wickets.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 21:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The fifth list (of seven) of the Scheduled monuments in Somerset. The 79 items in the list range in age from the Neolithic to World War II. It follows the format of the others, but incorporates the lessons from the previous nominations.— Rod talk 21:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is customary now to add the image towards the end in the tables? I think I prefer the images near the left side in first or second column like I've seen in Peter I. Vardy's. Also, why are some red links and others not?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The position of the image is set by Template:EH listed building header and Template:EH listed building row which is used on all the Somerset lists of scheduled monuments. There are a few redlinks for sites I think have a reasonable chance of an article (and I will create a few more of these) other titles are black as it is unlikely they will ever be notable (or have enough sources) to write an article about them - this was advised in one of the previous nominations within this set.— Rod talk 21:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Minor comment on BC/BCE usage – we should be consistent using one or other. Also spacing of BC/AD should be consistent – using a non-breaking space to keep the year and prefix together. Keith D (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have tried to standardise on B.C. - have I missed any?— Rod talk 21:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you have caught the one I saw. Keith D (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi Rod, good work. Can I just check that this is complete. I've copied the table into Excel and it's counting 78 rows excluding the header. A search at English Heritage (Where = Somerset, SedgemoorWhat = Heritage Asset Type/s (Scheduling)) gives 79 results. I may be missing something, but I thought I'd ask. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Thank you. It appears I missed "Round barrows 600yds (550m) NW of Longbottom Farm" (1006223). I don't know how that happened, but it appears to be two old Pastcape records combined (referenced in the list). Could I ask a big favour (only sort of related to this nomination). I can't quite work out how you loaded the wikitable into excel so could you run the same test on List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset and List of scheduled monuments in Mendip which are by far the largest of the set (and therefore potentially more prone to this error).?— Rod talk 14:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have repeated this for the two you've mentioned and double checked the results: the Wikipedia tables contain 182 rows in West Somerset (compared to the 202 I get on EH), and 228 in Mendip (compared to the 234 I get on EH). I discovered, while working on my GCVO lists that, if one can highlight the whole table on Wikipedia, copy it and then paste it into Excel (it should be the default if you press Ctrl+V, but can also be done by right-clicking and going "Keep Source Formatting" under "Paste Options" or "Paste Special"). I am using Excel 2013, so I can't say if this will work with earlier versions, but it may well do. Tables can also be copied from Excel and pasted in Wikipedia using Visual Editor, which can work surprisingly well (although it cannot keep formatting). If you need any other lists checking, then I'd be happy to go over them. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, I guess it's better to know now though. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Thanks, I will try the list to excel trick at some point but, in the meantime, will go searching for the missing entries before bringing the lists anywhere near FLC.— Rod talk 18:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Further comments from Noswall59
Lead: Okay, the second and third paragraphs are well written and summarise the article well. I have a few comments regarding the first:
  • "historically largely marsh", should this be "marshland"? I don't know, but this reads oddly to me.
  • Do we need to know about King's Sedgemoor and West Sedgemoor? I don't see them mentioned in the article.
  • What are the Somerset Levels and Moors? (I know what they are, but perhaps just something to explain their importance or relevance to this article).
  • "Historically the area was known as the site of the Battle of Sedgemoor." I am not sure that this is relevant, but I don't think you need to start with "Historically"; how about "Westonzoyland, a village in the south of the district, was the site of the Battle of Sedgemoor (1685), the final battle of the Monmouth Rebellion." Although, this still feels out of place. Perhaps you could give very brief account of Sedgemoor's history and include it there.
Table: I am happy that it's complete, illustrated where possible and meets the standards of previous articles in this series. Providing no one else turns up any issues, I am happy with it.
References: seem fine to me.
Stability: no problems here.
I look forward to hearing your responses to my comments above. Once again, good work, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
I've copied half a paragraph from Somerset Levels explaining the history of the area and removed the irrelevant information from the first paragraph of the lead. Does this explain the context more fully?— Rod talk 15:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, although this new information will need to be cited. Also, you only need one "low-lying" - either Sedgemoor is part of the low-lying Levels, or Sedgemoor is a low-lying part of the levels. Either suffices in describing Sedgemoor itself and avoids repetition. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC).
Citations added & 2nd "low lying removed.— Rod talk 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – another wonderful piece of work. Harrias talk 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "A Palaeolithic flint tool found in West Sedgemoor is the earliest indication of human presence in the area." I find this irritatingly vague. How old and which species of human? The source is RS so it presumably provided details. I would expand or leave out.
  • "dating from the 3800s BC." Perhaps dating to the 3800s BC?
  • Glastonbury Lake Village. You need to say Iron Age - you are jumping from 3800 BC without explanation.
  • "Lake villages" Why is Lake capitalised? Also I would define lake village. Not sure whether you can link to Crannog, which is supposed to be Scottish and Irish, although it appears to mean the same thing.
  • "a string of settlements were set up along the Polden Hills." A pedantic point but you say above that Sedgemoor is south of the Polden Hills so are the settlements in the area?
  • "Some of the oldest are Neolithic" Why 'Some of'?
  • "More recent sites include several motte-and-bailey castles and church or village crosses which date from the Middle Ages." A bit clumsy. I would say "Medieval sites include several motte-and-bailey castles and church or village crosses."
  • "Originally Athelney was a small island in swampland." Well it is a matter of taste, but I think that the fact that Athelney is where Alfred hid from the Vikings before coming out and defeating them at the Battle of Edington is worth mentioning.
  • "demolished by John Harewell in the 1380s." I think it would be clearer and more interesting to say by the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
  • Some bowl barrows are dated Neolithic to Bronze Age, which is vague. Looking at the source for 'Bowl barrow 300 m north east of Tyning's Farm', this is in the general information about bowl barrows. The description of the site says it is Bronze Age. This may apply to other barrows.
  • "Chapel E of Adscombe Farm" Above you have "north west of Coppice Gate" - spelled out and not capitalised. I take it this is copying the source but I would correct it.
  • "It is possibly the site of Cynwit Castle" This is from a source about Cannington Camp. As a statement about Cynwit Castle it sounds odd! All my sources say that battle site was in Devonshire. I would delete.
  • Gough's Cave. Given as Palaeolithic, but the only date given is 715BC which is Neolithic. The source is a dead link. There should be plenty of sources as it is an important Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian site. According to Pettit and White, The British Palaeolithic, p. 440, it has by far the largest number of "lithic items" of any British Magdalenian site, c 2200 including 550 retouched tools.
  • "dating from approximately 12,5000 years ago." presumably 12,500.
  • Great Oone's Hole. "from which flint artefacts from the Palaeolithic have been receovered." I would say Late Upper Palaeolithic as in the source. (Presumably Magdalenian as in the previous two comments). Also typo.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Salman Khan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is my fourth filmography and this one is about a mainstream actor of Hindi cinema. Like the other three, it is well-sourced and well-written. Criticism on my work and suggesting improvements will be appreciated. FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support looks good now :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Gracias! :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
De nada! Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support — This is a good list. My only query is that you might want to archive the references to prevent dead links. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I have not archived the links yet. I will probably do it sometime later. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • In the first two sentences the word "film" appears thrice. The first and third occurrences are redundant IMO.
  • You don't make a "breakthrough role", you either have a breakthrough (or make a breakthrough) in something or by doing something.
  • "He starred in several films,.." No context. I think you mean in the early 1990s.
  • " Khan suffered a brief setback in his film career with several Hindi films" He has acted only in Hindi films, so why repeat "Hindi films" here?
  • "with several Hindi films, ..., none of which fared well commercially." There is no link between these parts of the sentence. Please rephrase.
  • Please begin a new paragraph by mentioning the subject by his last name.
  • Would be interesting to mention that Andaaz Apna Apna was a commercial failure. That would better explain the "now" in the sentence.
  • "played the titular role"
  • "Karan Arjun (1995), which emerged as the year's second highest-grossing Hindi film.". Which year? It's not mentioned before.
  • Krimuk90, 1995 is mentioned in the parenthesis.
Oops, my bad.
  • Why is KKHH described as a dramedy? It's always cited as a romantic drama.
  • "In 1999, Khan starred in three critically and commercially successful productions; the comedy Biwi No.1, the romantic drama Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, and the family drama Hum Saath-Saath Hain.". The three films were hits, yes, but baring Hum Dil none of them were critically acclaimed. Infact Biwi No. 1 and Hum Saath Saath Hain received negative reviews.
  • Please change "goon" to something more formal.
  • Surely there's a better way to describe his role in Baghbaan than an "adopted orphan"?
  • Why is there a critic review for Tere Naam in his filmography page?
  • Why not? His performance in the film is considered one of his best, so I think there is no harm to mention a critic review.
Well, if we have a source that says his role was critically acclaimed, then we can add that. But adding one from a critic like Taran Adarsh who dishes out superlative reviews for almost every actor is completely unnecessary in a filmography page. In his biography, of course, that will have much more significance. -- KRIMUK90  02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, you seem to be right. Anyways, I have removed the review. How about this one, Krimuk90? Sify is a very good source according to me. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think it's necessary to have a critic review in his filmography page, especially for an actor who has done such a wide range of work. Others might weigh in their opinion here.
Although I have withdrawn from adding the review, I will appreciate a say from a third editor. Does anyone have a say here? --FrankBoy (Buzz) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He played protagonists in several top-grossing Hindi films:". You can say, he went on to play the lead role in...
  • "the second instalment of the Dabangg film series" -- KRIMUK90  09:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I have resolved all of the above. As for his role in Baghbaan, I can not think of anything else at the moment as his role was not more than of a 20 minute appearance. I think that we can have something like "a child who stands by his parents" or "appeared briefly". What do you think? --FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: User Ssven2 has changed the info. as "made a brief appearance", which is certainly better than "adopted orphan". No? --FrankBoy (Buzz) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, better. -- KRIMUK90  02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have made quite a few tweaks to the lead in this revision, and will now abstain from either supporting or opposing the nomination. Anyway, I think the lead is much improved now. Good luck! :) -- KRIMUK90  01:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 06:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Order of battle in the Biscay campaign of June 1795[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

An order of battle for an obscure naval campaign in 1795 in which a French admiral lost his nerve and failed to destroy a smaller British force and was subsequently defeated by a different larger British force, the admiral of which also lost his nerve at the last moment, failing to turn a minor victory into an annihilation. Its been several years since I nominated anything here and I've forgotten all of the niggling requirements for FL I learned back then, so just let me know what I've missed and I'll fix it. Best Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Most of the notes and sources in the tables ends with full stops, but not all. I suggest choosing a consistent approach. Either end all notes with full stops or only those that are sentences (please see: MOS:FULLSTOP and MOS:LISTBULLET). –P. S. Burton (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey[edit]

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I nominated it three months ago but the nomination didn't get enough comments/supports and was closed. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (TC) 04:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all of the standards per WP:WIAFL and I have tried to correct all mistakes or issues from the first go-round. The biggest concern was the cutoff of 300. It in the forefront seems fairly arbitrary, but in various references found in the article about active players achieving said feat, the notability of 300 SB is made clear. That said, I will be out in the mountains tomorrow, so if any concerns are left for me, there may not be a response until Friday morning. Best, Sportsguy17 (TC) 04:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - First of all, there's an open discussion on the talk page about the use of individual player references, which multiple users have expressed concern over, myself included. The individual player stat pages don't provide any additional information, so having 171 references when about 162 of them aren't needed is my first issue.
  • Secondly, the prose needs a copyedit and I feel more information can be added. It's a very short prose for the list size. Also remember that references should come right after text, not after a space after text.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • Leaving this un-struck as the prose is still poorly written. Gloss 03:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are capitalization issues "Current Year", "Years Active".
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • I still don't agree with adding in the amount of stolen bases from the current season. That would need to be updated every single day during the season and we shouldn't just assume someone will do that. Updating it to the most recent season and adding a note about when the stats are updated until would work much better, in my opinion.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • The "Rank" column is probably not needed. It'd be fine to just list the players in order without giving them a Rank #.
  • For players who are still active, write "present" instead of leaving a blank space "e.g. 2003– ".
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • Surely for the size of this list, more images could be added than only four (alongside the table).
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • More can be added, I'm sure. Generally, it's nice to have images down the entire right side of the table when images are available, and with such a long list of players, more images are surely available. Gloss 06:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gloss: I've added five more images and it now spans down practically the whole right side, so Yes check.svg Done. Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The caption for the Davis image should be adjusted. He won't be the most recent player to reach 300 once the season starts and someone else reaches the number. So it's better to be safe and give his image a different captain so it doesn't sit there as false information if nobody updates it once someone new hits the milestone.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • The title of the section being "List" needs to be renamed to something more specific. "Players" maybe?
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • Table needs a table title per MOS:DTT
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • The line underneath the header isn't needed. We know what the list is by the title and the prose.
  • Yes check.svg Done

I guess that's a start of where my issues with the list begin. I've been keeping an eye on the list, I know you've wanted to re-nominate it, but I can't help but feel you rushed it and should've waited a bit longer, especially until the discussion on the talk page played out a bit more. Gloss 04:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I can fix the smaller issues on Friday when I return from my vacation. With regards to the references, verifiability is not an option. As I said, the individual refs are for the years the players were active, which is again verifiability. The discussion is around nothig. It's that same user who was causing trouble with a now-blocked sockpuppet. I'm a bit amazed that this is actually being discussed. I'll talk it out, but the reality is WP:V supersedes WP:GENREF. Sportsguy17 (TC) 05:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gloss:, with regards to the "updates eveyday", I think we simply should get rid of making updates mid-season. I think the current SB season thing should be removed as it only compromises the list's stability and does not enrich it at all. Also, as I finish tasks, I will cross them out just as an FYI. Sportsguy17 (TC) 05:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point about the "current SBs". And please just write "done" underneath each comment so I can cross them out as I feel they've been fully completed. Gloss 05:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Good to see we're on the same page. I'll add more images once I have my computer again. For the prose copyedit/expanison, I may have a fellow baseball editor (e.g, EricEnfermero or Go Phightins!) work on that. I'll also get the title added and the rankings removed upon my return. Sportsguy17 (TC) 05:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK @Gloss:, I've finished everything on your list except the prose copy edit. For that, I may have another editor help me out there, as I'm not the world's greatest copy editor. With regards to your biggest issue (the references), they are not to verify the player or the number of stolen bases they've accumulated, but to verify the years they've played. Although theoretically, you could just click on their corresponding Wikipedia article. However, there are two issues. First off, it's much easier just to have the verification right there on the article instead of having to go to another article to find it. Second off, an more importantly, some of the players' articles are a mess. They lack proper citations, etc. and may not necessarily be the most reliable source of information. Plus, the practice of using another Wikipedia article as verification is generally discouraged. That's where we are now. I'll ask some of my fellow baseball editors to help out with the prose, but otherwise, it is in pretty good shape. Sportsguy17 (TC) 02:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've struck through the ones you completed that I'm good with now. More needs to be done though. The regular dashes (-) need to be changed to en-dashes (–) in the Seasons column. In the footnotes, you say "MLB.com credits...", the needs to be reworded. It's not the website that recognizes these things, it's the league. So probably just remove ".com" Gloss 06:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Both things listed in your comment above are Yes check.svg Done Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. If the references for the individual players are only to source their seasons played, there doesn't need to be a separate column for them, they can be connected to the year's and be placed in the seasons column as well. Gloss 22:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gloss: The individual references serves primarily, but not just for that purpose. That said, I tried to add it like you suggested last year, in the same column, but with it in the same column, it looks really messy. Having it in a separate column is a little more convenient and makes it look a little more organized. With that, I'm going to try to add some more to the prose myself. Got any ideas for content that could be added? Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Baseball is not something I have too much knowledge on, so no I don't have any ideas. I just know that for the size of the list it's a little too small. But I am going to stick by my last comment. There's no need for a completely separate column for references when the reference is only there to support their seasons played. You say it's not just for that purpose, but it is. If you take out the seasons, the rest of the article is sourced by the main sources and the individual refs could be taken out. Gloss 22:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Gloss: I found a progressive stolen base leaderboard, which allowed for me to add some info to the prose. I can't really think of anything else that would need to go in that section, so that's where we are now. Also, I understand your comment pertaining to the location of the references, but to keep things more organized, I think continuing to give them their own columns are slightly easier and makes it more organized. If there are further concerns, let me know, but I think we basically have a FL at this point. Sportsguy17 (TC) 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. My oppose still stands, but I'll wait to comment further until others have reviewed. Gloss 05:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I have had this page watchlisted since I reviewed it, so you don't need to keep pinging me :) Gloss 05:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather you not eschew additional comments about this list, as classes start back up for me next week and I may not have much time (if I have any at all) to make changes, so please speak up if you will. Sportsguy17 (TC) 01:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Forcing me to continue a review I began voluntarily isn't going to help you much here. I've stated my opinion on the reference column, and that is something holding me back from reconsidering my oppose. So as I said, I'd like to wait for others to comment to reconsider further. This was opened three days ago and FLC's take generally upwards of three weeks, so worry not. Gloss 06:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Although it is preference that you wouldn't hold back your queries, I'm not going to make you say them or continue the review. I find it a little silly that the a reference column is hindering you supporting this FL, but I'm not going to quarrel with you about it either. I'll give it another 5 days for others to comment and if no one else comments at that point, then I may like to here your further comments. Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Where are you getting that I have further suggestions for improvement? I haven't said that. I currently don't feel this list meets the criteria for a featured list. It's very poorly written and the table issue with the reference column is a problem in my eyes. Perhaps I should leave it at that, since you keep thinking I have more to say. Gloss 20:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Come on, calm down. I misread your original comment. That said, I respectfully disagree. Per this, I think it most certainly meets the criterion. If the prose needs another copy edit, that's cool and I can get a fellow editor to help out, but if I didn't think it had a chance of making it, I never would have bothered. Sorry you see a non-existent problem as well, but let's see what other editors have to say. Sportsguy17 (TC) 23:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, thank you, and I'm well aware of what the FL criteria entails which is why I'm opposing here. "Let's see what other editors have to say" -- if only I'd thought of that three comments ago. Gloss 00:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to expand the prose some more and copy edit it. Give me 5-7 days to get that done and then it should solidly be a FL. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm going to quote vebratim from the last failed FLC, as my point of opposition has still not been addressed: "WP:LISTN should be demonstrated with prose from WP:SECONDARY sources, not from stats sites which are more like WP:PRIMARY sources." Culling the prose from stats sites and setting an arbitrary 300 SB cutoff is original research of sorts.—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an easy one. I'm expanding the prose a bit still, but I indeed have found secondary sources for 300 stolen bases (including one already in the prose), so like I said above, give me about a week and then it should have more secondary sources as well. Sportsguy17 (TC) 11:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • OK. Bagumba, here are some secondary sources for 300 stolen bases. This is one example, which is actually already in use in the prose. This is yet another secondary source coverage of 300 stolen bases. The fact that a secondary source is not only reporting on a player stealing their 300th base, but also a player closing in on such a milestone indicates notability. I'll find some more links for some more athletes on other sites, but this is a start. Hopefully, I can begin to incorporate that into the prose within the next week or so. I hope this also addresses your concerns regarding notability. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:LISTN advises that the grouping should be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...". I don't see the group discussed in those links, just the individual player reaching a round number of 300. I'm sure there are also articles that talk about players reaching 400 and 200 SBs too, so more needs to be demonstrated to show 300 is a notable cutoff. Both of your links are to Bleacher Report, which is a mixed bag as far as being considered a reliabile source. In the past it was open to anyone to write, and wasn't considered reliable. They have hired some high-profiled writers of late, which individually could be considered reliable. However, your articles are by generic "Bleacher Report Milestones , B/R Staff", and I'm not sure if I trust B/R's general editorial oversight (yet) for content quality vs content aimed to generate web traffic. They do still host all those slideshows designed to generate clicks. I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which is a general thumbs up on B/R. Perhaps you need a more recent assessment there, or even at WT:BASEBALL.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: I forgot that Bleacher Report can be quite a mixed bag. I had kind of incorrectly presumed that because the articles were newer that they would probably be reliable for an article like this. What came up on my searches was the 300-300 club, of which 300 stolen bases is a part of. 300-300 is covered on a wide variety of news networks that would be considred secondary sources. When you think about it, a lot of these MLB stats lists, some of which are FLs, are notable primarily because they are parts of very famous stat clubs. 300-300 is one covered by a lot of networks and in the larger scheme of things, this is how notability is really proven with these kinds of lists. Although 300 SB looks arbitrary from the forefront based on the given discussion from a while back, I'm sure the editors that supported 300 as the cutoff didn't just randomly select 300 just because. It's probably because 300 has some outside notability. I apologize if my explanation is a bit of a mess, but I hope this addresses your notability concerns. If it does, then the prose can get cleaned up and hopefully, this can be a FL pretty soon. Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (It's on my watchlist, so save a few keystrokes) 300 SB was just a first pass to be more discerning than the list's previous 500 entries. Having participated in that discussion (mentioned in the prior FLC also), 300 SB wasn't seen as being incredibly notable, just a start at improving from an unwieldy list of 500 people. I'm not sure about the 300-300 analogy (would need to see the sources too). 40–40 club exists, but I dont think we want a list of 40 HR or 40 SB seasons. I know WP:OSE with FLs, but perhaps those belong in Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. At any rate, I'm just one !vote. Perhaps other !voters will sway me.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is one example of mentioning of 300 stolen bases as part of 300-300. This is another example of 300 stolen bases being considered noteworthy. Despite it being from MLB.com, it's a secondary source per the definition at WP:SECONDARY. As I said above, 300 stolen bases does have its notability. With regards to your WP:OSE rebuttal, there is a 50 HR in one season page, which isn't far from 40 HR in one season. I guess by showing that 300-300 is certainly notable, it means that independently, 300 stolen bases does have a significance/notability beyond some arbitrary cutoff decided per consensus. You guys could have said top 100 players in terms of stolen bases, but that would've made just as little sense as 500 entries. 300 stolen bases has some outside significance (and keeps the list at a reasonable size). I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated 300 SB's notability. If I haven't, then I'm running out of ideas to demonstrate notability. I really hope this satisfies your queries so we can move on, copy edit the prose and add some material so this can become a FL. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Those articles support 300/300, but I wouldn't use them to establish notability for 300 SB on their own. I'd actually be more comfortable with top-100. People like round numbers like top-100; arbitrary sure, but possible an accepted arbitrary cutoff as opposed to a more random 300 SB. Not sure how other's feel.Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also concerned about this. I believe I said it in the last FLC as well, or somewhere else, that I was concerned about the 300 cutoff for the same reasons you are, Bagumba. Gloss 03:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Also, SB Nation is probably as suspect as B/R, if not more. Not sure about that specific editor though. Got a fancy sounding title at least.—Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned in the linked discussion, I believe a performance-based cutoff is preferable to a top-X list, as it will be inclusive of everyone who has attained a certain level of accomplishment. isaacl (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I was under false impression that other sports had top-XXX list that was FL. Agree that a performance cutoff is preferable, if it is natural and is a grouping that is discussed. I'm not feeling it here yet. Striking my earlier suggestion.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would not have expected top-xxx articles to be FLs, as those are just insignificant, arbitrary cutoffs. With regards to this list: what exactly do you want to see to satisfy your notability concerns? I've shown you through outside, secondary sources that 300 SB is something notable besides an arbitrary cutoff (certainly is more than just an arbitrary cutoff), which is what WP:LISTN wants to see, which I have satisfied. Now, tell me how your concerns would be satisfied so we can move upward and onward with this FLC. Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The two of us have likely reached an impasse on LISTN. The guideline reads: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." I take that to mean the group needs to be discussed in sources, including some mention of a few— though not all—of its members. If I understand, you think mere mention of the 300 SB milestone is sufficient. While I have no problem with the list existing in Wikipedia, I feel that an FL is a higher standard which needs more coverage on its grouping, allowing text to be written about its significance.—Bagumba (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur that we have definitely reached an impasse. I can grab some good sources and write about it, but I may collect sources first and then write because the prose is going to need a decent amount of work in itself. Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • An example of what I would expect is at 500 home run club. The sources in the lead for Sheffield and Rodriguez talk about the 500 club itself, and some of its other members too. To me, this shows it's a fairly notable milestone, as opposed to writers just finding any round number achievement to talk about.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is one ref. Not as strong for 300 SB notability, but good for some other stuff with the prose. Here is a slightly better example using Derek Jeter. Here is one more example of 300 SB having some notability. And here is one more. This is just some preliminary links. I think they could be used in the prose and are similar to what 500 HR club has in its prose. Sportsguy17 (TC) 01:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As I felt with the earlier sources, I wouldn't use them to establish notability for 300 SB on their own. They are all articles on a combination of 300 SB with some other statistic, not a 300-club per se. I admire your persistence, but please try to filter out questionable reliable sources in the future like the blog, retrosimba.com. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for recognizing my persistence, albeit I am running out of steam. I really want to see this pass since I've worked so hard to improve the list to such status, in addition to figure out the notability concerns. It would be a shame if this were to fail, since the sources have made clear that 300 SB is not 100% arbitrary and has some merit, but independently proving significant notability has proven to be a humongous challenge. I'll see what I can do and perhaps have you or someone else assist in this, as I could use all the help I can get. After all, I don't WP:OWN the article, so anyone's help would be greatly appreciated. Sportsguy17 (TC) 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding SBNation, I've found their articles to have genuine analysis and news coverage, as opposed to Bleacher Report, which often is just passing on links to other sites. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Isaac up above. Top 100 is far more arbitrary compared to 300 SB. With regards to actual notability, I've shown the significance of 300 SB and why it is notable through secondary sources (and I will find more). I'm not sure what else I can do to prove notability. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

World Fantasy Award for Best Artist[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology, which just passed, comes FLC #32/? in this eternal series, and #6/10 for the World Fantasy Awards: the World Fantasy Award for Best Artist. Given since 1975, it's the fantasy literature community's award for the best fantasy artist of the year. The list itself is a combination of the other World Fantasy Award FLs, and my prior FL Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist (which is the equivalent award for the science fiction/fantasy Hugo Awards). As always, I've incorporated comments from prior FLCs, such as last time's suggestion to merge the "year" cells together, so hopefully this should be smooth sailing. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I've read the lead and compared it the other lists in this series and it seems this is up to their standard. The list could perhaps use a few pictures illustrating some of the art to give the reader a taste of what this award is rewarding, but as it is now, it looks clean. I only have a minor quibble: the other lists appear to wikilink every winner, even if there is no page to link to at the moment. I think that approach would be useful here, so that if pages are created in the future, they will automatically link to this soon to be featured list and vice versa. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've now redlinked the winners; thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support A comprehensive and well-written list. Just one minor point (optional): you have used rowspan for years which seems pretty good, I was wondering if you could do the same with the references. But since its fellow lists follow the same format and this one is written after them, I leave it on you. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 16:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I left the references un-rowspanned for consistency, since for some other lists individual lines might have different references; I also don't like moving from left to right going non-rowspanned to rowspanned, as I think it makes it visually confusing. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. If you could have a look at one of my noms. :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]

Nominator(s): Salman mahdi (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria of featured article.--Salman mahdi (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The following are not (as far as I can see) used to support information in the text and can be taken out, I think (unless they are being used in a way I cannot see):

  • Martin, Richard C. Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim world; vol. 1.
  • Akhtar Rizvi, Sayyed Saeed (1987). Prophethood. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania.
  • al-Shaykh al-Saduq (1982). A Shiite Creed. Fyzee (3rd ed.). Tehran: WOFIS. OCLC 37509593
  • Dungersi, Mohammed Raza. A Brief Biography of Imam Ali bin Muhammad (a.s.): an-Naqi. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. GGKEY: 8634KUB72L4
  • Madelung, Wilferd (1998). The succession to Muḥammad: a study of the early Caliphate (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Why is Fatmah's birth given in the CE form as 605/15 – 632/633, but the AH form as 17 or 7 BH[6] – 10 or 11? Aim for consistency throughout – you'll need to settle on one form and make sure all the others are in the same format too. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, Thank you.Salman mahdi (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess it is needed to delete the "CE" in the Date of birth Column for Fatimah. Is it right?Salman mahdi (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. CE is essentially the same as AD, and so the 53 BCE in Muhammad's hijri lifespan (which you appear to intend to say "before the hijra") actually implies that he lived on Earth for almost 700 years - not something I've ever heard taught. Islamic calendar uses the abbreviation BH (once, admittedly; I don't see any references for a standardized term) which would be more correct. This needs to be fixed.
  2. Another small point is that a lot of your phrases end with periods. Only sentences should end with periods.
  3. Also, why are you giving five references for Fatimah's lifespan, and two for her titles? I doubt any of the information here is so highly disputed as to require such Citation overkill.
  4. POV evident in terms such as "tragically", unsupported "famous"
  5. Copyediting of the table still needs to be done (overlinking, spaces, grammar, etc.). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear @Crisco 1492:, with thanks,
  1. Yes check.svg Done
  • What's been done? The citation overkill, for example, is still very prominent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Ham II (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this list's previous submission for FLC it has been completely reformatted in order to be machine-readable. Due to the number of templates being invoked by the new format, the sections on Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Paddington and St Marylebone have been split off into standalone lists. The scope of this list may now be narrower, but that's quite consistent with the Westminster volumes in the Public Sculpture of Britain and Buildings of England series, which cover the area of the smaller, pre-1965 City of Westminster (despite their 21st-century publication dates). I look forward eagerly to your comments! Ham II (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Nice list: many sources, many images, good structure.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Alexmar983: Thank you! Ham II (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Pigsonthewing
@Pigsonthewing: Fixed. Thanks for the support! Ham II (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Rephrased: This and the five works that followThis is one of several works (There are more than the six in this list.) Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Jackyd101
  • A phenomenal and fascinating list and an astonishing body of work. I have no vote at the moment, although I will once I've actually read through it all, but I do have a question and a two comments - apologies if these have been answered earlier, but I am curious.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 1) Why is there a tiny box between grade and Notes?
@Jackyd101: This is a problem with {{Public art row}}; I'll ask for it to be fixed at the template's talk page.
@Jackyd101: Fixed. (Thanks, Frietjes!) Ham II (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 2) I find the "Title / subject" column a little hard to follow - sometimes the link is to the art work, sometimes to the person it depicts. Sometimes it's in italics, sometimes its not. I originally thought that the italics indicated the artwork and normal text the subject, but this is inconsistent (James Cook / Florence Nightingale for example) so I'm not clear on why the italics are there. A simple solution would be to do what you've done with "Memorial to William Ewart Gladstone" right at the top and put "Statue of so and so" in this box, linking the whole thing when the link is to the artwork and the person only when its to the person.
If it's an individual's name, normal text indicates a link to the person, but if the name's in italics it's a link to the artwork. Otherwise, normal usage of italics is followed: italic for the titles of artworks and normal for anything else. "Statue of" would probably be helpful for any future transfer to Wikidata but would lose the functionality of {{Sortname}}—​unless some super-duper {{Statue of}}, {{Bust of}} and {{Memorial to}} templates were to be created to get around this...
I think I understand better - works of art like statues are in italics but memorials are not? Still doesn't explain James Cook though. Two potential solutions are to either just put "statue", " memorial" etc after the name, or to use the {{hs|Foo}} template to make them sortable. I can't deny that it bugs me that the links are inconsistent - not only are you not sure what kind of link you are clicking on, but it means that some links that should be there aren't: for example, there is a statue of James II in Trafalgar Square but as far as I can see there is no link to the man himself on this page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, found a link to him, but its in a different section further down the page and I had to search for it, so I think my point stands.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you prefer something like Statue of James II? James Cook was a mistake and now links, as it should, to Statue of Captain James Cook, The Mall. Ham II (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer that yes. If you don't think its a good idea I'm open to discussing it though. I think on a list like this people want to known where they are going when they click on a link, and will expect to be able to access the articles on the artwork and the subject (assuming they exist) from the entry in the list.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done @Jackyd101: It's taken all day but I did it! Ham II (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for and I think it looks a lot better. Sorry to be a pain in the arse!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 3) This no doubt violates some FLC criteria and if so I'll withdraw it, but there are names cropping up in the list I would expect to be linked, but which aren't (Rodin for example). This is presumably because they've been linked earlier, except that lists aren't usually meant to be read sequentially and the sort function renders the sequence temporary anyway.
This is one that came up in the last FLC review, and I spent the best part of a day before this review removing duplicate links. Rodin is linked in his first mention in the text but that's not in the entry for the only sculpture by him (The Burghers of Calais). I could change this so that being mentioned in the "artist" field becomes in effect the "first" appearance of a name; as you've said, the sequential order is temporary (whereas the left-to-right order is permanent). I've done the same with the "subject" field, treating links there as the "first" appearance as that's where you'd expect to find them. Ham II (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about it - I'd certainly prefer overlinking than underlinking in a list, but I've experienced this sort of things before where one person says something, you spend the whole day fixing it and then someone else tells you to undo it, and I'm not going to be that guy. It is a little irritating though - just had to use the search tool to find the link to Jacob Epstein.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 4) Is there a reason the statues at the entrance to Australia House on Aldwych are missing from this list?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean the ones on the building? These would count as architectural sculpture. Or the statue of Gladstone? JMiall 23:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, makes sense.
@Jackyd101: The two sculptural groups on either side of the entrance are in this list. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 5) I'm nearly ready to support, but I do have a question: does Bansky's sadly destroyed "One Nation Under CCTV" count as public art? --Jackyd101 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it used to be in this list but is now in List of public art formerly in London. JMiall 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jackyd101, JMiall: Yes, that's right. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you make it clear in the lead that this is only "current public art in the city of Westminster" then? You'll also need to remove the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh as under these terms it shouldn't be on this list. Once that's done I think I'm happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. @Jackyd101: The idea was that artworks moved out of the borough but within London would be included, whilst those which were no longer in London would be in List of public art in the City of Westminster, but I now think that's too arcane. Ham II (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 6) Actually I do have one other point and you're not going to like it. After some consideration I've decided not to make my support conditional on this, but I do think you should seriously consider it. This article has a lot of embedded co-ordinates, but none have the |name= parameter listed. This means that when someone looks at the wiki markup on a map, the link is titled "List of public art in the City of Westminster", when it should be titled with the name of the artwork the co-ordinates link to. This would actually be of considerable practical value to this article's wider functionality as a guide to public art.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just seen that someone above asked you to remove this so I've struck my recommendation. Does the template automatically do this name function? If not, then why remove it? --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume that's the reason, but as {{GeoGroup}} doesn't work for Google Maps any more I can't tell. It's a question to ask at the template talk for {{Public art row}}. Ham II (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Rodw

An impressive list - I was playing a little game with myself about how many I had seen. I note the double line before notes and wikilinking in sortable lists have been highlighted above, but a few other comments:

  • Lead
  • It says there are more than "400 public artworks..." do we know how many (and therefore is this a complete list)?
@Rodw: I don't think a complete survey has ever been done (not since 1910, anyway), and recently there have been new additions every year so any figures would quickly go out of date. I got 400+ by adding together all the works covered in this category [correction: not the architectural sculpture list], all of which used to be covered by this list. Forking off two of the Royal Parks and the places which used not to be in Westminster was necessary as the templates wouldn't all show on one page. The tricky areas to find information about are Paddington and St Marylebone, but as those now have separate lists I'm pretty confident that nothing major has been left out of this list.
All of Green Park, Hyde Park and St James's Park and parts of Kensington Gardens and Regent's Park are in the City of Westminster. (Only Green Park and St James's Park are covered in this list, though) I've listed the parks but dropped the bit about Charing Cross being the official centre as the sentence was getting too long. (It's still in the lede image caption.)
OK Hyde Park was a dab so I changed to Hyde Park, London.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't know Charing Cross was the official centre of London - is there a reference for this claim?
Yes, in the relevant section: "Charing Cross was declared the official centre of London in 1831[47]"
  • Aldwych / Strand
The source simply says "Saxons", but Pevsner has "Anglo-Saxons". I've linked to Anglo-Saxon London.
Aha!
  • I know what LSE stands for but other readers might not, so could be written in full or wikilinked - I know this is done in the intro to the sub section but not on the entry for Mosaic or Eagle
All mentions in the |location= field now have "London School of Economics"
Is the first wikilink to the Windsor Sculpture Park (in the section lede) enough?
Personally when I do sortable lists I wikilink once in each row, and I have asked for clarification of this - but never got a definitive answer.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That's basically what I had before I spent a day removing the "overlinking". Do you have a link to the conversation you had? This sorely needs clarification.
@Rodw: I've decided to wikilink Windsor Sculpture Park. If you could find the discussion, though, it would be interesting to see how it went. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't find the discussion. I would suggest putting a new message on the FLC talk page about this for wider discussion.— Rod talk 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it worth (somewhere) explaining or linking Grade I, Grade II to listed building?
Restored an earlier phrasing in the lede: "the most significant being the Grade I-listed Cenotaph in Whitehall".
They're flags, which unlike the ones on the Cenotaph are carved from stone and painted. I've called them "fictive" to clarify things.
  • Again I know what RAF means in this context but worth a link for clarity (see RAF (disambiguation))
Is this necessary given that "Royal Air Force" is in the same sentence as the only appearance of "RAF"?
  • Are Queen Mother, Cologne and Dresden worth wikilinks?
Queen Mother is linked further down but as my choices of where to link are confusing everybody I'll link it here too. Also linked the other two.
  • Three Fates has a reference but nothing in Notes.
The reference only gives the basic information in the preceding columns.
I would add something into the notes section.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem as if anyone's done the legwork to find more information it's going probably Philip Ward-Jackson writing for the Public Sculpture of Britain—​the source cited. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I would still advocate adding something.— Rod talk 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the Artist/designer & Architect/other entries have references and some do not.
Usually the references in |notes= cover the whole entry; where there are refs in |artist= and |architect= that's because they only cover those what's in that particular field and the refs in |notes= don't have the information.
Looking at {{Public art row}} it says "Please keep all comments, annotations and references in the |notes= field." I'm not familiar with this template so I'm not sure why this instruction is there, but it looks strange to me to have references in those columns for some & not others.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Bayswater
  • I'm now a bit confused is this in the City of Westminster or in Paddington?
It's now in Westminster as Paddington merged into it in 1965.
So if it is in Westmintsre shouldn't it be included here rather than making the reader go off to another list? Does the same apply to Fitzrovia, Hyde Park, Lisson Grove, Maida Vale, Marylebone etc and for some eg Knightsbridge partial are included in this - I am confused and I'm a reasonably regular visitor to London - I suspect readers who have never visited may be more so - does this decision about inclusion and exclusion criteria need to be explained somewhere?— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion - would it be possible to get a map drawn showing the areas referred to in the list and use this as the lead image to enable readers to get some understanding of the areas, boundaries etc? The folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop are very good for advice and help in this sort of thing.— Rod talk 11:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Will request this at the Graphics Lab. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Belgravia
  • Memorial to Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Marquess of Westminster - you have a ? for architect/other - this source has mosaics by Antonio Salviati
Thanks! Is it Antonio Salviati or his firm Salviati? I'll assume the latter. Is the source also implying that John Douglas was the architect? I also once saw Thomas Henry Wyatt as the architect for this somewhere, but I'll never remember where.
  • General
  • Why are the column widths different in each of the sub lists?
This is because of {{Public art row}}, and might not be fixable as it has lots of parameters which can be opted in and out of.
My guess (but I'm not a template expert) would be that {{Public art header}} enables the column width to be set automatically assuming it will only be used once in each article. I would find out if the column widths can be set as a percentage of screen width & then make them all the same. Also the template may have Owner/administrator as a compulsory column and even though there is no content still includes it therefore giving the double line.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If these sort of comments are useful I will come back and do some more.— Rod talk 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, keep 'em coming! Ham II (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Belgravia (con't)
  • Was it laid out with "with a high concentration of embassies and diplomatic buildings" in 1820 as this is what the lead implies or did the embassies etc come later?
  • Hercules - you have (erected) after the date, but this is not included for other statues etc.
Crystal Clear action edit remove.png Removed
  • Statue of Robert Grosvenor, 1st Marquess of Westminster is described as "developer of Belgravia", but in the section lead Cubitt and Cundy are credited.
  • Charing Cross / Trafalgar Square
@Rodw: You mean in the lede? Yes check.svg Done.
  • Trafalgar Square, is desceribed as "one of London’s most famous public spaces" I think that is probably true but "most famous" is always controversial.
Would this page from london.gov.uk be an acceptable ref? It calls Trafalgar Square "London’s most famous square". It does seem worth stressing the fame for this of all things.
I see "one of the city’s most vibrant open spaces" on that page but not "one of London’s most famous public spaces". Fame is very subjective.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The relevant quotation is "London’s most famous square", at the end of the page. I've added the ref now so please let me know if you object. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, in the lede? If so, Yes check.svg Done.
I think so...
  • I have been discouraged from using q.v. and similar codes.
Should the relevant text (e.g. "statue of Edward Jenner") link to the anchor then, or is it best to keep links to sections within articles to a minimum?
I don't quite understand.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • Nelson's Column - is "unidealised" a word and what does it mean? Portland stone could be wikilinked
"Not regarded or represented as better than in reality; true to life" (oxforddictionaries.com). I've wikilinked "Portland stone" for the first of its five mentions, in the Belgravia section, but not afterwards.
Perhaps "true to life" then.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added. Again, the link was already further down the page, but I've added another here.
Yep I believe 1st mention (outside the lead) should always be wikilinked (and as I said I would link once per row in sortable lists).— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Beatty Memorial Fountain again nothing in notes
Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added more.
  • Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope not an issue but I'm intrigued by "The bust contains a half-pint bottle of Guinness"
It was Franta Belsky's trademark; I think he did the same for the statue of Earl Mountbatten.
  • Platform murals - I don't understand "Gentleman" in this context - is it David Gentleman?
Yes; isn't that clear enough? Ham II (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

More when I get some time.— Rod talk 12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I will look again at the other subsections later, but many of the issues I see are similar to those listed above.

  • References and Bibliography
  • Shouldn't all (recent) books have isbn numbers?
@Rodw: Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added for the ones in the Bibliography; will follow up with the others.
Yes check.svg Done all the remaining ones. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Where NHLE data sheets are used sometimes English Heritage is given as the author (eg 64, 102, 112, 182, 290, 322, 364, 367 ) and sometimes it has EH as the publisher (eg 26) this should be consistent (I always treat EH as the publisher)
16 was the only one that didn't use {{English Heritage List entry}}, so it's now been changed.
All of these now don't have a publisher.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather keep the consistency and convenience that comes with using the template, so this would have to be raised at {{English Heritage List entry}}. However, this usage is consistent with treating Westminster City Council as the corporate author for other refs—​which for ones using {{Harvnb}} is a technical necessity. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 15 What makes London details a reliable source (self generated & uploaded content)
The only other source I can find for this is Geograph. Can anyone with access to JSTOR or similar help?
  • 27 What makes Slide Share a reliable source (self generated & uploaded content)
Changed to a PDF published by the Grosvenor Group; the SlideShare page was the only available source at the time.
  • 31 - is a redirect & I can't see the claim supported
Fixed. Retrieved from the Internet Archive.
  • 48 ? a book could be moved to bibliography
I've only put books which are used more than once in the bibliography. Should they all go there?
That is how I would do it, but I don't know if there is a specific guideline to follow.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
All books but one now moved to the bibliography; Glinert 2012 (ref 168) doesn't have page numbers, so I'll get this from my local library. That one wasn't added by me! Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rodw: Yes check.svg Done the last one. Ham II (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 49 possible doi error
Crystal Clear action edit remove.png Removed the DOI.
  • 157 has URL showing - format issue
Fixed
  • 261 needs a publisher
Fixed
  • 290 includes the NHLE ref number in the title - the others don't
I don't see this; as far as I can tell they all have the number.
  • 339 ? a book therefore should it be in bibliography
See 48 above.
Yes check.svg Done. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Some conservation area audits by Westminster City Council are in bibliography but others are in the reference list.
Again, the same reason as 48 above. Perhaps conservation area audits could be a separate section of the bibliography as they're webpages, not books? The ones in the Bibliography are needed there as page numbers are cited.
Personally I would put them all into bibliography. I guess this is personal choice however consistency is generally good.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done—​given conservation area audits their own section. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope these are helpful— Rod talk 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for going through this. I've run out of time for tonight, so sorry for not getting to the older questions. I've also got a very busy week ahead so the replies might be thinner on the ground till Friday. Ham II (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments from JMiall

I reviewed this previously and was basically happy with it. Since then it has improved although sadly got shorter as well. I didn't ask that all duplicate links be removed - I only objected to the same thing being linked many times in a row.

@JMiall: Sorry for my outburst about "overlinking" earlier on. It really hasn't been clear what best practice is for this.

Anyway, a bit of random sample fact checking between this list and the linked articles on dates that don't match:

  • Duke of York Column
1832–4 goes from the completion of the column to the erection of the statue. It seems as if the design was ready by 1829 (Ward-Jackson 2011, p. 387), so I suppose that is the start date. Changed to 1829–34.
  • Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain
1885 here was the date when the commission started. The unveiling date was 1893. Changed to 1885–93 here and at Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain.
  • Boadicea and Her Daughters (although it explains why)
Dates now corrected at Boadicea and Her Daughters (formerly 1902–3; now 1856–83 (executed); June 1902 (erected)), with citation. That is now consistent with this article.
  • Buxton Memorial Fountain – only mentions 1865
Completion date (February 1866) now mentioned at Buxton Memorial Fountain, so that supports the date here (1865–6).
  • The Burghers of Calais
1895 date here was incorrect; changed to 1884–9 (cited and consistent with The Burghers of Calais).

which means there are probably more to find. A bit of clarity on what date it is in the date column might be useful. JMiall 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In general I think the dates should go from conception to completion, where those dates are known.
Also I don't think the lead image is very good. I can see why a photo of that statue is being used but I'd prefer a better image of something else, or a map (as mentioned above). JMiall 21:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of replacing the lead image with, hopefully, a better depiction of the same statue. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@JMiall, Prioryman: That is an improvement overall. Although the previous pic was better composed and didn't have the long side of the plinth in shadow, this has more striking colours. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

J. Gordon Edwards filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is a comprehensive filmography of J. Gordon Edwards, a once-lauded but now nearly entirely forgotten director of the American silent film era. Although he's been compared to Alfred Hitchcock and D.W. Griffith, the bulk of his work (like most silent films) simply no longer exists. But that doesn't stand in the way of preserving information about his oeuvre, and presenting it to our readers. I'm no stranger to Featured Content, but this is my first trip to FLC; hopefully everything is in order. Disclosure: This is a WikiCup nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


Support − Looks much nicer now. Sources look good, too. Jimknut (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. It is the second of a three-part series of lists headed by List of York City F.C. players, which has been a featured list since October 2007. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is great. Can you clarify sourcing for me? I recently worked on an FL and it felt like every cell of the table needed a reference. You have a column of refs that is barely populated. Clarify that and I am happy to support.
I'll go through the sourcing column by column. Positions are cited by either Batters, Windross & Jarred, Soccerbase or an individual reference in the Ref column where necessary (e.g. Michael Coulson). Club career, apps and goals come from a combination of refs 14 & 15 in the key. International selection and caps are referenced individually in the Refs column. Loans in the Notes column are referenced by either Windross & Jarred or Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Other notes: The image MOS is not perfect since you have people facing away from the text. Making adjustments would either screw up the layout or reduce images. I recommend keeping them all.
I've just stumbled across MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and I was completely unaware of what it recommends. I would agree with keeping the images as they are. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the key should be an independent section but it is in depth enough that I'll yield to whatever is considered best/standard.
I've gone with what has been done on other featured lists, like List of Birmingham City F.C. players, List of Lincoln City F.C. players, and List of Malmö FF players, which include key sections. I feel there's enough content to justify it having its own section. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Should the other lists be wikilinked in the lead?
They are linked directly below the list, which I think is a logical location, and in the template at the bottom of the page. So I think it would be a bit OTT to include them in the lead too. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, Support. The aesthetics of the blank columns irks me but presenting that much data is better than I could have done. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

National symbols of Sri Lanka[edit]

Nominator(s): AntonTalk 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list received peer review and archived. Also, it is a well-written and well-sourced. I see it as an interesting list since it gives a nutshell view about a country. The feedback that it is going to receive, would help to work on more lists, and these might help to start new lists of National symbols. AntonTalk 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Azealia Banks discography[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This list is about the discography of American hip hop artist Azealia Banks. A concise and well-sourced list, it meets all the criteria for a featured list. (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • "Broke with Expensive Taste, which attained moderate success". Needs a source even if it is available in the section(s) as it's not mentioned elsewhere other than lead.
  • Fixed. (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "yield" does not sound encyclopedic. How about "spawn"? --FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank you for your review! (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Very good so far, here are my comments:

  • I think simply "American rapper" can be used rather than "American rapper and singer"
  • Done. (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing on the worldwide sales for Broke with Expensive Taste?
  • I have found nothing on it. Sorry. (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In "Guest appearances", remove the period following "II. Earth: The Oldest Computer (The Last Night)"
  • Done. (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall, a fine list. Well done! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, and I can now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

List of tied Twenty20 Internationals[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, an interesting little list. At the moment it is pretty short, and though it will certainly grow, it is unlikely to do so quickly. I have followed the tableformat of List of Cricket World Cup finals rather than the format at List of tied One Day Internationals, as I believe the former provides better information and adheres more closely to our MOS. I already have an FLC open (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Series Cricket international centuries/archive1), but it has been stable for a while now, with three support votes and no outstanding concerns. Harrias talk 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: I haven't been able to spot any issues. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: a very good list, meets the criteria. Happy to support this one! --Khadar Khani (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Bermuda T20I cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): Blackhole78 talk | contrib 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets FL criteria. The list is formatted according to other Featured Lists of cricketers. The Bermuda ODI list is already a featured list, so for sake of completeness, I want to get this list to Featured Status as well. Since, Bermuda doesn't currently have Twenty20 International status, the information in this list is unlikely to significantly change for the foreseeable future. Blackhole78 talk | contrib 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Older nominations[edit]

List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners[edit]

Nominator(s): Lucky102 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners for featured list because of the high-importance it is to the Eurovision WikiProject. It gives a quick brief of the competition at the start, to those who may get onto it randomly. It features the list of all the winners, along with the song, performer, points, margin and the runner up (in columns beside it). It features also a list based on the countries who have won it the most often (along with a map), and winners by languages. Queries are welcome. Lucky102 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by King Edward VII[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This 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, 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 Edward VII (reigned 1901–1910). I believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. This article follows the same format as the list of Queen Victoria's appointments which was promoted to FL in October 2014. 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) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Great job. This is a very good list. But how about including birth and death date of the recipents in parenthesises after the name? Since many of the noble receipts share the same first and last name as their relatives it would help clarify who the recipients are when there is no wikilink. See the example below, where the recipient is the father Konstantin von Neurath and not his son of the same name (Konstantin von Neurath). P. S. Burton (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Name Country Date of appointment Office Occasion Notes
Konstantin, Baron von Neurath (1847–1912)* German Empire 21 April 1904 Lord Chamberlain to the King of Württemberg Visit of the Prince of Wales to Württemberg
  • @P. S. Burton: Thank you for your comments and for the linking you have done on the article. I appreciate what you're saying here, but my concern is that the original source does not specify their birth/death dates and, in some cases, doesn't even give their full names (e.g. Count d'Arnoso); therefore, this would require additional material to support those facts and some of the people, especially the foreign figures, are much harder to track down in reliable reference material (at least anything online). This is especially true where people don't even have articles on their own language wikis. This means that it may simply not be possible to add this information, at least not consistently anyway. Do let me know what you think. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Yes. you are probably right that it would be impossible to identify all recipients. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support some of your phrases in the notes end with a full-stop, others don't. Best to make it consistent. Perhaps the same is true of your references (or it might be that my glasses need cleaning again). Apart from that, we're now into "I might have done it differently" territory in some respects, which isn't a reason to oppose. For future lists, you can save yourself some typing by using {{sortname}} (which even handles names you don't want to link). Well done. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: I will look over the full-stops and learn to use the sortname template. Thank you for your comments and your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria[edit]

Nominator(s): Vibhijain (talk), Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The list of Danish Kaneria's fifers was created by Vibhijain. I worked on the list and now I feel this is according to the FLC criteria. Appreciate your comments and suggestion. Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose per criterion 3(b). The size of the parent article hovers around 4.3k chars Vensatry (ping) 09:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Vensatry: the parent article is now over 7.5k characters (over 1250 words). I think your concern is addressed! --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it still needs expansion. Though others might have different opinions, my rule-of-thumb is 12k chars. Vensatry (ping) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll try to expand this a little more. --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Parent article's size is now 12k chars! --Khadar Khani (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment:
    • "As of 2015, he is seventh in the list of five-wicket haul takers for Pakistan, all formats of the game combined." --> "As of 2015, he is seventh in the list of five-wicket haul takers for Pakistan in all formats of the game combined."
    • Use the Template:As of for the above sentence.
      • Stats for the list change with time, so no need of this. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I would center align the values for the Inn, Overs, Runs, Wkts, Econ, and Result columns for aesthetic reasons.
      • This is for consistency reason since the plainrowheaders' rowscopes align to the left. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Need to add column scopes to the table per WP:ACCESS#Tables
    • Link all instances of ESPNcricinfo in your references.
      • No need of this, the first one is already linked. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't put rowscopes in the middle of a row as this will confuse screen readers. They should ideally be put at the beginning of a row.
      • Yes, they should be in the beginning but in this case the list is about "five-wicket hauls", so I rowscoped the corresponding one. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, I disagree with Vensatry that this is a 3(b) violation. This list is long enough that it would be awkward to merge it back into the parent article. Plus, Chaminda Vaas has only 16 five wicket hauls, one more than Danish Kaneria, and it is a featured list. Blackhole78 talk | contrib 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not about the length of the list, but about the size of the parent article. And yes, the Chaminda Vaas list shouldn't have been promoted. Nevertheless, the issue is now resolved as the parent article has been expanded. Vensatry (ping) 11:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not much to say about this one. I've made some consistency fixes to the references, but otherwise it is a pretty solid list. Nice work. Harrias talk 20:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Sword Art Online episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): FairyTailRocks 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been almost a year since my last nomination of this list. I became inactive due to some real-life activities, but I know that List of Sword Art Online episodes will have a lot of potential of becoming FL. All criticisms and comments are welcome! FairyTailRocks 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by DragonZero

After a quick look, issues from the previous FLC are still there. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you specifically say what are those problems so that I can fix them out? FairyTailRocks 12:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
PresN's comments stand. There are still prose. Accessibility is subjective, but I think you should continue improving on that in the plot summaries. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen any improvement in the article for a month now, maybe it is time to close this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

List of nearest exoplanets[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting list I've worked on which I believe passes WP:FL? I hope reviewers will check it out. Thanks for any feedback! Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Huh, the ping didn't actually ever send anything to me. You might try it again for the others. Anyway, I supported last time, so I Support again. Thing I noticed this time:
  • "A total of seven planets has been suggested for Gliese 667 C (but only two have been confirmed)" - the aside sounds better to me without the "but"
  • If this review (hah) is helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology FLC down below. --PresN 20:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Planets d, f, and g for Gliese 581 are not simply unconfirmed, but have been basically disproven at this point, so I would remove them completely. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be fine removing f and g, but if d is indeed retracted, wouldn't e become the new d? Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
There was an extensive discussion about this earlier on Talk:Gliese 581 and Talk:Gliese 581 e. The consensus was that, due to the fact that scientific studies still refer to the planet as "e", the article should stay at "e". Anyways, I've made the change, so now I support this nomination. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@StringTheory11, Dudley Miles:

Comments. This is an interesting list but I have some doubts about it.

  • I am not clear why nearest is taken as 50 light years and I do not see any explanation. Why not 100 light years or 20 parsecs. I think you need either to justify the limit or change the name of the article to "List of explanets within 50 light years".
I wanted a round number that contains a manageable number of planets. I think 50 ly is round enough, and at around 100 entires is a manageable list. Going to 100ly I think is a bad idea since it would have around 8x more planets which is way too much for the scope of the article, while 10 ly would be too little for the list to be relevant. A parsec is a meaningless value to a layperson so I strongly prefer using ly increments. List of nearest stars for example contains only up to 5 ly and does not say "list of stars within 5ly". Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
List of nearest stars redirects to List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs. This is out to 5 parsecs, not ly, and List of nearest bright stars is to 15 parsecs. Neither is an FL. I think the article name should be "List of explanets within 50 light years". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what would be gained my the title change. What do others think? Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a good deal of 'recentism' in the article. The opening sentence "Astronomers have identified a total of 65 exoplanets within 50 light-years of the Solar System," will become outdated when the next near exoplanet is found. It should be "as of date..." This also applies to many statements in the lead and note d. I would suggest a note stating that all statements in the article are "as of ..."
Good catch. I tried to put a year by each count. Nergaal (talk)
  • There are no references for much of the lead and note d.
Which parts of the lead? For note d there is a sentence in the criteria section: "For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as unconfirmed when there is only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, but there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence." Many of reported objects sometimes even are confirmed by some other scientists only to be later disproven or reclassified. Basically I don't want to inflate the count with planets that only are reported in xarchiv until at least some review later discusses it (or better said, somebody with knowledge in the field took that xarchiv report seriously). Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There are no refs at the end of the first 3 paragraphs. Note d says "This recently-discovered exoplanet is regarded as unconfirmed as there is only a single (primary) report discussing its existence." You need a ref for this specific exoplanet, not just the general principle. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Each time note d is used there is a reference to one of the databases, which seems to list all the papers pertaining to that planet's entry. Note d comes only when there is a single link in that database. As for refs at the end of intro paras I don't think it is necessary. I put refs only for specific measurements, while for "counting" of things done in this list I did not put one. Most FLs have statements like "there are x many things" (implying that they are listed below) that are not explicitly referenced. That works fine, but the only real disadvantage for this list is that it gets updated a few times a year, so whoever makes the update has to change this count without having an easy reference to cross-check the updated number. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The only ref for the number of 65 exoplanets in the opening sentence is a list of visible stars within 50 ly, which is not the same thing, and it is not clear that this source is WP:RS. Out of the 4 sources listed in note a, the first two do not appear to list distance (although I may be missing something due to lack of technical knowledge), and 3 is a dead link. In 4 the list of confirmed planets in the NASA source has the distance column blank for half of them. If you are assuming that any where the distance is unknown must be over 50 ly away this must be justified.
note a is the ref for the number 65, and is a RS in the sense that they do not have thresholds for specific distances. What I did is go through all those 4 links and comb for items within 50 ly. For 1 you have to click "all fields", so I added that link too. For 2, you have to click "+" on the right side to get the "DIST", but that option is only saved as a cookie (so I cannot have a direct link to it). I could try to put a note to the ref entry if you think that is what it needs. 3 was live less than a month ago, but fixed it. Same for 4. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand "is a RS in the sense that they do not have thresholds for specific distances." On the other points I think you need to spell them out in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
None of the 4 databases split their entries by distance from the Sun. They all contain some 1k+ entries with all the known exoplanets. This list is a trimmed version of those lists, containing only 65 + 35 entries, so in that sense it is a RS. Updated each of the 4 links. Let me know if there is anything else.Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not understand the table 'Systems visible with the naked eye'. How can they be visible when half of them are listed as not having a visible host star? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The column is "Visible host star?" and split by Yes and No. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
If you showed the table heading with a question mark as 'Systems visible with the naked eye?' it would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. @Dudley Miles:. Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: sorry for late replies, I somehow missed your review in my watchlist. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Nashville Xpress all-time roster[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the requirements to become a featured list. I have made improvements to the list as suggested when it was previously nominated for FL status. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The third time was not a charm, so here it is for the fourth time. This, as the title suggests, is a list of head coaches for a football team. In its last two FLCs, it has received a combined total of one comment. All concerns from the now-ancient first nomination were addressed long ago, and I still believe that this is ready for the bronze star. Oh, and just as a side-note, this is a WikiCup nomination. Thanks to all who comment, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I forgot this doesn't count for WikiCup. However, since it's delaying me nominating something for WikiCup, reviews are still highly appreciated :). - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 22:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall a pretty sound list, and I'm amazed it hasn't gained the support needed to pass previously. Harrias talk 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and double thanks for the quick response time. I believe all of your concerns have been addressed. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support That tool-tip thing for the win-loss does work well, I like that! Nice list, hopefully you get some more reviewers, and supports! Harrias talk 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Universal Studios Orlando Attractions[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. All attractions and shows at the Universal Studios Orlando resort are listed in the list.--Dom497 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Vikram filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Sriram speak up 12:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

With a diverse body of work, Vikram is one of the most decorated actors in contemporary Tamil cinema. The list has been compiled following extensive research and has been adequately well-sourced. Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. Sriram speak up 12:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

Lead
  • Is the prefix "Chiyaan" needed here? I think it is best suited in Vikram's main article, not here.
That part was modeled after a similar note made in the lead sentence of SRK's filmography, a clarification which is comparatively minor in SRK's. Would it be better if I rephrase it to often credited as Chiyaan Vikram? He has been credited so since Sethu... and not everyone know its genesis and significance.
If that is the case, then it may be retained.
  • I don't think you have to mention him as "model-turned-film actor" as the next para mentions his brief stint of modelling; and film actor is a redirect, so just say "actor".
Will remove the 'model' part. But, isn't there other kind of actors too? Will it be okay to put it in the general category?
Yes, if he achieved anything big through modelling.
  • "switched base" - how about he shifted his focus there?
Done.
  • "essaying the lead roles" - I'd prefer "portraying".
Done.
  • "Labelled by a critic" - who? And in Pithamagan, he says in the end "sakthi kodu", which I think was his only line in the film.
How about rewriting it as hardly any dialogues?
Just try writing that his character had mostly no spoken dialogue.
  • "moonlights as a Robin Hood in the guise of an anthropomorphic rooster" - I think vigilante is a better word than Robin Hood.
Wasn't he was more of a Robin Hood than a vigilante? He never questioned anything other than economic offenses, did he? Most refernces too refer his character to be ala Robin Hood.
By vigilante, I mean someone like Batman or Spider-Man. Ain't he similar to them?
  • "Rajapattai (2011), a box-office dud" - you mean failure?
Yes. Does that sound non-encyclopaedic? Should I rephrase it?
Never mind, I rephrased it.
  • "larger-than-life" sounds idiomatic and seems to convey POV. Search Wiktionary for any formal synonym.
Explanatory notes
  • "In the anthology film, Vikram's part was made in Hindi and dubbed into Tamil." - source?
Claim has been sourced.
More to come later... Kailash29792 (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Some new comments based on your new edits:

  • "kick the habit" - isn't he trying to overcome his addiction to smoking? Write this way.
Rewrote.
  • "in the debutant Bala-directed tragedy Sethu... (1999), whose making was deeply troubled" - rewrite as "Bala's directorial debut, the tragedy film Sethu... (1999)"; and I don't think you need that last sentence about the making.
Fixed.
  • Mention something about I and the Tamil David in the lead.
Done.
  • Avoid overlinking in the tables.
Removed overlinking.
Support: Thank you for addressing my comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

First of all, the list looks nice at first glance. Good work! — Ssven2 speak 2 me 12:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead
  • Only "State Film" awards is mentioned. Please rephrase it as "Tamil Nadu State Film" awards for better clarity.
Done.
  • "moonlights as a Robin Hood" — What do you mean by "moonlights"? Face-smile.svg
Check this.
That's all right. But, can you replace it with a better word for more clarity? Face-smile.svg
  • Raavan wasn't universally panned. You can write it as : received negative reviews.
Done.
  • "heavy criticism" — simply "criticism" should suffice.
Done.
  • Can you find any source for the year the TV serial "Vishwanath" was aired?
Nope. However, this source mentions it as Killer Vishwanath.
Other sections
  • In the "As a dubbing artiste" portion, the films Paasamalargal, Kuruthipunal and Karuppu Roja are unsourced. Please find reliable sources.
Could not find reliable sources. Have hidden them from the list.
Support

Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: As I stated in my edit summary here, the process of tweaking the prose was getting a bit tedious for me. I really want to see this pass, so I decided to copy-edit it myself. I have removed a chunk of redundant information, corrected the grammatical errors, and ensured that the lead flows better. Given these contributions, I believe I am exempt from either supporting or opposing the nomination. My only outstanding comment, at this moment, remains the inclusion of a partial list of his endorsements (as stated above). Also, a thorough source review needs to be done. -- KRIMUK90  09:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Editor 2050[edit]

It would be great to have this established as a Featured List, but other than looking pretty, it lacks the fundamental goal of being complete.

  • Unknown roles can be filled up, with little research.
Not all films are available in YouTube. However, I'll try to find his character name from what's available.
  • Some dubbed films are included, while others like Vicky, Maari, Aarusaamy, Miss Madras et al are excluded. I know this is due to a lack of sources, but still the films are up online and would easily help complete the article.
They could be dubbed for television screenings, in which case, it cannot be included. Only those films that were dubbed and had a theatrical release can be named, which needs to be verifiable. I could not include them due to lack of reliable sources supporting the claim.
  • Bheema just says 'Released in Telugu' - lacks continuance with the rest of the article.
Written as in other instances.
  • Siragugal was made as a film, not a television soap. It should be featured in the filmography instead.
As per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, "TV films" belong in the Television table.
  • The films he provided voiceover for, should surely be included. He is credited in those films
They have been included later in a separate list.
Editor 2050 (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry[edit]

  • Image needs alt text
Provided alt text
  • (often credited Chiyaan Vikram[1][2]) - Place the refs. after ')'
Done.
  • Isn't "Breakthrough role" over-linked?
It has been wikilinked only once. Do you mean it doesn't need to be linked at all?
Exactly. Isn't the term 'Breakthrough' plain English? Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
But, I have wikilinked "breakthrough role" and not "breakthrough". If it is a normal word, why does it have a separate article in wikipedia explaining the terminology instead of an entry in wiktionary?
  • A mention of films like Thanthu Vitten Ennai, Meera, etc., could be made in the lead. He played the main lead in those films while working under biggies like Sridhar, SPM and PC.
I had mentioned them in an earlier draft, but the lead was too long. Therefore, I have mentioned or discussed only those films that were a subject of discussion themselves in the media, and those that earned him recognition.
  • Likewise a mention of his Telugu and Malayalam films could be there. You start with En Kadhal Kanmani and then jump into Sethu, which came almost ten years later.
Prashant says the lead is too long and needs trimming. You say that a few more of films can be mentioned. With all due respect, what am I supposed to do?
  • You can include a bit about Vikram declining the lead role in Mani Ratnam's Bombay. I leave this to you.
I'm against it. Per Baradwaj Rangan's profile in Caravan, he was also considered for a role in Raman Abdullah. More recently, he was even offered to play God in Gopala Gopala. Could not mentioned them all. They are more suitable in his biography.
  • His performance in Ullasam was well received isn't it?
The film wasn't really well received. Vikram only said that his role earned him female fans.
  • You could go a bit deeper into explaining the kind of characters that he played in Sethu and Pithamagan. After all, it's the characters that fetched him acclaim.
Any more detail, the lead would be too long and boring.
Now I see that the characters have been explained for both the films. Don't know how I missed it. Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the film grossed over INR100 million" - USD conversion is needed.
Added
  • Need to adjust this for inflation. Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Added year to template.
  • "In late 2001, Vikram was awarded his first Filmfare Award ..." would mean that the award ceremony was held in late 2001.
Fixed.
  • Arul and Majaa were highly anticipated?
Removed the term.
  • Link all entries in the table as it's sortable.
  • Why don't you have the Tamil and Hindi versions of David in two separate rows?
1. The film was a bilingual and was released simultaneously. 2. Vikram only featured in the Hindi version. It was dubbed into Tamil, without his knowledge.
  • If it was only a dubbed version, how come this will count as an appearance? Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
That is why, unlike Raavanan and Raavan, I have listed the two versions of David within a single row entry.
  • Thommidi Nelalu should be 9 Nelalu
Done.
  • Filmfare Best Actor Award -> Filmfare Award for Best Actor – Tamil
Reworded, but without the lang.
  • The emphasis should be on the language. Now, it looks like the one for Bollywood films and hence will mislead the readers. Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't "Filmfare Award' mean an award given by the Filmfare (the magazine)? Is there a necessity to distinguish between the Filmfare Awards and Filmfare Awards South? I'm not sure.
Of course, then why do we have different articles for all languages? Wouldn't that mislead the readers? Vensatry (ping) 05:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Raavanan actually fetched him his fifth Filmfare Award
Corrected error.
  • The playback singer table needs a language column
Then I might have to list the Telugu songs as well. It would make the table too complicated.
Of course, they must be included as he did the playback and was credited in the soundtrack. Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Done.
  • Is the dubbing artiste table complete? I'm sure there are more number of films than the ones mentioned here. He was Ajith's voice in Paasamalargal and another actor's (don't know his name) in Karuppu Roja.
They have been removed due to lack of reliable sources supporting the same.
  • Sorry, but that's not convincing. This being the case, the list doesn't meet criterion 3(a). Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Then what about WP:VNT?
  • Sriram, that's an essay and cannot be co-related with WP:FL?. That being the case, I can say your argument borders on WP:GAMING. Vensatry (ping) 05:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry:Very well then, what do you suggest I do? The claim might be true, but without RS how do you expect me to substantiate it? Will it be okay if I use "cite dvd" and mention the timestamp where his name has been credited in the titles? -- Sriram speak up 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • When you say he dubbed for J. D. Chakravarthy in Satya, the language (Tamil version) should be noted.
Added note.
  • Above all, how come there is no mention about I in the lead.
Will add them. It wasn't released when I nominated for FLC. And, other existing FLs did not mention unreleased films in the lead.
Added info on I.

Vensatry (ping) 18:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Prashant![edit]

  • After watching I, I have become a fan of Vikram. Thank you for working so well on his filmography. I think the lead is quite large. I would suggest to trim a bit.—Prashant 21:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
He has acted in about 50 films but I have discussed only 20 of them in the lead, on the basis of which got him critical acclaim/scathing criticism/notable awards. While another reviewer is asking me to mention/discuss a few more of his earlier films, you are asking me to trim the plot lead. What am I to do when I receive contrasting comments? Which way do I go!
I beg your pardon, is it the lead that you mean? Face-tongue.svg Kailash29792 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think length should be problem. WP:LEAD states that the lede should adequately summarize the whole article. Further, criterion 2 of WP:FL? states that the lede should be "engaging". I don't see a limit for the prose size in lede anywhere. You can make the lede "engaging" even if it's too long. For an actor who has made 50+ appearances with a diverse body of work it's just normal. What if somebody wants to take the filmography pages of actors like Rajini, Kamal or Mammooty? Vensatry (ping) 08:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about cutting the unwanted texts for a more crisper prose.—Prashant 14:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997[edit]

  • Is IndiaGlitz a reliable source?
Pls. check this out.
  • Why isn't accessdate included in all of the cite templates?
Well, I had actually intended to archive all the links in which case accessdate would have been redundant. However, there were some issues with archiving links from The Hindu. So now, some links have been archived while the other have accessdates. Still, if you think it is necessary, then lemme know and I will add accessdates to all links.
Add accessdates to every web/news citation.
  • In the "dubbing roles" section {{efn}} is not really needed just mention the info directly in the notes section.
Done.
  • Are you sure that all of his commercials are included?
No. Before his film career, he featured in a few adverts. But, only their names are known and nothing else like the directors/year/role. Also, another editor pointed out that only notable commercials should be included and that they themselves should be a subject of discussion in reliable sources. So, I have only listed such commercials.
  • Composers & singers in the "playback singer" should sort by their last names.
Have used sortname where applicable.
  • Same for directors & roles in "actor" section.
Again, have used sortname where applicable.
Could you pls. take a look at this before commenting on this issue? Sorry for the trouble. -- Sriram speak up 13:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Link directors at every occurrence in the lists.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns have been addressed. Good work on this list.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

That discussion has less than half a dozen editors expressing their views. There seem to be no consensus and, even if there was one, it can't be used as a rule of thumb unless it has been implemented as added to a policy. My intent is to take this list to FL at any cost, even if I were to have only one or two sentences for the lead. But, if the different reviewers are of contrasting opinions, I wonder which way to sway.
Given Vikram's career, I think the length is absolutely fine. -- KRIMUK90  01:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed per consensus.
  • Three of the ten listings under playback singer appear to be complete duplicates except for film title. I guess they are dubbings? Can these be combined on one line each? It looks weird as is.
He did sing the song in both languages. I couldn't get what you mean? Can you clarify a little? -- Sriram speak up 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I mean that it looks odd to have two rows, one for Rajapattai and one for Veedinthe, with the same year, same songs, same composer, and same co-singers. Only the language and sources are different. Could you combine these two rows, to remove this duplication? Same for the other two duplicates in this table. BollyJeff | talk 02:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Have combined them into a single row entry. However, could you take a look at this? I had originally split them into separate rows for the two languages as per comments from another reviewer. So, again, I have been receiving contrasting opinions about it!! -- Sriram speak up 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not very comfortable with the 'unknowns'. Has all possible research been exhausted? To me, even a video source with a credits roll would be good, but I don't know how others would feel about that.
Will look into it and find as much info as possible.
  • I also believe that access dates should be added to all citations that include links.
Will add them, probably by tomorrow.
  • It's not clear what is meant by "Lent his voice for the Tamil-dubbed version". The Gandhi article makes no mention of a Tamil version, nor does the source that I can see. If it's on a page other than one, please note the page number.
Actually, the article has an option to be seen in single page. -- Sriram speak up 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rediff and The Hindu are linked in the citations, but not at their first occurrence. Try to get all firsts.
Fixed. Wikilinked first instances.
  • The Rotten Tomatoes and Bollywood Hungama external links are not adding anything useful to the article.
Sites like IMDB and Rottentomatoes are similar to wikipedia in that they are crowd-sourced. They could evolve anytime with more info.
  • In the actor section, many of the notes say: Dubbed into XX as YY. How is this relevant to Vikram? If it was dubbed with his voice, it would be noted in the dubbing section, no?
The films were dubbed into other languages and had a theatrical release. While the original versions always had his voice, the dubbed verions didn't always. He only dubbed for some of them, Still, they can't be listed in the dubbing section as he voiced for himself, as an actor and not as a dubbing artiste.
I think that only the ones where he dubbed for his voice should be listed then, not ones where he was not involved in the dubbed release, and a note should be made to clarify that.
The table heading reads "As an actor"! Whether he was involved in its release or not, he did feature in the dubbed versions too. I don't know what this fuss is all about. I had earlier wrote "Released in XX as YY" for clarity; but,it was Krimuk90 who asked me to reword so.
Sorry, you are correct. He "acted" in both versions, so it's okay. BollyJeff | talk 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was told in another FAC that "debutant filmmaker" is not appropriate encyclopedic use of the word debutant.
  • "Vikram's sole box-office success during this period was ... disorder; a commercial success across South India." I think the part after the ; is redundant here.

Timeline of the 2013 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The 2013 Pacific hurricane season was an above average year, featuring 20 named storms. In addition, it was very deadly and destructive, with 135 deaths and $4.2 billion in damage overall. This timeline documents the life-cycles of all the tropical cyclones that formed in the Central and East Pacific in 2013 and now, in my opinion, adheres to the characteristics of a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. I had a good read and I didn't detect any problems that I know of, although a more experienced editor may pick up a few. Detailed, well sourced, well written, it is a list of good quality. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Looks fine to me. Just a few queries.
  • "The hurricane season officially began on May 15, coinciding with the formation of Tropical Storm Alvin, in the East Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W—and on June 1 in the Central Pacific—defined as the region west of 140°W to the International Date Line—and ended on November 30 in both basins." This seems far too detailed for the lead paragraph. I would have something like season began 15 May in the East Pacific and 1 June Central..." and put the rest in an nb note. BTW does the Pacific only have east and central regions - the Philippines is in the central Pacific?
    • Comment from another user: There is western Pacific, but over there, they are called typhoons rather than hurricanes. The Philippines is in the Western Pacific. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • tropical depression - I would link (or better still define in an nb note).
  • "state of Sinaloa" I would say in Mexico.
  • "a storm that was not operationally warned upon" warned upon sounds wrong to me - is it correct AmerEng?
  • Degenerates sounds odd to me. Is it a technical term and does it mean something different from weakens? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

TA, three qualms here:

  • Maye add Barbara to the lead? YE Pacific Hurricane 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "This timeline includes information that was not released in real time, meaning that data from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. " Also note the CPHC here, since it warned on 5 systems. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Add when the CPHC season first started to the timeline. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Look at: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2013/SONIA.shtml? After November 3, Sonia's events should be in PST, not PDT. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Narcissus horticultural divisions[edit]

Nominator(s): Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, and is a useful resource for this genus, as a supporting page to Narcissus ... Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Narcissus is currently GAN, and supporting pages should be of similar standard.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: Narcissus is now GA, as is the other supporting page, Taxonomy of Narcissus --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I know nothing about this subject but as it has no reviews I will give it a go.
Thank you --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead appears to assume that Narcissus is the formal name for daffodils but this is not explained. It should be clarified.
Paragraph dealing with formal and informal names added.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The list of Narcissus horticultural divisions provided by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is widely used and cited." Widely used and cited is vague. I suggest something like "The British Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is the international registration authority for the Narcissus genus, commonly known as daffodils."
Reworded to explain this--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Division 13, which includes all wild daffodils, is the exception to this scheme." Exception in what way?
Reworded to explain this --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • color. As this article is about a classification by a British society, I think it should use British spelling - colour.
Agreed, probably started its life under a US editor. Changed throughout as per WP:MOS --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are no references for the definitions in the table.
Unsure what you are looking for here - this whole page is about the RHS list with their definitions --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
For added clarity, added the same reference to all column header titles --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Notes are below references, but they are usually above.
OK. That does seem to be the order in WP:MOS, though I must admit in all the hundreds of pages I have written I have never noticed that preference before!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are inconsistencies in the references. 1 is missing isbn. 2 does not have date in brackets - and is no author available? 4, 5 and 7 no date (5 is dated 2015 - have you checked for changes as you accessed it 2014?). 6 non-standard date. 11 and 12 commercial catalogues are not suitable references. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
1. I don't recall ever seeing an isbn atrached to the original RHS list, but managed to find one in a library catalogue--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Correct. Cite only brackets dates if author or editor known. Retrieved and inserted --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
4,5,7. Putting meaningful dates on websites is always tricky. Added the copywrite dates. Some like 5. are on automatic update, so updated retrieval date--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Looks bot generated. Corrected --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
11, 12. While in general we try to avoid using commercial sources as references to avoid the appearance of promotion, sometimes this is important for other reasons. In this case larger well established nurseries have considerable experience in growing daffodils often over many generations, and provide much useful information. In the case of the reference to 'Division 14', the whole point is that here is a major supplier providing bulbs under that name, and the reference is appropriate. In both cases I have added additional non-commercial references and reworded the section to make the purpose of those references clearer. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this before since not being part of a formal review process your comments did not trigger a notification. I will look through them and respond --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I have now revised the page as per the above comments. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Support. Looks fine to me, although I would take out "This page describes a list of Narcissus horticultural divisions." This is close to starting the article "This is a list...", which is forbidden. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Done - the problem was working the page title into the opening sentence. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Seattle[edit]

The joys of linkrot. All links were checked at nomination, but one website has completely revamped itself invalidating all existing links. I think the easiest solution here is simply to remove them, although archived urls remain a possibility. All remaining links rechecked. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This list of Narcissus horticultural divisions We don't start articles "This article of ...", and the bold link violated MOS:BOLD, and the bolding itself is an awkward phrase. Articles shouldn't incorporate awkward phrases just to get a phrase for bolding.
I checked all FLs in Wikiproject Plants, and they all get around this by omitting the word 'list', so I have now followed that example. I was not sure which bold violation specifically you were referring to, but I took out the link. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ISBNs should be consistent, with the hyphen; see WP:ISBN for a converter
What exactly do you mean by a converter? I have gone to the source documents listed here, and in all but one there are no hyphens in the ISBN quoted on them--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I eventually retrieved hyphenated ISBNs for all citations from Amazon. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 2 needs an ndash for the alphabetical range; ref 6 has a superfluous parenthesis; ref 4 a .pdf could be added to the URL so it formats as a PDF, like ref 10: refs 4 and 10 likewise need a "|format=PDF" parameter added
2. Substituted
4. .pdf added
6. I cannot see any superfluous parentheses, please specify - all parentheses were added by cite templates, anyway.
4&10. 4 already had format=pdf, added to 10.
  • What makes "The Plant Expert" and "Brent and Becky's Bulbs" reliable sources?
RS. Well that is always an interesting question. The second one of these sources is now moot, since that specific link is currently dead, but for the record they are a major grower that have been cultivating Narcissus plants for over 100 years and are often cited in the horticultural literature, so yes they know what they are talking about. Reliability is derterminable from a number of perspectives. One is how they viewed by peers and other experts and another is triangulation with other sources. If all independent sources agree on something, it is likely that the information is reliable. In this case I provided three congruent sources to make that point. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It is widely used since the RHS is the international authority for the registration of such cultivars. is this original research?
OR. No, that statement comes directly from the RHS' own literature. To make that point clearer I have placed a reference directly on that statement together with a corroborating reference from another organisation. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • perianth segments/tepals ("petals"); (470 in 2009/2010) MOS:SLASH recommends against use of the slash
Slash. Punctuation replaced --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (See List of Award of Garden Merit narcissus) this probably should be in the "See also" section
List. Moved --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The "List of divisions" seems superfluous to the "Definitions of Divisions" section below
Actually I think they are complementary depending on the level of detail the reader wants to get into. The first use is a conveniently accessed list of names, while the second goes into each name in much more detail. That is why they were give separate section headings. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a stretch for the reader to scroll a bit further down the page for a better list of the information. The first "List of divisions" wouldn't seem to help readers much without the actual RHS definitions, which are provided directly below. Seattle (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Very well then removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Colour Code" section is entirely unreferenced
I think that happened when paragraphs got moved around - replaced --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why header colors are needed in the "Definitions of Divisions" section. I don't think year of registration should be included either, as you only have three identified years. The heavier borders seem unnecessary as well, as well as the large table headers (this applies to the "Colour Code" section as well)
Colours. If you mean the alternating blue and white, it is because it breaks the table up and therefore easier to read by emphasising the columns.Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Years. True - I didn't have all the dates but do know and have included them for each category Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Borders. Borders were included for the same reason as colours - to make the table easier to read. Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Column titles. Surely titles should always be in larger type? Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that, if formatted correctly, the columns shouldn't be too difficult to disambiguate from one another without added colors; I think the same for borders as well. There might be one or two exceptions, but I don't think featured lists follow that format. Seattle (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Very well then, all colours and borders removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't recommend spanning number 11 in the "Definitions of Divisions" section; the table really should be sortable, save for the "Definition" and "Example" section. I think the "RHS Colour Classification" section should be sortable as well, and the span on "W" likewise removed.
Spanning. I am not sure what you mean here - the rowspan x 3 for Division 11? The point being that this is a subdivision, quite recent too --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sort. I added 'sortable' to both tables, but I am not entiely convinced it would be an improvement. As far as I know placing sorts only on selected columns is tricky. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Spanning W. When you refer to removing spans - do you mean make every item a separate row? How does that improve it? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I collapsed the Ws for simplicity --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Scope. Scope tags added to all column titles--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Photo caption "Narcissus 'Geranium' 8W-O" needs a reference to define it as such
Reference added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have references that the "Example" in the "Definitions of Divisions" section is an example of the definition?
Each one has been checked on the RHS searchable registry --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
A reference has been added to the column heading to make this clear --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It might be better to just quote the definitions verbatim from the RHS rather than paraphrase... there's close paraphrasing in the list now.
I don't think that would be a very good idea. One attempt has already been made to delete this page for copywrite violation because the definitions were too close to those on the RHS website, necessitating rewriting them all. That was after responding to a similar request to this. If we used the RHS definitions I am sure we would get a speedy deletion. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This list does not meet featured criteria. Oppose for featured status. Seattle (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe have responded to all your comments and accommodated as many as I could--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Additional comments responded to --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there's still one border on row number 12, and the "Definition" and "Cultivator Example" columns should be unsortable. Otherwise, I'm happy to strike my oppose from this nomination. Seattle (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that, now taken care of. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose struck. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Tim riley[edit]

Support – Only a few quibbles:

  • Is it really "The American Dadffodil Society" – mentioned twice? If crossed my mind that this might have been a quaint spelling brought over on the Mayflower, but Googling suggests that it isn't.
Quite right! fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lead and the Cultivar Example column, the Manual of Style would have us use double rather than single quotation marks for the names.
No. The convention for cultivars laid down by the RHS is: in single quotation marks, with capital initial letters.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Gosh! That's me told! Who am I to referee between the Wikipedia MoS and the RHS? Tim riley talk 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a discrepency, the MOS says: Cultivar and cultivar group names of plants are not italicized, and are capitalized (including the word "Group" in the name); cultivar names appear within single quotes (Malus domestica 'Red Delicious', while cultivar groups do not Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group).--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs: you mix ten- and thirteen-digit ISBNs (the latter are preferred) and hyphenate them strangely in places. For future reference, there is an excellent site here that rescues you painlessly. For present purposes these are the ISBNs you want:
    • ref 3: Kington 1998 978-1-874431-69-5
    • ref 4: Brickell 2008 978-0-415-27344-2
    • ref 9: Kington 2014 978-1-907057-50-2

Bibliography

    • Hanks: 978-0-415-27344-2
    • Kamenetsky: 978-1-4398-4924-8
Interesting - but those were the formats used in the actual publications cite. Very well I have replaced them and bookmarked the converter. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. I much enjoyed this page, which is decidedly a compliment from a persistent refusenik at gardening. Tim riley talk 08:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou - all changes effected --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Crisco[edit]

  • Paragraph starting "Growers register ..." repeats some information. I think it would be better if information on the RHS was in the same place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Material reorganised accordingly Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I wasn't saying to make it in its own section. Just to rework things so that you didn't repeat the same information. Compare "It is widely used since the RHS is the international authority for the registration of such cultivars" and "RHS, the international registration authority for the genus", for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Nominations for removal[edit]

List of post-confederation New Brunswick general elections[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it appears to lack all citations. Being nominated so long ago, I don't think it ever had citations. The citation warning has been on the page for 5 years, and about a month ago I posted to the talk page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums but nobody has come forward. This nomination may set a precedent, as there are 10 or so more featured lists in this series that all fail to meet citation guidelines and probably should be delisted. I also think that given it is a series (for each province) they should be standardized before considered for featured list status again. Mattximus (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist, no references at all for anything later than 2006, multiple prose and MOS problems (e.g. the opening sentence "This article provides a summary of results for the general elections to the Canadian province of New Brunswick's unicameral legislative body, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick" has random bold links as well as being an awful start to an FL by current standards; the tables should run in chronological not reverse chronological order). Way below the standards of our best work. BencherliteTalk 10:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

List of schools in the Marlborough Region[edit]

Notified: Gadfium, WikiProject New Zealand schools

This is a six-year-old list, and it's showing the sign of earlier standards a little too much, unfortunately. There is unsupported information in the lead, and only one reference in both tables. Seven references for any featured page is insufficient, and the fact that one of those is a dead link is concerning. There are inconsistencies other more minor MoS fails too, but the lack of supporting citations is the main worry. (Please note that this FLRC wuld be running regardless of whether the column of external links was in the table or not: that was also an MoS fail). SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

List of schools in the Northland Region should probably also be considered here as it was promoted at a similar time and has a similar history.-gadfium 07:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Both the nominated list and the Northland Region list need some work, delist as I agree with the nominator's rationale. Gloss 18:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)