Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates Hahc21, NapHit, Crisco 1492 and SchroCat—determine the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

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

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

After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{ArticleHistory}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Melon[edit]

Nominator(s): Waitak (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote this article in 2011. Since then, the article has continued to develop. I feel that, at this point, the article and, in particular, the references are of sufficient merit to consider the article as a featured list. Waitak (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest quick-fail The article has little real content and yet even then some of it is unsourced. There must be much more to say about melons that this. I suggest you try to get it to the level of coverage and prose standard of Lettuce which is a featured article, rather than rely on a patchy bulleted list to get this through FLC. It gives me no pleasure to say that this is nowhere near the standards to be expected of Wikipedia's finest work. BencherliteTalk 23:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose—I'll give you a quick source review to help you on your way towards further development of this article. The biggest issue is one of consistency. At the featured level, consistency in formatting is important, and with citations, it stands out quickly when things aren't consistent.

  • The first consistency issue relates to how author names are rendered.
    • Now not every source gives full first names for authors, so you will have occasions where some references only have initials while the rest have full first names. Some authors use their full middle names, while others abbreviate to an initial and others omit any reference to a middle name. These variations are appropriate, and expected. Editors can shorten all author names to first and middle initials to overcome this, or the variation can stand.
    • However, our articles should be consistent about whether or not they are using "First (Middle) Last" or "Last, First (Middle)" order. This article employs both, and in the case of the second general reference, it uses both in the same reference.
  • Articles should be consistent in what punctuation separates authors. It appears this article is using the Citation Style 1 (CS1) family of templates, which normally separates authors with semicolons, unless the last author is preceded by an ampersand (&) using |lastauthoramp=yes.
  • Edition numbers should be rendered in the same way across multiple footnotes. This article has some that are spelled-out ordinals (second) and one that is a cardinal number (3). Normally these are rendered as ordinal numbers (2rd, 3rd).
    • In cases where the edition is not numbered, but a description, like "Easyread Large Edition" in footnote 21, this should be moved from the title parameter in the template to |edition= so that it is not rendered in italics, and it is rendered with "ed.".
  • Titles are not consistently formatted in terms of capitalization. Wikipedia allows both title case and sentence case. The former is where the first word, the last word, every noun/pronoun/adjective/verb, and every preposition of five or more letters is capitalized. The latter only capitalizes the first word and proper nouns. In both cases, the first work of a subtitle should also be capitalized. Based on MOS:CT, our MOS would seem to prefer title case for the titles of compositions, but this has not been strictly enforced on titles in citations.

    In any event, this article should pick one format and stick with it throughout all of the citations.

  • The character that separates a title from a subtitle is normally given using a colon. Footnote 14 does so, but FN15 uses a hyphen. The first general reference is using a period for this function.
  • I have the full set of citation error messages enabled. This article is defining an |accessdate= for sources not accessed online, which flags an error message for me. If the source does not have a |url= defined, it doesn't need an access date.
  • Several featured articles/lists mix shortened (Harvard) citations with long-form citations in the footnotes. This is fine, and I've done it myself several times. However, when citations are shortened because they keep referencing the same source, normally we shorten all of those citations, and list the full citation in list below the footnotes. Some style guides for print sources (Chicago) will run the first citation to a source and shorten after first usage, but we're not a print publication. Our footnotes can change order and repeat, so our practices can be a little different.
  • Several citations to books omit the place of publication, yet one includes it. Pick one method and stick to it. (I would suggest including the place of publication over omitting it; it almost never hurts to give a reader a little more information to find a source than less.)
  • A couple of citations link publisher names on first usage, and others do not. It's fine to link publishers or publication names, and this should only be done on the first usage to avoid WP:OVERLINKing. If you're going to link, then link, if not, don't.
  • Some book citations have ISBNs, and some none. I would suggest finding identification numbers for as many print sources as possible, whether that is an ISBN, OCLC, etc.

Now for more specific issues:

  • The wikinlinks in footnotes 3, 4 and 23–25 do not link to anything. Also, I don't think it's normal to use "et al." to omit a second author. If we do use that phrase, it is not italicized.
    • There is a quick way to fix the linking problem. Copy the full citation into a "Works cited" section, or make a bulleted list under the {{reflist}}. Add |ref=harv to that citation. Then use {{harvnb}} with the author names, publication year
  • The name of the journal in footnote 10 (Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ) is meaningless to non-specialists. We have guidelines that say it should be spelled out in full. Also, you should add |format=PDF to let readers know it is a PDF file. Not all readers can see the PDF icon. I also think if there are species names present that would be italicized in the prose, they should be italicized in the article title.
  • I'm not one for using general references. Given that Bencherlite has commented above that more citations are needed, I would take these general references and apply them wherever they apply as a start to get more footnotes in place.

I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979  07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the in-depth comments. They're very helpful. I'm not sure what the process is for withdrawing a nomination, but I'd like to do so for now and work on the article more before resubmitting it. The article was started as "List of melons", and subsequently renamed to "Melon". I hadn't been considering it as the definitive article on the topic for that reason, and clearly should have. Thanks again for the comments. I'll get to work. Waitak (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There should be a source for "some varieties may be considered vegetables rather than fruits". I don't disagree that some of the plants currently on the list are considered vegetables (e.g. Momordica), but I don't agree that the culinary vegetables fall under any normal definition of "melon". "Melons" are culinary fruits, and Momordica is (per Google hits) just as often referred to as "bitter gourd" as it is "bitter melon". If the melon article is to be a list of every cucurbit with a common name that includes the term "melon", regardless of culinary use, then Praecitrullus ("round melon", "squash melon"), Cucurbita palmata ("coyote melon"), and Cucurbita ficifolia ("seven year melon") could be added. Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s):AJona1992 (talk · contribs) and Erick (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC),

This list was created as a result of a collaboration between me and AJona1992. This idea came about we talked wanting to make a large contribution to an article related to Latin music and thus list was created. Erick (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammys", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. This list was created after all the comments and suggestions for the Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year, which is already a Featured List. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Very well formatted and referenced. Great Job. — DivaKnockouts 12:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the name "Palestine"[edit]

Nominator(s): Oncenawhile (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It covers a topic which has been studied for a least the last 300 years (e.g. Reland in 1714). It was created three years ago, and has proven remarkably stable. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

List of ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A cricket list based on List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls, an existing FL. Look forward to your comments and suggestions Vensatry (ping) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from NickGibson3900 Talk
  • "In cricket, a five-wicket haul (also known..." - Link five-wicket haul
  • Reference 2: Inconsistent date formatting with rest of article, publishing date is wrong it was published on 16th not the 17th
  • Key needs a note on what "result" means
  • Although not part of the criteria, please add {{International cricket five-wicket hauls}} to the article as this article is on that template

Very good article a will support once those minor quibbles have been fixed. Waiting for you at my nom - NickGibson3900 Talk 04:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Nunavut[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC) and Hwy43 (talk)

We are endeavouring to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 6 nominations into account for this nomination.

With your reviewing help, we are hoping to eventually reach featured topic when all lists are featured quality and have been promoted. Our project is currently 6/13 complete, hoping to make it 7 with this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thank you for your input! Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • This list looks fine, and does not appear to be a fork. One thing I noticed though, where do the remaining 10 people live? Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nergaal: thanks for reviewing. Five live in the unincorporated settlement of Umingmaktok, while five live in the unorganized portion of Baffin Island. I can add a note tomorrow afternoon at the end of the first paragraph. The note will indicate that the remaining 0.03% of the population, or 10 people, are split between these two places. Does this location seem appropriate for the note, or did you have another location in mind? Hwy43 (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is now done. Hwy43 (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Third time's the charm? The Navy Midshipmen football team is probably the most unique American college football team there is. During their 120-something year history, thirty-seven men have coached the team. They've had one interim coach (the unspeakable 2001 season), and twice went without a coach. Four of those men are in the College Football Hall of Fame for their coaching, and a few more probably should be. I have previously nominated this list twice. The first nomination ended after several good comments, but only a couple of votes, while the second was never even commented on. All previous concerns that had been raised have been addressed. Comments are appreciated (although votes are preferred). Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Works of John Betjeman[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

John Betjeman was a rather unique figure in 20th century English literature. A popular poet—probably the most popular since Lord Byron, a writer on matters architectural—mostly railing against the destruction of Victorian and Edwardian architecture for concrete monstrosities of the 60s and 70s, and a broadcaster who highlighted some of the aspects of forgotten corners of Britain—or forgotten corners of high-profile parts of Britain. This list has undergone a major renovation recently to the point it is FL compliant. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Support – I'm madly envious that I haven't written this article, and I'd like to find reasons for opposing, but I can't, so am contenting myself with some petty sniping:

  • Lead
    • "he attended Oxford University, although left without qualifying" – for what? You want "graduating" here, I think.
    • "shortly after the BBC began regular broadcasts" – the BBC began regular broadcasts in the 1920s: strictly, you mean regular television broadcasts, though I admit this makes an unwelcome repetition of television necessary. I do not press the point.
      • I've tweaked to mention "regular screen broadcasts"; it's slightly inelegant, but covers the point, I hope. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Good! I'd not have thought of that, which works very well, and is by no means inelegant. Tim riley talk 23:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "and his output was prolific, according to Michael Brooke, writing for the British Film Institute": this is genuinely ambiguous: it reads at first glance as though it was JB who was writing for the BFI. I think, as we have the citation, you could just lose the last ten words of the sentence.
    • not sure why you link CBE but not his knighthood
    • Clarke quote: I'd drop the square bracketed [Lord] competely.
  • Editor
    • Rupert Hart-Davis has an article you could link to, though it is about the man rather than the firm, and again I don't press the point.

I boggle at the width and depth of the research SchroCat has put in for this article, and I support its promotion, without the slightest reservation. Superb stuff! – Tim riley talk 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • As always, many thanks for your thoughts, Mr R. I've covered all except the RHD one: I looked at his article, and thought it was a little too much about him, rather than the company, to be of use. I suspect someone will link it at some point, and I'll leave it in if they do, as I have no real feelings either way. Thanks as always – and keep me abreast of any reviews (or revues) you have coming up. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at the Bellerive Oval[edit]

Nominator(s): NickGibson3900 (talk)

After the recent success of List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Mitchell Johnson here, I decided to start a new cricket-related project. I, therefore, give you List of international cricket centuries at the Bellerive Oval, a comprehensive and well-written list. Living in Tasmania, I have been to Bellerive Oval many times and have a great interest in the ground and this article seemed like a great one to work on. I thank anyone who comments on this FLC in advance. - NickGibson3900 Talk 06:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it gives a good summary of Sandra Bullock's career thus far. As always look forward to all the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Excellent work. Though not mandatory, I have added the films portal template in the External links section and moved it to the end of the page.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut

The list looks fine but the introduction needs some work:

  • "The following year, Bullock starred in romantic comedy, Practical Magic" — "The following year Bullock starred in the romantic comedy Practical Magic"
  • "and also executive produced her first film, romantic drama, Hope Floats." — "and also executive produced her first film, the romantic drama Hope Floats."
  • "In 2002, she executive produced George Lopez" — "In 2002 she executive produced the television series George Lopez"
  • "In 2004, Bullock starred in crime drama, Crash" — "In 2004 Bullock starred in the crime drama Crash"
  • "In 2006, Bullock reunited with Reeves in romantic drama, The Lake House" — "In 2006 Bullock reunited with Reeves in the romantic drama The Lake House"

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

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've put forward a FL nom, and certainly this one is unlike any I've ever done - because the sourcing was an absolute pig!! But after digging through archive.org I've managed to put together a fully sourced list. This was originally based off the IMDB list of the awards, but in pulling this together I fixed the mistakes in that table (you'll notice that IMDB gives the film more victories - but I've gone through and checked each individual one to make sure they're all accounted for). Once this gets through then I'll take a long hard look at Star Trek Into Darkness although I'll need a drink first! :) Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

Lead

  • Needs citations for plot, production/acting/directing credits.
  • Plot summary currently is probably too detailed and copied pretty much word for word from the movie article.
  • I've trimmed some lines away. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Box office section is also probably too detailed. Just include its premiere, wide release date, opening weekend/record it broke, final gross, production budget. Box office should also be rounded to 3 significant figures as consensus has changed so something like over $385 million.
  • Trimmed and abbreviated the takings. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We've got to be passive in language so can't comment on whether it was a commercial success or not or a critical success but you can say something like Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator surveyed x reviews and judged 95% to be positive as you're just reporting it.
  • I've removed that sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

  • add alt text to image
  • Make sure that infobox matches with main table and also follows the same order
  • Double checked and now done - with those new awards added too. Miyagawa (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Table

  • "Awards and nominations" should be "accolades"
  • Add sortability to the table as it's useful and also scope rows and scope cols for accessibility.
  • Done both - haven't added sort tags to the recipients column yet. Had to remove the background colour from the headers because it was hiding the sorting buttons, but that's no biggie. Miyagawa (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Added sort tags to the recipients column now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks cleaner if you have a separate ref column
  • The table doesn't seem to be any order: you can choose to make it alphabetical or by date of ceremony.
  • Now double checked and sorted by alphabetical by name of award. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Fill in the empty spaces with the film title itself
  • Make sure every nominee is linked after you've added sortability but only red link those who've won/nominated important awards
  • also add sort by name so that nominees are sorted by last name e.g. Chris Pine, (see my edit for the code) only needed for first nominee for each award
  • Usually these tables only include awards which have their own wiki page.
  • There's just the one unlinked one left, and that's cited to an independent source so I think it's worthwhile keeping. Miyagawa (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Add casting society of america nom, denver awards, Hollywood Post Alliance, Online film and television association.
  • Wikilink Washington individual award noms also check this throughout the table as a whole load of wikis have been made for each individual award category for each awarding body.
  • Added. Yet to double check other awards. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  • Only italicise sources which are newspapers or magazine sources.
  • Oscars.org --> Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)
  • If you link PDFs you should note which page the info is on
  • There's probably no need to External link to the official website

Probably more to follow... Cowlibob (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'd disambiguate with (film), as we could theoretically make a list for TOS and/or the franchise as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

List of How I Met Your Mother characters[edit]

Nominator(s): Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Following a previous nomination, with only one comment (a support vote), I am hoping this renomination will get a bit more attention. No issues were raised in the past nomination and I think the article is FL standard. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

List of church ruins on Gotland[edit]

Nominator(s): Yakikaki (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has a potential of becoming a good featured list, on a topic which isn't greatly covered but which is in many ways interesting. Yakikaki (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Raven Tales[edit]

Nominator(s): David Condrey (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a great deal of time working on this article and it was suggested by Tom (LT) during this articles peer review, archived here, that it would be a good candidate as a featured list or potentially a good article. I couldn't decide which would be more appropriate... David Condrey (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure what exactly you are listing. It appears the list contains four completely different types of entries. 1. Places, 2. Languages, 3. Types of creation myths/specific creation myth, and 4. Indigenous group. I'm really confused as to what kind of structure has been chosen to this interesting list. Mattximus (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mattximus: It's set up as a list of all of the stories of the Raven character and split up by tribes which told these stories, so each tribal region is listed with a brief lead followed by a list of the stories which originate from that tribe. David Condrey (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Downey, Jr. filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUSTALK 20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a good representation of his extensive and still growing career LADY LOTUSTALK 20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support very well-written and comprehensive, deserves to be FL. All my concerns were addressed during peer review. Downey himself would be quite proud :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-sourced and well-written list and it meets the criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent prose in the lead section. A deserving candidate for FL status.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


@Crisco 1492: Whatcha say about promoting this? :) LADY LOTUSTALK 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan national women's cricket team record by opponent[edit]

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This list is based on similar list, South Africa national women's cricket team record by opponent. I have worked on the list a few month back and now I believe this is according to the FL criteria. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick comment looks really light on prose to me. I'd love to see some more detail ahead of each table. I know the SA list was promoted 18 months ago, but I don't think it meets what I would expect from a featured list any more. More discussion over the games, the significant results etc.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Great list, especially after the lede was expanded, well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks really good - another job well done by Sahara4u. Just a minor comment - is "Pakistan Women" a proper noun? The photo caption uses this, but the tables say "Pakistan women". I'll have a more indepth look at the list later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Good list, meets the criteria . Also, I am waiting for you at my nom - NickGibson3900 Talk 06:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry (ping)

  • "The Pakistan national women's cricket team represents Pakistan in international women's cricket" is verbose.
  • The subsequent sentence is just too long. Also Ref #1 and #2 doesn't explicitly state the claim.
  • What is addition?
  • Why is "S" capitalized in "Super Six"?
  • I never meant you should de-capitalize "S". Given that we don't have a dedicated article on stages of cricket tournaments and since "Super Six" is a proper noun it should be capitalized but placed with in quotes. Vensatry (ping) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "they advanced to the Super Six round defeating Sri Lanka in a group stage match by 57 runs" - Ref. doesn't meet WP:V
  • 5th->fifth, 4 wickets->four wickets and 3 wickets->three wickets
  • "As of 2014, Pakistan played their first Test match against Sri Lanka in April 1998" - WP:DATED is irrelevant and unnecessary here.
  • Ref #8 and #9 doesn't fully meet WP:V
  • I don't think there was a playoff held for the sixth place in the 2009 edition. Vensatry (ping) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "and received their first Test defeat" - awkward phrasing
  • The subsequent sentence desperately needs a copy-edit. Given that they played just three matches it could simply be re-written in plain language.
  • "The team have competed" -> The team has competed
  • Same applies when you say "Pakistan have". Pakistan is considered a single entity in this context and should be accompanied by a singular verb. Vensatry (ping) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "As of ..." needed for the sentence which talks about their T20Is
  • "They defeated Ireland in 11 matches, and lost to England in 5 T20Is." - Why include England here?

The list needs a fair amount of copy-edit before it gets promoted. In its current state, it clearly doesn't meet criterion #1. Vensatry (ping) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Vensatry: Thanks for your kind review, I think your concerns are now addressed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • While the first two paras have improved after your edits, the stuff which talks about T20Is still needs some touch-up. They aren't chronological and doesn't have a proper flow. Vensatry (ping) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Rephrased and rearranged! @Vensatry: thanks for revisiting, hope this will be OK now. --Khadar Khani (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

80th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2008 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, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I've not checked the "Ceremony information" section, but I have checked the awards, presenters and performers table against their sources. Below is my feedback. The article seems very thorough and, following a similar format to other successful lists, it seems that it covers all the main areas. You seem to have been the only contributor since at least July (with one exception) and so it appears stable to me.

  • In the introduction, you might want to mention roughly how many people watched the ceremony. Otherwise, the introduction is fine and, being based closely on the others, I see no faults with it.
  • The second paragraph in the introduction ends with "The telecast garnered almost 32 million viewers, making it the least watched Oscar broadcast in history."
--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The viewing figures, director and producer should probably be sourced in the infobox, as they are in the 2007 page.
Fixed: Used extra copy of link in ratings and reception and used it in infobox
--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You have left the double daggers beside the winners, despite stating that the winners would be in bold face.
  • Fixed: Changed sentence to read "Winners are listed first and indicated with a double-dagger".
--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The sources lists "Screenplay by Brad Bird; Story by Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco, Brad Bird" for Ratatouille in the Best Original Screenplay award. You only list Brad Bird.
  • Fixed: Added Capobianco and Pikava. Also credited them as either story and/or screenplay.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The Best Foreign Language film section in the source does not list the directors and hence those statements are not sourced in the article.
  • According Academy rules (click here) it states: "The Academy statuette (Oscar) will be awarded to the motion picture and accepted by the director on behalf of the picture’s creative talents. For Academy Awards purposes the country will be credited as the nominee. The directors name will be listed on the statuette plaque after country and film title (Rule 13, Part IV, Section B)" In other words, the award itself is credited toward the country of origin AND the director of the film.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's fine - I am not questioning that at all - it is correct to add the directors names. I am also not saying that the information is wrong. However, I am commenting on the fact that the Oscars source itself doesn't actually give the directors - it only gives the countries - and so the article doesn't include references which support the directors' names. If the article were taken on its own, one couldn't verify the names of the directors. Now, it might just be me being pedantic, and other's might disagree with me - I am just making an observation. --Noswall59 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC).
  • The translation of film names is inconsistent. For instance, you write "Even Pigeons Go To Heaven (Même les pigeons vont au paradis)" in Best Short Animation, yet in Best Live Action Short, you give The Substitute without its original Italian name; the same is true for The Mozart of Pickpockets.
  • In the Best Song category, you don't differentiate between those who wrote the music and those who wrote the lyrics; the article on the 80th awards does make this distinction. An example would be “Happy Working Song” from Enchanted: the source states "Music by Alan Menken; Lyric by Stephen Schwartz".
Fixed: Added Music and Lyric credentials.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the source you give for the presenters and performers lists. Firstly, it doesn't actually state which award they presented or what they performed. Secondly, Tom Kane, Randy Thomas, John Stewart, Barry B. Benson and Sid Ganis all appear in your list but not in the source. Furthermore, the source states that Queen Latifa was a presenter, but she is not included in your list. Finally, the performers list also capitalises Impact in "IMPACT Repertory Theatre of Harlem" and does not mention Bill Conti, who appears in your list.

Thanks and good luck with your nomination, --Noswall59 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for making the changes you have, --Noswall59 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]

Nominator(s): Mhhossein (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria of being a FL. As a main contributor, so much effort have been done to enhance the quality and to respect MOS. Mhhossein (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Asia Cup centuries[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 18:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A list modeled based on List of Cricket World Cup centuries, an existing FL. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Vensatry (ping) 18:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Another good list. Cowlibob (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks all for your review and support. :) Vensatry (ping) 14:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mayor of San Diego[edit]

Nominator(s): mcd51 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it substantially matches the quality of currently the featured list Mayor of San Francisco. mcd51 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, article appears to easily meet requirements set forth in WP:FL?, commendation to those who have worked on it to get it there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Skr15081997
  • The lead looks too short. More info should be added to it.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is the party of presidents of boards of trustees not mentioned?
  • Link a few of the publishers in the cite templates.
  • Joshua Bean was the first mayor. Please add his image.

I haven't read the article completely.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

List of works by John Buchan[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

John Buchan was one of the most prolific and high-profile British writers of the 20th century. In between writing he was a barrister, a publisher, a lieutenant colonel in the Intelligence Corps, the Director of Information—reporting directly to prime minister David Lloyd George—during the First World War and a Unionist MP who served as Governor General of Canada. He had written five books before he left university, and was a historian—including an impressive set of works on military history—biographer and poet, although nowadays he is probably best known as the author of thrillers, which include The Thirty-Nine Steps and Greenmantle.

This is a fresh bibliography, made partly from a limited one on the main Buchan article, but greatly expanded and now brought into line with MOS requirements, and fully sourced throughout. – SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A lovely list. A few thoughts -
  • Why are edited works first? It feels like they'd be a more natural fit at the end, even if the first thing he published was an edited work.
  • I appreciate exactly what you are saying, and it's something I mulled over for a while, but instead plumped for chronological as being the most neutral way to approach this. All the tables on the page are in chronological order, so novels to poetry all start with the sequential 1894 to 1898. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "List of works..." sounds very comprehensive, but there are presumably a number of uncollected short pieces in magazines etc (compare the various pieces collected in The Far Islands and Other Tales of Fantasy). I think omitting these is reasonable, but would it be worth explicitly addressing this somewhere?
  • Yes, I think so: leave it with me and I'll dig out something suitable from the sources to cover it with a citation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added a line within the lead to cover this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Fifteenth-Scottish-Division 1914-1919" (1926) is probably an artefact of strange old British Museum cataloguing not liking brackets, and I am almost completely confident the title is actually "The Fifteenth (Scottish) Division 1914-1919".
  • Yes - although on checking the BL sources, they have one volume as shown here and one in brackets! I've swapped over to the bracketed version. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Nelson's History of the War 24 volumes" - perhaps "Nelson's History of the War [24 volumes]"? I also think this is itself an error in the cataloguing - he surely didn't author all 24 volumes! Three of the 1916/17 volumes appear to be his individual contributions to this, and either he was listed because he was an overall editor or because he was individually prominent.
  • Let me go back to the sources for this and see if I can bring a little more clarity to this point, although I think you're probably right - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The BL source seems to suggest all of this was written by Buchan (as does this and this. David Danieel (in the Book and Magazine Collector) calls it "a mammoth project encompassing a million-and-a-quarter words, written between 1915 and 1919 as events unfolded". Gale's Contemporary Authors confirms he wrote this himself: "On the eve of World War I, Buchan became ill with a duodenal ulcer and was confined to his bed. He spent this time productively, however, writing the hefty Nelson's History of the War and the popular shocker The Thirty-Nine Steps". - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Many of these must by now be on (eg) archive.org - is it worth linking to copies of first editions where available? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I shall ponder the last point: I'm not a big fan of external links within an article (or table) body, but it may be a worthwhile step in this case.
  • A quick look at the MoS suggests this may not be a good idea, per WP:ELPOINTS. We have the following links at the bottom of the page, pointing to the main sources where the works can be accessed, and I think we may have to leave it at that:
  • I'll be back shortly with the needed corrections for your points above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts: I've added a tweak already, and will sort the rest shortly, reporting back when all done. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, All now covered. Thanks very much for all the time and effort you've taken on this: it's much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, along with a few unimportant quibbles:

  • We have variants of the name of the publisher Thomas Nelson/ T. Nelson Publishers and plain Nelson.
  • All now consistent - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not on my screen they ain't: there are twelve Thomas Nelsons, six T. Nelson Publishers and four plain Nelsons. Tim riley talk 13:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Harrumph! Now completed, I hope! - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • William Blackwood & Sons – at one point is William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, but mostly just William Blackwood & Sons.
  • P. Davies is Peter Davies – one of Barrie's lost boys, who became a publisher. His firm seems to have been based in both Edinburgh (Massacre of Glencoe) and London (Men and Deeds).
  • Linked and sorted - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Blackwell Publishing or Blackwell Publishing, Oxford?
  • Oxford - foolish of me to forget one of my favourite shops - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Boston, MA – I think the usual abbreviation for Massachusetts is Mass, rather than MA, though I may be quite wrong.
  • Both are correct, I think, with the US Post Office preferring the two character approach; I've tweaked to Mass, which is more traditional - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarendon Press (Nine Brasenose Worthies) – based in Oxford, not London, according to this.
  • Yes, it certainly is! - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a beautfully constructed and painstakingly researched page, and I don't see how it could be done better. Meets all the FL criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 09:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for all your observations here: I've hope I've tweaked and plucked correctly on this lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there an article worth linking with "Director of Information"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can find, unfortunately. There is one for the department, but not the position. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Support A pristine list, excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Scissor Sisters discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after a substantial amount of work years ago, and some further work recently, I feel it meets the criteria. It has been completely revised according to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, with the addition of new sections, tables, and sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prosperosity
Have you thought about moving the video albums section? I've never seen them up the top there like that, instead in its own section on par with albums and singles.
Moved next to music videos.
The UK is listed in the charting box for video albums even though none of their DVDs have charted there, apparently.
It is listed because an album received a certification there, even if it didn't chart.
The band has two other albums, The Demo Album and K-Mart Disco. Especially since K-Mart Disco has a page at Wikipedia (and according to that page it was an album with a commercial release), these should probably be noted in some way. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
These albums are not official and should not be included per WP:DISCOGSTYLE.--Earthh (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, well in that case I support the nomination. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of notable 3D printed weapons and parts[edit]

Nominator(s): Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this list because it is (1) brings together all the 3d weapons made (2) it is likely to raise eyebrows and interest people enough to have a look since there is no other article or collection like this anywhere on the internet (3) it is informative and has information on how the weapons were made i.e which pritner and printing methods were used, and how much it costs. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Sega video game consoles[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 23:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Over the past year or so, I've been increasingly impressed by the way a group of users from WP:SEGA, especially User:Red Phoenix, have been getting all of the Sega console articles and lists up to good or featured status, and I decided to pitch in a bit. The result is this list, designed to tie together the consoles into a massive featured/good topic. I've gone through and hunted down, to the best of my ability, references for facts about the lifecycles, abilities, add-ons, and sales performances of every console Sega ever released, including the ones no one outside of Japan has really heard of. The consoles are illustrated, generally by User:Evan-Amos's delightful photos, and I think it's a solid little list that's a bit different from what I usually do. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Support - Very nicely done! I've added Sega's logo to the lead just to give the article a little color and help illustrate the company which is the focus of this article. Sega's logo is PD because it doesn't meet the threshold of originality, so there are no image copyright concerns. Awesome work! Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

In addition to Red Phoenix's comments:

  • Intro could probably use some more citations for things not covered in the body... list, like the first sentence about Sega itself.
  • Found a good "History of" article to source things to. --PresN 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest splitting the opening paragraph after "the Dreamcast in 1998".
  • Done, now that I've added a few sentences to both sides. --PresN 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also might be worth listing Sega's formation date and saying a little about their early history - mainly arcade games and pachinko, I think - for context on what they were doing before consoles.
  • Done. --PresN 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is every instance of the generations linked?
  • When tables are sortable, instead of just linking the first instance you link them all, since you don't know what row is going to be first for a given reader. --PresN 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a requirement, but I'd like a little on why Sega's significant in the game industry (e.g. forming the first serious challenge to Nintendo, Virtua Fighter, Sonic the Hedgehog in the early '90s and again around the turn of the millennium, Altered Beast, maybe Jet Set Radio).
  • I've added a bit about them being a primary competitor to Nintendo, but I don't want to turn the lead into a "history of Sega"- the Sega article should do that. --PresN 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks great otherwise, though, and I'll be happy to support in what should be short order. Oh, and PresN... you said to remind you at the end of the week about my FAC, so hey. Tezero (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, Tezero! I'll review your article tomorrow over lunch. --PresN 23:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; good point about the sorting, something I'd never thought much about before and that's applicable to many, many other FLs. Not sure why you cited the same source twice in succession in the lead, but hey, sometimes that extra bit of justification is deemed necessary. Good work. Tezero (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't mean to throw a wrench in this, but Jucchan claimed Pico's Japanese discontinuation date isn't in that source. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted to just be "2005"; that was the year the Beena successor came out, and the last year any games were released for the Pico, but he's right that it may be a bit spurious to claim that the Pico was discontinued on that specific day just because that was when the successor was released. --PresN 22:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

Support: Looks good to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 15:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a variety of ways of viewing and sorting the 58 scheduled monuments in Bath and North East Somerset by age, geography, type etc. — Rod talk 15:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

  • "The current legislation supporting this is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979" This is not quite right. 'current' is recentism, and the Act surely governs rather than supporting (although I see that the NE page uses the word 'support'). The reference for this paragraph only supports the first half.
    • I'm not sure of the best way to say it. The Act referred to replaced previous legislation, and, although from 1979, is still the one which applies. The "supports" refers to the process of scheduling in the previous sentence. I will look at the references.
  • "The Great Circle at Stanton Drew is the second largest stone circle in Britain (after Avebury); it is considered to be one of the largest Neolithic monuments to have been built." I would prefer "The Great Circle at Stanton Drew is one of the largest Neolithic monuments ever built, and the second largest stone circle in Britain (after Avebury)."
    • Changed.— Rod talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "There are also several Iron Age hillforts such as the one at Maes Knoll" Why not "such as Maes Knoll"?
    • Changed.— Rod talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "which is connected to the Wansdyke a medieval defensive earthwork" It is a bit confusing to say that it is connected to a later structure. Perhaps "which was later incorporated into the medieval Wansdyke, a defensive earthwork.
    • Changed.— Rod talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "More recent sites include several bridges which date from the Middle Ages to the Palladian bridge in Prior Park Landscape Garden[10][11] and Dundas Aqueduct which was built in 1805" This seems to say that an aquaduct is a bridge. I would make it two sentences.
    • The Dundas Aqueduct is a bridge (carries the K&A canal over the river and railway) so I don't quite see what is wrong with that one.— Rod talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ucucha's Harv error script shows note 53 as an error.
    • Thanks - I wasn't aware of that tool now installed & error hopefully fixed.— Rod talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I ought to know, but what is the point of Wikidata?
    • I'm sure there are better explanations somewhere, but to me it links together all references to an entity across all wiki projects (commons and foreign languages as well as en). I think it is useful here as the same site can be a Scheduled Monument and a listed building, so may have entries on several lists (and EH reference numbers) but only one article. User:Pigsonthewing added it to the template which is used on hundreds of these sorts of lists so I have been adding it where the object has one. I have been thinking of making it hidden (as the date scheduled column is) so that machines can still find it but people don't see it - not sure about this at present.
  • A good list, but shouldn't it have a column for a brief description? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm never sure whether a description is needed or not, as most of the data you might put in it is listed in the other columns.— Rod talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which I will continue to work on.— Rod talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

      • I've now added a notes column as suggested. This is very wide on my screen compared to the other columns. Do you think this is helpful?— Rod talk 17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this passes FL? Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • Will be back later, but here's a few to be starting with........
    • "The top goalscorer of the first edition was the Argentinia's" - Argentina is spelt wrong, also there is no need for "the" in front of it
    • "His record stood for more than three decades until Brazil's Ronaldo to scored" - no need for the word "to" here
    • "The fifth Brazilian goal was credited to Jair, but are now credited to Ademir" - has a citation needed tag, not acceptable in a FL
    • Ref 1 is a bare URL, needs to be formatted
    • "Seven different players scored, with André Maschinot scoring a brace" - unnecessary use of slang, just say "scoring two goals"
    • "Davor Suker was part of the Yugoslavia's squad" - no reason for "the" to be there
  • As mentioned above, I'll be back with some more later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed all these and cleaned up a few more refs. Nergaal (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I can still see "The top goalscorer of the first edition was the Argentina's Guillermo Stábile" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And you still have "a brace" in one of the notes (which links to a disambiguation page, by the way) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about those. Fixed. Nergaal (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Beyoncé live performances[edit]

Nominator(s): I Am... ***D.D. 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the required criteria. I Am... ***D.D. 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Comments from ThirdWard
  • I'm not sure if "one-off concerts" in the infobox is the best wording. I assume you're combining the residency shows and the notable concerts, but obviously the residency shows were not one off concerts. It's not entirely clear.
  • Beyoncé's first co-headlining The Verizon Ladies First Tour –-> This could be reworded, maybe "Beyoncé's first co-headlining venture, The Verizon Ladies First Tour..."
  • The tour was overally praised by critics and Beyoncé along with Keys was particularly hailed for her elaborative performance and considered as the highlight of the shows –-> Try "The tour was generally praised by critics, with Beyoncé and Keys particularly being hailed for their elaborative performances."
  • Remove "two days before Beyoncé's 26th birthday." in The Beyoncé Experience table
  • the I Am... World Tour was a worldwide tour –-> "the I Am... World Tour was Beyoncé's second worldwide tour"
  • US $119,5 million --> US $119.5 million (english period used to break up numbers)
  • The tour is currently on track to become the second most successful tour of all time when looking at average gross revenue per show --> The tense of this might need to be changed now or very soon since the tour is over
  • A live DVD of the show and a one-hour Thanksgiving television special aired on ABC News in late November 2009. --> Differentiate the DVD and the Thanksgiving special. Maybe just add "A live DVD of the show was released, and a one-hour..."
  • After these minor changes I of course Support (Note I did significantly contribute to the lead in July, 2014) ThirdWard (Lolcakes25) (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Everything adressed. I Am... ***D.D. 19:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Marvel's The Avengers[edit]

Nominator(s): TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Marvel's The Avengers is the third-highest grossing film of all time and the highest grossing film of 2012. Due to the film's enormous popularity, the film's article and its sub-articles, including this list, are highly visible. The list itself is comprehensive, well organized, and well referenced and I believe its rating should reflect that. However, any comments that might further improve the list are welcomed. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Made changes to lead. Added refs for the plot and cast. Added scopes rows and cols to the table. Formatted the refs. Good job. Cowlibob (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Lady Lotus[edit]

  • Remove duplicate wikilinks in the table per WP:OVERLINK
    • See the comments above by Cowlibob: The table is sortable so they should all wikilinked.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
In tables you can link more than once if it's useful which it is in a sortable table. Cowlibob (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Can the infobox image be something other than Downey? I first thought it was his awards page, so something of the cast maybe? Or film poster?
    • The rationale for Downey's image is explained in the caption and the film poster is WP:NFC, so no.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all I really got, so fix that and I'll support. Good job Triiiple :) LADY LOTUSTALK 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Title should be standardized between this article and the main The Avengers article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tried hard to find as many errors as possible: I was losing heart in my struggle until I got to the refs and finally found something to comment on: FN17 has an inconsistent date format. That's it, nothing else to gripe about... – SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. Nice piece of work, and happy to support. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Angela Aki discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Prosperosity (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this page passes the criteria for a featured list. It was originally nominated a few months ago and even though everything was fixed up, not enough people commented for it to pass. Here's hoping for this time! Prosperosity (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

List of finalists of The Voice Kids (Philippines season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the finalists of the The Voice Kids (Philippines season 1), I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is eligible for being classified as a featured list because it meets the criteria. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

FLC delegates. The nominator of this PapaJeckloy has been blocked as a serial sock puppeteer (creating accounts to approve GAs and DYKs, etc...) and won't be back here any time so (AKA an indef block) - NickGibson3900 Talk 01:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nick Drake discography[edit]

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

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

  • The 'Promotional singles' should have sources indicating that's what they are (probably just one of the sources from the Northern Sky and Pink Moon articles, plus something for Plaisir D'Amour.)
Done. --Idiotchalk (t@lk)
  • "Plaisir D'Amour" should probably follow French capitalisation conventions (Plaisir d'amour), unless there's a good reason otherwise.
It's capitalised on the single, but you're right, it should follow conventions. Linked to the article also. --Idiotchalk (t@lk)
  • 'Certifications' and 'UK: Gold' in the compilations section don't need to be linked since they were already linked in the 'Studio albums' section.
Done. --Idiotchalk (t@lk)
Yeah, I can understand it might be confusing to people. Replaced "CS" with "cassette". --Idiotchalk (t@lk)
  • iTunes tells me that most of these have been released as digital downloads as well, a format that's not currently being listed. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Idiotchalk (t@lk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Great! I'll support the nomination. Best of luck! --Prosperosity (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Louie[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reiterating my Support from the previous nomination. Cowlibob (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • 'Comment from Crisco 1492
  • The lead feels really light. A quote from the "positive reviews", a bit on the other cast members, or the co-writers... or something. Something to contextualize this is necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


Nominations for removal[edit]

Woody Allen filmography[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Comedy

I am nominating this for featured list removal because a mere six inline citations is not even close to enough for FL standards. I don't know how this happened, but the edition that passed in July 2008 had only one inline citation. The opening sentence for the lead is also unnecessarily long. Not all of his occupations need to be listed. Is "award-winning" really needed? In any case, this needs substantial work to meet requirements for featured content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Walken filmography[edit]

Notified: Drewcifer3000, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is far from meeting the featured criteria in its current condition. The biggest issue is how it is very under-referenced for FL standards with only five inline citations. The "filmography" and "other media" sections are entirely unreferenced. I was shocked to see that the version that was promoted to FL back in February 2008 only had six. As for the lead itself, the first two sentences read he is "an American actor in both theater and film. Walken is a prolific actor who has had a career which has lasted over 50 years."..... very fluffy, and I doubt the term "prolific" or things like "This list includes the most popular of them" (included in "theatre" section) are neutral. This could easily be reduced to one sentence. Statements like "Christopher Walken also stars in some TV series and theater plays" could be written much more professionally, too. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delist This filmography needs extensive work in referencing.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. The filmography is definitely under-referenced, and honestly looks pretty unsightly overall. The listing of dates isn't even consistent and the opening needs work on phrasing and necessary details. Ss112 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eminem discography[edit]

Notified: Udonknome, WikiProject Eminem, WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article is too bloated to meet FL criteria. Its lead is overly detailed with five paragraphs. There are also some bare URLS, malformatted refs (i.e. incorrect uses of italics/capitals), and many dead refs. I'm not convinced it is easy to navigate with the giant amount of content- the article is WP:TOOBIG at ~151k and should be split into "Eminem albums discography", "Eminem singles discography", and "Eminem videography". Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is one if the least worrying arguments I can find for current FLs. There are a ton of FLs that have too little intro, and I would rather have FLRC energy spent on that instead. Also, the videography itself couldn't even pass the FL 10-entries threshold. Nergaal (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nergaal, non-worrysome issues. This list seems to be in good condition and the lead seems to cover everything, well-sourced and all. Gloss • talk 02:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Tennessee[edit]

Notified: Orlady, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Tennessee

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

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

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

  • Comment I've updated with 2010 census data. There are still some issues that need to be addressed. Bms4880 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

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

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