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


Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



List of songs recorded by Jessie J[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I worked on it for three days constantly, added all the songs that Jessie J has recorded in her career and wrote a decent lead. I really think that this list satisfies the FL criteria, cause it's simple, easy to navigate and well organised. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Linkin Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 07:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

American rock band Linkin Park has recorded material for six studio albums, with best known albums Hybrid Theory, Meteora and The Hunting Party. This list covers all the songs recorded by the band throughout their ongoing career.

As always I welcome comments on how to improve the article. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

James Cameron filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Canadian director, screenwriter and producer James Cameron is best known for directing two of the biggest box-office hits of all time: Titanic (1997) and Avatar (2009). This filmography article covers his early beginnings doing technical jobs through to his breakthrough direction of The Terminator (1984) and the box office success that followed. It also covers his television work such as Dark Angel (2002).

As always I welcome comments on how to improve the article. Cowlibob (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This discography covers Jimi Hendrix's recordings that have been released posthumously and is in addition to the Jimi Hendrix discography, which is limited to those released during his lifetime. Since the previous FLC, it has been thoroughly revised and follows the same layout, format, and extensive use of references and inline citations as the recently promoted FL Jimi Hendrix discography. Recent PR suggestions have been incorporated. Tendentious editing and ownership of Hendrix articles appear to be a problem of the past; Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced are Featured Articles and recent Hendrix GAs include "Purple Haze", "Hear My Train A Comin'", "Little Wing", and Band of Gypsys. Looking forward to constructive comments/suggestions. Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Vidya Balan[edit]

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90  08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) & FrB.TG (talk · contribs)

After several previous unsuccessful nominations, that I wasn't involved with, I decided to work on this list. I have previously taken the subject's biography to FA-status, and after a lot of work on this one I feel that it now meets the FL-criteria. As usual, constructive criticism is appreciated. KRIMUK90  08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Yukon[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC), Hwy43 (talk)

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

This nomination was attempted before but opposed due to low interest and having only 8 municipalities. Yukon has, however, only 8 municipalities. There was a brief discussion with featured list delegates here that encouraged us to try again. Any and all input appreciated to help us get to featured topic! Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

Nominator(s): Ianblair23 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In the newest form of the centuries old game, this feat has only been achieved 12 times by 11 cricketers. Based on the existing FL List of centuries in women's Test cricket, I present this list for nomination. Ianblair23 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment
  • Factual error: although Levi's entire innings was 51 balls, his century came off 45 balls. This fact (along with the fact it was the fastest by time) should be referenced in the lead. Harrias talk 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done Good pick up. Thanks Harrias -- Ianblair23 (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Vensatry (ping) (Mild oppose)
  • First two sentences of the opening para are unsourced.
  • Ref #1 doesn't actually support the claim. It only lists the matches played during that season. So are the next two refs. (of succeeding sentences).
  • Richard Levi stayed unbeaten in the innings. This makes it statistically better than Gayle's 117.
  • The current world record -> As of December 2014 ...
  • "Levi's knock is also the fastest ton, achieving the milestone off just 45 balls.[8]" is just a jump. There is no sequential flow here.
  • There is absolutely no need of "Statistic was not recorded" in the key.
  • I don't think mins. are really needed in lists like this. Some might argue that it's an essential parameter in T20s though.
  • A column should be there for "Result" and H/A/N in the table.
  • Rose Bowl, Hampshire-> Rose Bowl, Southampton
  • Runs column doesn't sort right.
  • The list does't follow the format of similar lists that we have. Please have a look at those to get an idea. There is a serious problem with sourcing. You only use scorecards for facts in lead, which doesn't fully support the claim. Vensatry (ping) 19:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review Vensatry. I have used the format used other lists which has meant the minutes and innings columns have been removed and the results and ref column added. I have resolved the issues which the references and the addressed the other items which you have raised above. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Suggest you to initiate a discussion here if you want. Vensatry (ping) 19:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Pakistan women Test cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Another women cricketers' list based on List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers (an existing FLC which has significant support) and List of South Africa women Test cricketers. I've worked on the list and I believe this is according to the FLC criteria. Constructive comments and suggestion will be appreciated! Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. It meets the FLC criteria and it is a well-referenced list. --Carioca (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset to FL and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane this is the next in the series (the third of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available.— Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pipe link to Cluniac Reforms. Looks very good but does the column with the info in have to be so skinny?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've done Cluniac Reforms, but I'm not sure which column are you seeing as skinny? If its the "Notes" column it is wide on my screen (I use large monitors). The width of the columns is not set & (I presume) autoformatted depending on your monitor. When I started this set of lists I was asked to add in the notes column, rather than make the reader go to the article for more info.— Rod talk 21:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
On my monitor the notes column has a new line for every two or three words, making it look stretched vertically.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
We could try setting the width of the column (perhaps 20%) but can you tell me if you get the same effect on List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset &/or List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane?— Rod talk 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I do on those too but they're not so bad because a lot of the summaries are shorter. This stands out more as more of the entries have longer summaries. 20% set I think would really look better if you're going to have more than a couple with some sentences, especially as a lot of readers will have smaller screens or phones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Setting the column width doesn't seem to make any difference - this may be because of Template:EH listed building header. Asking for help there.— Rod talk 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Forcing the width at 20% would make the column narrower on my setup, where it currently occupies about 25% of the width of the table. In any case, I don't think this a a FL issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have the same as Dr. Blofeld and also have to scroll table right/left as too wide as it stands. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm now confused. On Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1 I was asked to add the notes column & did this (& it passed FL). I did the same on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 which has 3 supports & I used the same here. Would you like to look at the ones I'm currently adding notes to (List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor, List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor & List of Scheduled Monuments in West Somerset) where I'm adding notes but they don't yet show. I'd appreciate some further guidance on the best way forward.— Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Minor point on ref 3 the "retrieved" needs capitalising as per other refernces. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Fixed.— Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


  • "current legislation" - this is recentism, which is frowned on.
  • Removed (and I will do it on the other 6 where I have used this).— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Muchelney Abbey, which was founded in the 7th or 8th century," The source says 762. In the full entry below you have date as 12-16C, and 7C in the text.
  • Pastcape at [1] says thought to be founded 762 and remains of 8C church have been found. I think you can say 8C - definitely not 7th. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Revised to "probably" 8th century.— Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stoke sub Hamdon Priory was formed in 1304 as a chantry college rather than a priory." I found this - and the full entry below - confusing. It says below secular college, but neither word is used in the usual modern sense. Looking at the EH entry, secular means priests in the community as opposed to monks in a monastery, and college in this case means a group of secular priests attached to a chantry chapel. A clearer explanation would be helpful.
  • I have reorded this (and shortened it in the light of the column width discussion above).— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Cary Castle was built either by Walter of Douai or by his son Robert." Perhaps worth saying around 1100 - presumably it was definitely pre-Anarchy.
  • I've added "late 11th or early 12th century" as that is what the Pastscape source says - I don't there is any better evidence for the date.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bruton Abbey was originally founded as a Benedictine priory by Algar, Earl of Cornwall in about 1005." This is dubious. Pastscape says: "According to Leland, it was formerly a Benedictine Monastery founded circa 1005, but there is no mention of such in the Domesday Survey." Algar, Earl of Cornwall does not sound like an early 11C title.
  • The mentions of Algar all seem to be 19C sources, including BH online. I doubt whether the earldom of Cornwall existed before the Conquest and Earl of Cornwall says the same. You could say may have existed before the Conquest, but I don't think anything more definite. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I can find lots more sources for Algar of Cornwal - although it appears there may be some debate about his title. This book (from 1769) says "ALGER Earl of Cornwall, AD 1046 founded the abbey of Bruton. There seem to have been several people named Ælfgar in the 10th & 11th centuries & other variations on the name. Gazeter 1868 says "About the year 1005 a monastery was founded here by Algar, Earl of Cornwall, for monks of the Benedictine order, which was subsequently converted into a Dominican priory by William do Mohun." This recent book (2011) mentions Earl Ælfgar in association with manors in Somerset. I think it is verifiable in its current form, but would welcome further comment. One last thought is that Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia may have held (or claimed) other titles & could possibly be the person concerned. There may also be some confusion based on: "The Laud Chronicle (E) — 1048 [1051] "And then Odda was appointed earl over Devon, and over Somerset, and over Dorset, and over Cornwall; and Aelfgar, earl Leofric's son, was given the earldom which Harold had had." I don't really know where else to go with this.— Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The sources for Algar are all very old and not RS. Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia is very unlikely as he died in 1061 and with the life expectancy then he can hardly have been old enough to found an abbey in 1005. It could be Æthelmær the Stout who was ealdorman of the western provinces (south-west England) from 1005, but there is no source for this. According to Pastscape at [2] the 1005 date is from Leland, who is 16th century. I would cite Pastscape and say 12C but possibly pre-Conquest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've revised as you suggested. Help with ensuring the actual article at Bruton Abbey reflects the sources would be appreciated.— Rod talk 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bowl barrow known as `Wimble Toot'" Shown as Bronze Age even though latest research suggests it is Norman. "The interpretation of the site's original purpose has changed over time." This sentence is superfluous. Repetition of "originally".
  • Revised & I've put the date as Bronze Age or Norman as I think the jury is still out on this one.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hamdon Hill camp. I think it should be made clear that the evidence of mesolithic and neolithic occupation pre-dates the camp and has nothing to do with it.
  • Revised.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hillfort 475m south of Howley Farm. Repetition of univallate.
  • Revised.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The final item "Village Cross" is out of alphabetical order.
  • Moved.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Another first rate list. A few nit-picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for spotting these. Further advice or discussion on the Muchelney Abbey and Bruton Abbey issues would be helpful.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. A fine list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Concerned that, what, 49 of the 69 items don't have an article, particularly when some of those actually do have an image. If they're notable enough for images they should have an article. There's really no excuse for a list like this to have so few linked articles. It's also unlikely that the names you've given to the redlinked articles will be those we would use....
  • I will continue to look at the red links and try to ensure that they point to something which would be used for a wp article however, where they are something like "Bowl barrow 110 m south west of Spittle Pond Cottages" it is difficult as the article needs to include "bowl barrow" and there may be dozens in a parish/district. I would appreciate guidance about whether plain black text can be used instead of red links? I feel they all need to be included for the list to be comprehensive, but I've never seen any discussion about whether all scheduled monuments are inherently notable and therefore should have articles, however many of these would be stubs as the only source is the English Heritage listing as they have never been explored in any detail. A sample statement from a scheduling document " The bowl barrow 110m south west of Spittle Pond Cottages survives well and will contain archaeological remains and environmental evidence relating to the monument and the landscape in which it was constructed." - so we know it exists however it is the potential for archeological evidence which means it is scheduled. For many of the bowl barrows etc all we have is dimensions and this would not make a full article. Does the fact that a photograph has been taken of the site increase its notability? I was interested in the Op-ed in Signpost - Red links, blue links, and erythrophobia about the advantages of red links, but would welcome further discussion or guidance here as several of the other list of scheduled monuments I am working on have even higher proportions of red links.— Rod talk 08:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Rod, thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't have a clear answer. I understand that there's an inherent notability to those items in the list without an article, and I understand that you're using the "official" titles of the items, but it seems to me that, at a first guess, if nothing links to the red links you create and if the red links you create are unlikely search terms (first is objective, second is purely subjective, granted) then it's probably a black link for me. Just to be clear, I won't oppose the nomination whichever way you go, but it's certainly worth a centralised discussion I suppose, for the listed buildings and monuments that have no articles yet have no chance of ever being found because of the obscurity of their official names.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have made some into black links (mostly obscure barrows) where I don't think they would meet notability. In other cases (particularly deserted medieval villages and roman house earthworks) I have added something to the village article & directed the link from the title to that article. I'm currently working on Haselbury Bridge and will do a few others where they are clearly notable enough to have their own article (still red on the list). There have been previous discussions about listed buildings & the consensus seemed to be that Grade I & Grade II* are definately notable in their own right because of their recognised historical or architectural interest - Grade II to be dealt with on an individual basis. I will start a discussion on the talk page of Scheduled monument to see if others with interests in the same areas see them all as inherently notable, simply because English Heritage has advised the minister to scheduled them.— Rod talk 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The most recent monuments include the Round House, a village lock-up in Castle Cary dating from 1779." seems like an incomplete sentence...
  • Hope I've caught these now.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Use non-breaking spaces between values and their units.
  • Again I hope I've caught all of these now.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Ballands Castle) Consider using the {{convert}} template, which gives you the non-breaking spaces for free (I think) and will allow non-Imperial unit readers to understand.
  • Convert used.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "`Wimble Toot'" non-matching apostrophes.
  • Revised.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "hillfort" or "hill fort"?
  • I've standardised on hillfort for consistency as bot seem equally acceptable.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ".5 metres" dunno, but I usually expect a leading 0 here in Brit Eng.
  • Added.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "earthworks within the" consistency: "Earthworks..."
  • I found one of these & fixed - are there any others I can't see?— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "a six pipe" -> "a six-pipe"
  • Done.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • C of "Norman Conquest" appears to be no longer capitalised by Wikipedia.
  • OK I didn't know that had changed, now revised.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "motte and bailey" needs hyphenation.
  • Hopefully all done.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

List of A-League hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): 2nyte (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it exhibits all the characteristics and contains similar information to List of Premier League hat-tricks - an existing FL. 2nyte (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - is there really any need to break out "The A-League, created in 2005, is the top tier of Australian league football" as a note at the bottom? The start date of 2005 is mentioned in the opening sentence anyway, and I really don't think the article would be drowning in text if the first clause was expanded to "Since the commencement of the A-League, the top tier of Australian league football, in 2005–06....." and the note removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I reworded the opening, incorporating the note into it. Sorry for the delayed reply.--2nyte (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • Do nationalities need a flag? Can't be sure, per MOS:ICON.
  • "the top and only professional association football league" sounds naff, if it's the only then it has to be the top. Suggest a rephrase.
  • "in 2005–06," nope, that's the inaugural season.
  • "over twenty players" more than.
  • "in A-League matches" no need to repeat A-League here.
  • "by scoring three (or more) goals" why not just "scoring at least three" or "three or more"?
  • "The first was scored" ->" The first hat-trick was scored..."
  • "Five players have scored more than three goals in a match" missed where how many people have scored a hat-trick...
  • "There have been two hat-tricks scored in one match on one occasion" clumsy, e.g. "On one occasion, two hat-tricks have been scored in a single match...."
  • "only player to have scored a hat-trick after coming on as a substitute." no ref.
  • "Shane Smeltz has scored the most hat-tricks," no need to relink or repeat his first name. Apply to others.
  • "a record 4 " four.
  • Check refs for WP:DASH violations, e.g. ref 32.
  • Make sure works are properly formatted, e.g. refs 11, 28 should have The Sydney Morning Herald.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Still need to fix the refs, not sure what to do to fix WP:DASH violations. Regarding flags for nationalities, not sure if I should remove them. Also, the opening line reads "the top and only professional association football league".--2nyte (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Replace hyphens with en-dashes per WP:DASH. The MOS would say that we don't need flags if they're unnecessary, i.e. they over-emphasise nationality. As for the "top and only" it depends how you read it, hence the confusion. Is it "top and only" (i.e. a singular league) or is it "top, and the only professional"...? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Delaware[edit]

Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria for promotion to Featured List status. This list also exhibits all the characteristics and contains similar information to other featured lists of universities and colleges including: List of colleges and universities in Michigan, List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C., and List of colleges and universities in West Virginia. -- Caponer (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


  • @Caponer: Think this is the third time I've reviewed on of these. Only a few dozen to go!
  • "Delaware does not have a medical school, however, the Delaware" - that however is bothering me. I'd replace it with "does not have a medical school, but the Delaware..."
  • And... that's it. Huh, guess it's easier once you've done a few lists of the same type (plus this one's shorter). Consider archiving your online links with something like or so that future changes in content/removals of pages don't affect your citations. If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the FLC for Hugo Award for Best Fancast further down the page. --PresN 19:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Massive lead considering the size of the list. Not sure, yet, how to best rejig the information, perhaps a shorter lead, and then a couple of decent paragraphs in a following section.
  • Would prefer to see the "plainrowheaders" so we don't have centrally justified bold links for each college.
  • It would be good to learn a little about the defunct colleges, rather than just the table and a single sentence saying they used to exist.
  • "List of defunct institutions in Delaware" not strictly true, add some context. Similarly the other table's "caption".

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Star Trek Into Darkness[edit]

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm nominating this as a follow up to the nomination of List of accolades received by Star Trek (film) for FL, which as I type is second from bottom of the list with no outstanding work to be conducted. I've sought to incorporate the feedback received from that earlier nomination into this version, so hopefully colleagues should find it easier going!! Needless to say, Into Darkness was not as successful with the nominations as the earlier film, but I believe that I have everything covered. Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUSTALK 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because he is one of the great actors of our generation and deserves to have a well written career history article. LADY LOTUSTALK 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Quick comments you've waited nearly a month for some interest....

  • " in The Pawnbroker (1964), and A Man Called Adam (1966)." no need for the comma.
  • Any reason why the image captions avoid mentioning the subject matter?
    • I was told on another peer review/fl candidates comment that his last name isn't necessary since the article is about his career so it'd be redundant. I can add it back if you'd like. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "he was on the television series" he was "on"? Reads weird to me, why not, "he acted/featured in"?
  • What sort of show was The Electric Company? It may help us to understand the "various characters" you go on to discuss.
  • " earned him second Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, the first for " seems odd to do this in reverse order.
  • "he was cast in the films" he appeared in more than those you listed, so perhaps it should be "in films, including..."
  • No need to link God.
  • "he was in the science fiction action films" grim writing, need to fix it up a little.
  • "The Pawnbroaker"? typo.
  • Gone, Baby, Gone has no commas.
  • Sortable tables mean linked items should be linked every time.
  • This is a predominantly USEng article, why are dates in the references in BritEng?
    •  Done - changed dates to mm, dd, yyyy format. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob[edit]

References check of film section

  • Echo the comment above, dates should be m/d/y as he's American.
  • Include publishers for each work in the refs
  • Ref 5 (Pawnbroker credit) is sourced to a review which itself references IMDb so alternative needed.
  • Ref 6 says "A Man called Adam" is his screen debut but the table disagrees, which is correct?
  • Ref 7 is sourced from "6th floor blog" on NYT, are they reliable?
  • Ref 8 supports that he appeared in those films but not for the role he played in all of them and also whether he directed Bopha!
  • Ref 9 again supports he appeared in those films but not the role he played in all of them.
  • Ref 12 doesn't support the role he played in Street Smart and anyway we could probably do better than a magazine for a hotel chain.
  • Ref 15 doesn't support the role he voiced.
  • Ref 17 supports he played a brigadier general in Outbreak but not what he's named. Also doesn't support that he played Red in Shawshank.
  • Ref 18 says he played "Shannon" in Chain Reaction not "Paul Shannon"
  • Ref 23 says he plays "Colonel Kurtz" but the role he played was Colonel Abraham Curtis as it says in the table. Use this one instead: [[3]]
  • Ref 25 doesn't support the name of his role.
  • Ref 28 doesn't support he played Lucius Fox in Batman Begins
  • Ref 30 doesn't support that he voiced Neil Armstrong
  • Ref 31 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Character name in Wanted is Sloane
  • Ref 38 says he was involved in the events of the doc but not that he appeared in it.
  • Ref 39 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 43 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 44 doesn't support full name of his role just the Beech part
  • Ref 48 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 49 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 51 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 53 doesn't support the name of his role

I'm going to wait till you sort these out to continue on to the other sections. Cowlibob (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of Asia Cup five-wicket hauls[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Another fifers list based on List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls, an existing FL, and List of ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls, another candidate of mine which has gained substantial support. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Vensatry (ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


  • No need to link the Indian cricket team twice in the lead.
  • "The former has taken took two". Giants2008 (Talk) 03:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Someone has fixed both. Thanks for the review. :) Vensatry (ping) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Matthew McConaughey filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another filmography article from me. This time for Matthew McConaughey whose career has had a recent resurgence with films such as Killer Joe, Bernie and of course his Academy Award winning role in Dallas Buyers Club. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Here's my 2¢.....

  • "The following year McConaughey played lawyer"..... add a comma after "year"
  • "starring in various films of this genre"..... reads awkwardly, maybe "for his roles in"
  • "However in the beginning of the following decade McConaughey took on more serious dramatic roles"..... questionable tone
  • "The following year he played the titular role in both Southern Gothic crime film Killer Joe, and coming-of-age drama Mud"..... I'd put the time frame at the end of this sentence
  • "For his performance in the former he received the Saturn Award for Best Actor"..... add a comma after "former"
  • "McConaughey next role" → "McConaughey's next role" (typo)
  • Why is there no description for his roles in the "music videos" section?
  • Digital Spy isn't the worst of sources, but I'm confident you can find something better
  • Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Flixster
  • Reuters is owned by The Woodbridge Company
  • YouTube is generally discouraged when reliable secondary sources are available

This is in decent shape, just needs touching up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted these out. Replaced Digital Spy with Associated Press. Added roles to the music video appearances. Removed YouTube link. Cowlibob (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure, I can now gladly support :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:52, 20 November 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 other Featured Lists about the LNA's. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


  • The winners need the Double-Dagger added.
  • The Double-dagger itself needs an |alt= parameter for readers with images disabled; see Template:Double-dagger for more information
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Years in the table should not be bolded, nor should the links
  • Make sure all references in Spanish are marked as such (references 12 and 25, for instance, check all)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Multiple wins and nominations" table could be separated into two tables and worked to sort.
  • the results being tabulated "being" isn't needed here. Seattle (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Seattle: How do you unbold the years on the table? Erick (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I've added "plainrowheaders" to the table, which unbolded the links. Do respond when you've finished my other comments; this article is close to meeting the FL criteria. Seattle (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Space Shuttle missions[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1 (first FLC), Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1 (removal).

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the removal concerns have been addressed. My role in this article was to collect sources and format the article according to MOS. While there are still minor things to do, I believe it should pass muster now. Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose based on the lead's malnutrition and the list's poor sorting and formatting. Seattle (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am handling these comments. I will notify when I'm done. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 09:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Seattle: I've addressed your comments. If you have any others, I'd be glad to hear them! ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments Alright, I have a bunch of comments, but they're honestly not that bad- you can probably fix them, so not opposing.

  • "They were used" - they is ambiguous, and at this point you haven't said yet that there were multiple space shuttles.
  • "indicating scheduling sequence[9] ." - period before ref
  • "As with the sequential numbers" - you didn't say that sequential-numbered launches were based on scheduling, so this should be "Both systems of codes were assigned..."
  • "With the resumption of flights in 1988" - you haven't yet said that flights were ever stopped
  • I'd like it if you said how many flights were in each numbering sequence, as well as the total number.
  • Table one- on sortable tables, you have to link every row, not just the "first" instance, since it changes. E.g. Edwards should be linked all five times.
  • Table one- link Enterprise (each time)
  • Table two- why is the code number bolded? It wasn't in table one.
  • Table two- mission is sorting oddly (STS-1, STS-100, STS-101, etc.) - put sortkeys so that it sorts as if it was STS-001, STS-002, etc.
  • Table two- again, link all shuttles and landing sites
  • "First flight of two women in space Ride and Sullivan; First spacewalk by US woman, Kathryn Sullivan; First Canadian in space Marc Garneau" - you need a comma between space and Ride, and space and Marc; you call her Sullivan and then give her full linked name second, you don't give Ride's full, linked name at all.
  • You're really inconsistent in how you list multiple items. Sometimes you put a period, sometimes a comma, sometimes a semicolon. I'd almost rather see a bulleted list instead for each row, but for space reasons just stick with semicolons between each item
  • "Planned tracking and data relay satellite deployment, Loss of vehicle and crew, Teacher in Space Flight" - no context and random caps in "Teacher in Space Flight", "Loss" capitalized for no reason
  • "first post Challenger flight" - "post-Challenger"
  • Link Spacelab whenever you use it in notes
  • On some notes you end with a period; these are not complete sentences, so don't
  • Inconsistent on italicizing Mir in notes
  • Link ISS each time you use it outside of "ISS assembly"
  • "Japanese Experiment Modoule" - typo (twice) and don't link it since it's the Kibo, which you already link
  • "After STS-121, the rescue flight for STS-115, if needed, would have been STS-301" - confusing, and wasn't 121 after 115?
  • No ref given for first contingency missions paragraph
  • Flight stats table- spell out the whole month, not "Apr"
  • You pull out Chen into the bibliography, but not Goodwin? Or the other books?
  • cites to Chen should be "Chen, p. 5", not "Chen 5"
  • Works like TIME magazine, Florida Today should be italicized ("work="), linked, and formatted properly (Time, not TIME Magazine)
  • Be consistent if the publisher is National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA (and link it, either the first time or every time)
  • You're formatting dates day-month-year in references, but month-day-year in bibliography (and everywhere else)

If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing the Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC down below this one. --PresN 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am handling these comments. Apologies, I got surprised by an end-of-semester project that is limiting my Wikipedia time. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on this list for a while and think it meets the criteria. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


  • Watch all-caps in reference 21
  • Why can't you merge this list into one table with two additional columns for "Sponsor" and "Award"?
  • I think it's neater this way since it's clear she's not going to be nominated only once (in comparison to films or albums), and this way, it is easier to navigate and see, which organisation nominated/awarded her at what time for which work. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's better for sortability to merge this into one list. All of the headers make this list unnecessarily disjointed, and you can't predict the future. Seattle (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Re:CRYSTALBALL - She's already received nominations in different years by the Billboard Music Awards, BRIT Awards and ECHO Awards, for example, so I'm not trying to predict the future. Also, almost every featured list of awards won by an artist is formatted this way. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 35 is out, I don't know if it's dead. Can you replace? Seattle (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


  • No need to link common terms like "nightclub".
  • "Del Rey began writing" no need for the quick repeat, just "She began..." is fine.#
  • "her to get out of her contract" clusmy phrasing, can we improve?
  • I changed it to "break off her contract". Is that better? Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to link common geographical locations like London or England.
  • "was the fifth best-selling album of that year" in what context?
  • What do you mean? It sold the fifth-most copies in 2012. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you mean "in the world"? "in a particular genre"? Be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've added "in the world". Littlecarmen (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "As of July 2014..." it's December 2014, any update?
  • No, but I have corrected the number with a better source. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Born to Die: The Paradise Edition" uses a colon not a spaced endash.
  • Yeah, it was recently changed. Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No references for the end of the third para of the lead.
  • That's because it's all sourced in the body of the article. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Best Original Song - Motion Picture" needs an en-dash.
  • Didn't it already have one? Oh well, I re-did it. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are awards given to Lana Del Rey herself shown as N/A?
  • That's just the way I've seen it most of the time, but I've fixed it now. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The XBOX Entertainment Awards are held by XBOX and voted for by XBOX players" XBOX used three times in a single sentence is a little dull.
  • I've changed it to "The XBOX Entertainment Awards are held by XBOX and voted for by the console's players." Is that better? Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Check refs, 42 for instance shows the BBC as being a work not a publisher.
  • I've changed all of the "work="s to "website="s. That's correct, isn't it. Thanks for the comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure I agree. The BBC is a publisher of information. You could argue that BBC News or similar are "works" or "websites". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • All right, I've changed Ref 1's website to BBC News and made BBC the publisher, and for Ref 42, I made Newsbeat the website and BBC the publisher. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Seattle bridges[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it gives details on the most notable bridges in Seattle. Sortable table with images and specs. Cptnono (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Great list! I have a few comments:

Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you wiki-link the first instance of each bridge type? Bascule, Cantilever, etc.
  • Sure thing. I might do every instance in the table since it is sortable.Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What makes a bridge notable? What criteria was used to determine notability? I think this needs to be made clear so we can determine inclusiveness (FL criteria 3a).
  • I tried to go over that in the first sentence but need to copy edit it. I went to every bridge article and verified GNG then created a couple more after finding sources. I really wanted to add an all but defunct rail bridge but the only source only found a single source. If I couldn't find sources on Google Books, News Archive, or other locations I did not add it.
  • The googlemaps coordinates is excellent, however I got a warning "A Google Maps feature used on this page is changing soon. Custom map content will need to be migrated." Can this be fixed?
  • Lame! Google Maps has undergone a massive change and it looks like the KML Data is not supported the same. I'll poke around but might lose it down the road.Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikilink first instance of Seattle.
  • Lead may need copyedit, ex: "The following list in of noteworthy" does not make sense. "Another body of water, Lake Union, is just north of the downtown area" is passive. To make it active consider something like "Lake Union is another body of water just north of the downtown area".
  • Last minute addition that didn't work. I'll try again. Done?Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "In the 1970s, residents grew wary of congestion that made the previous connection the second busiest road in the state." needs a source
  • Hmmm... removed for now. I'll try to pull it up but removing the line made the next concern more readable.
  • " The bridge was left inoperable after" What bridge?
  • Shorten and merge these two sentences: "The area is also serviced by the Spokane Street Bridge. Built in 1991, it is the world's first and only hydraulically operated concrete double-leaf swing bridge"
  • Sources needed for the span of a few of the bridges.
  • A couple more to go but I am hunting them down.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is just a quick glance, once the changes are made I may be able to go over it in finer detail. Mattximus (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Getting those sources in did a lot for list (found a few errors). Any other thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. A few minor quibbles.
  • The "circa" Arboretum Sewer Trestle bridge is interfering with the ability to sort. I think there is a way around this but I don't know it off hand. Everything else in the list looks good.
  • Adjusted by putting circa after in parentheses.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the lead still needs a good edit. I think the sentence "The following list is of noteworthy spans throughout the city" can go, being almost tautological.
  • The first paragraph needs to link to the idea of bridges, rather then just a description of waterways. The description is a bit confusing, as it's not made clear that Elliott Bay is a part of Puget Sound. If there is no bridge across lake union, is it worth mentioning in the lead? Perhaps I can take a stab at it:
Downtown Seattle is on an isthmus between Lake Washington and Puget Sound which are connected through canals and locks that make up the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Vehicles, trains, and pedestrians cross these bodies of water over X bridges. The largest bridge is… the oldest bridge… (these latter two are trivial and only a suggestion.
  • I tinkered with it more. I kind of like the flow with it sections but I might have looked at it to long and am kind of stuck. I ended up playing with it based on your ideas. I think you might have been on to something. Let me know.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You mention that Magnolia Bridge is already deteriorated but the source you reference has no mention of this bridge.
  • "A primary span" was left inoperable after being hit by a freighter in 1978, did this span (I think you mean bridge?) have a name?
  • I didn't like the line after looking at it so it was removed/reworked.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That concludes my review, I'm happy to support if the above comments are addressed, good work! Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Mattximus: Thanks! I tried to hit some of your points. What do you think?Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


  • You call it the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge in the lead, but that's not its name (and the link is redirecting). The same redirect is happening in the table
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is Cowen Park Bridge the only one with a source for what road it's a part of? It's not that I think you need sources for that, it's just odd that one of them has a source
  • Cowen Park Bridge needs a source for opening date, as do several others
Phew... Done!Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Fremont Bridge needs a source for length, as do several others
All leangths are now sourced.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Riged frame"
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Link Swing bridge in Spokane Street Bridge, also in the lead
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Two of your "see also" links are redirecting
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I kinda wish we had a flat-color city map in the article with the bridges highlighted, but that's a bit much to ask for
I hope the maps at the bottom of the list are sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The missing references are the big one here, but should be doable. If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC, located just below this one. It's short! --PresN 19:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I need to do some reviews since it has been a bit. I need to try to tackle this sourcing issue. I think one issue (besides not having a confirmed length for Fremont it looks like) is that the sources are placed sporadically. Instead of repeating the sources in each cell I can do a column with references.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@PresN: My eyes hurt from going through so many pdfs! All lengths and years sourced (with some corrected). Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Switching to Support. Did one minor reference tweak edit. A thought occurred to me that bold and italics might not meet access requirements for calling out something, as opposed to putting a dagger or * after the word, so I've asked on WT:ACCESS about it to find out. Not going to wait for the answer to support, though. --PresN 03:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Daggers and stars are a good idea. I'll make the change today or tomorrow (about to go celebrate a birthday for a friend just under one of those bridges) . Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lorde[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think that this list is appropriate for a Featured List. I will appreciate any comments that help improve this list. Cheers, Simon (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hugo Award for Best Fancast[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 20:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Back again with another scifi/fantasy award list, this time a blast from the past! Back in 2010/2011, I got all 15 Hugo Award lists featured and stuck in a featured topic. Beginning in 2012, though, the Hugo Awards added another category- that of Best Fancast, for podcasts ("non-professional audio or video periodicals") as a separate thing from fanzines. Other than a peer review to get it in the FT, the list has just been waiting since to get enough items to be nominated- and here it is! It's a lot shorter than the other Hugo lists, but Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story got featured when it only had three years of nominations as well and looked pretty similar to this, so it should be fine. The list should be up to the standard of its 15 sibling lists- thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments and source review (ProtoDrake)[edit]

I've looked through the prose and structure, and after consideration, I Support this article's inclusion as an FL. As to the sources, there seems nothing wrong here, so that's a Pass. One minor note: I might try archiving the few unarchived references, unless they won't archive properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoDrake (talkcontribs) 7:25, 11 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Review by Tezero[edit]

In the middle of some writing now, but I'll try to begin reviewing by the end of the day. At first glance, the intro looks exceptionally lengthy for such a short list - is there any reason it's gotten this way? Tezero (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • The lead is similar between this and the other 15 lists, like Hugo Award for Best Novel- I don't shorten it for shorter lists. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The "World Science Fiction Society" is linked on the main Hugo Award page - why not here?
  • There isn't an article for WSFS- the link at Hugo Award is to Worldcon, which is linked here when I mention the Worldcon convention itself.
  • "generally available" - ambiguous; does this mean available to a variety of regions (if so, which ones?), to the general public (if so, as opposed to what?), usually available (based on time?), ...?
  • I swear that phrase used to be in the rules for that category, but it's not there now. Removed. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Are we supposed to know going in what a "fancast" is? It's not linked, and this list doesn't explicitly define it. What does "non-professional" mean?
  • Mentioned that it's "fan-podcast, and put in the WSFS definition of "non-professional" --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Hugo Award for Best Fancast was first proposed as a category after the 2011 awards. It then appeared as a temporary category at the 2012 awards. Temporary awards are not required to be repeated in following years." - kind of choppy; I suggest merging the second sentence into the first or third, or even all three together somehow
  • Done. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Too much detail about SF Squeezecast (do we need all of its authors? Heck, any?) in the intro
  • Cut to "a team of five people". --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Is SF Squeezecast one of the nine, or does it count twice?
  • It is, clarified. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is SF Squeezecast marked with an asterisk in the table? Alternately, why isn't SF Signal Podcast? The legend includes an asterisk in the mark for "Winners".
  • Added the missing asterisk. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can an award really be "currently held by" anyone? SF Signal Podcast was just the most recent winner.
  • Turns out there's a non-listed parameter in Infibox Award to rename that field- now "Most recent winner" --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Additionally, why is it a person rather than his work who's listed as having won the most recent award?
  • Flipped to be the fancast, with the runner/creator in parenthesis after. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Might be worth mentioning on what date the award is typically assigned. The 2014 one could've come hastily right at the beginning of the year, or just a few weeks ago. What date it was would signal how deliberate and in-depth the selection process was.
  • The third paragraph says so already- nominations January-March, voting on final ballot April-July, award given near the start of September. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Responded inline. --PresN 08:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, then. Support. Tezero (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

List of German field marshals[edit]

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was a huge, unreferenced mess when I first saw it. After working on the article for about a month in my sandbox it's become (in my opinion) worthy of FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by MisterBee1966[edit]

Pretty good progress. Please find a few recommendations below. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I suggest to make use of the template {{sortname}} for better name sorting and {{dts}} for correct date sorting. Using dts template you can merge the "Year of promotion" and "Date of promotion" columns.
This is a good suggestion, but I don't know how to use all those templates. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I made the changes to the section "Nazi Germany (1933–45)". Note that you must adhere to MOS:DATERANGE
  • If available, I would add a picture column. I believe a number of pictures are safe to use on lists. Alt text may be required
After looking at List of British field marshals I agree on what you say about a picture column. Will check into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It's done. YesY Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You need to add alt text to the images
  • The lead needs some expansion. You need to provide some motivation for the four sections and maybe add some statistics, like X were promoted during the War of XYZ ....
I don't feel the lead needs that much improvements. I like the idea of "X were promoted during the of X", but further expansion are (in my opinion) unnecessary. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It's done. YesY Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although the rank had existed since 1631 under a different name" triggers the question what was the name
Yes it does, but this is an article about who held the rank of field marshal, not the old one, so didn't put too much emphasize on this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Field marshal (German: Generalfeldmarschall) was the highest military rank in Germany for 75 years" what about Göring? Wasn't he an exception to this rule, he became a Reichsmarschall. Maybe worth commenting on
True, but Reichsmarschall was only created for Göring so people knew who would be Hitler's successor in event of an early or unexpected death, thus the current wording ... But, to avoid confusion I will add a note.
It's added. YesY Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "As a field marshal you played a compelling and influential role in military matters, were tax-exempt, member of the nobility, equal with government officials, under constant protection or escort, and had the right to directly report to the royal family." How was this handled in the Third Reich?
The wording fits on how field marshals were treated during the Third Reich - except the part about royal family for obvious reasons. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest to red link the three marshals for which Wiki doesn't yet have an article
God, I hate red links. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Check disambiguation on Emperor Frederick III, Ernst Busch and Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia
Well spotted, will do. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
All are now fixed. YesY Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding "Eduard von Böhm-Ermolli" his article states that his promotion was on 30 October 1940. The list states 31 October 1942, which would make it a posthumous promotion. What is correct?
  • I suggest to put the citation after the date and get rid of the reference column
  • Since the lists are sortable you need to make a comment on how they are sorted initially.
  • Since you included the field marshals of the Luftwaffe, would it make sense to list the Grand Admirals of the Navy?

Comments by Yakikaki[edit]

  • Initial comment Very nice clean-up and extension! This list have all the possibilities of becoming a truly great list, IMO. A few questions though: The timeline seems a bit confused. First it states that it was the highest rank "for 75 years". Then it says it has existed since 1631. Then it says it was recreated in 1870, and then abolished in 1945. In the list itself, there is also a gap between 1919 and 1933. So, I assume it wasn't used in the Weimar Republic? Maybe this gap should be explained. The other gap is between a for me unknown time and 1870. Perhaps this could be elaborated? When and why was the rank abandoned? The "for 75 years" could then perhaps be supplemented with the addition "from Germany's unification until the end of WWII" or something like this. And if the kingdoms of Saxony and Prussia were the only pre-unification kingdoms that used the rank, perhaps this should be clarified (the messy history of Germany before unification is a bit infuriating when it comes to these questions, I know - what constituted "Germany" before 1870?). OK, there's some food for thought for now. I'll get back with additional comments. And again, very nice list! Please don't be deterred by these comments, I'm happy to supply what held I can if you need :) Best, Yakikaki (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yakikaki, you have also made some useful comments. Regarding the timeline confusion, the article states the rank had existed since 1631 under a different name, recreated in 1870, and then finally abolished in 1945 - I don't quite see the confusion of this? However, your suggestion about making a text-section for the Weimar Republic, I have implemented, very good suggestion. I have also expanded the lead. Check out the article now and tell me what you think. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the Weimar addition is clarifying. About the timeline: if the rank was created in 1631 (by whom, one asks, considering there was no unified Germany at the time) and then recreated in 1870, this implies it was abolished sometime between 1631 and 1870. This should then be clarified. One cannot create something in 1631, go on with business as usual and then recreate something which already exists in 1870. Furthermore, I assume the "75 years" are about 1870 to 1945, but there is a gap there during the Weimar era, so the 75 years aren't really correct either (or possibly they are, in theory - was the rank disbanded or just not used?). But the reader gets the information that it was created in 1631, recreated in 1870, abolished in 1945 and for 75 years was the highest rank. The reader does not know why or when it was abolished in order to be recreated in 1870. The reader also doesn't know which 75 years it was the highest rank (between 1631 and 1945 its not 75 but 314 years; but perhaps it wasn't the highest rank from 1631 onwards?). Herein lies the confusion. Another question: was it the highest military rank only in Saxony and Prussia? Not in Bavaria, Württemberg or any other German principality? Yakikaki (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Nergaal[edit]

At a quick glance:

  • the 5 separate tables should be merged and you should add the date the person died (presumably when they finished being ranked as FM)
There isn't enough room. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "had existed since 1631 under a different name" => what name?
Will look into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • how was Hans Georg von Arnim-Boitzenburg given the rank?
Why is this important? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • was abolished in 1945 => what remained as the highest rank after?
Will add some words. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • note a shoudl be partially included in the text
I don't understand this? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "equal with government officials" +. vague
I don't think its vague at all. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "constant protection or escort" => by whom? the military?
Obviously! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • quite a few were kings/rulers of countires. mention this in intro
I don't think that's nessecary. The lead mentioned it was recreated for two princes and the titles are stated in the tables. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • notable FM? like Goring and Rommel?
Both Göring and Rommel are mentioned in the Nazi Germany table.
  • in general the intro feels too short
I don't think so. If you look above you can see someone has suggested the same which I have replied to and acted upon. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose after a month my comments have not been addressed. The list is probably complete, but it is really uninviting. The table can be improved, and the intro made more interesting. Nergaal (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Noswall59[edit]

Comment Hi, the lists themselves are well-ordered and clear. I do echo the previous suggestion about a death column - it looks like it would fit to me, especially if you combined the date and year of promotion columns... However, I do have a couple of queries. Firstly, why is the first table under the section header "Kingdom of Saxony (1806–1918)", when only one of those people included in the table was appointed after 1806? Secondly, perhaps it might also be worth moving the pre-unification tables for Prussia and Saxony (they weren't Germany, and it makes the whole list more complex and fragmented)... I wonder what other reviewers think of this? Regardless, if we are including pre-unification states like Prussia and Saxony (either the Kingdom or Electorate) then presumably we ought to have some reference to other electorates/kingdoms like Bavaria, Hanover, Wurttemburg and the Rhine Palatinate. Even if there were not Field Marshals appointed from these areas, then perhaps, for the sake of completeness, this should be stated; and, if there were, then they ought to be included here too (or in (a) separate pre-unification list(s)). Lastly, I wonder how we know whether this list is complete... has anyone reliably published a list of Prussian or Saxon Field Marshals which we can check? Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC).

Noswall59, thank you for you comments. Regarding the "Kingdom of Saxony (1806–1918)" confusion, the "(1806–1918)" addition is simply meant to tell the reader how long the Kingdom of Saxony lasted, not when the first field marshal of that Kingdom was promoted. Since you, and the others, has asked for it, I have included a death column. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jonas Vinther:. Thanks for replying and for adding the death column. Firstly, I am aware of what you intended by the "(1806-1918)" section but my point was that all but one of these Field Marshals were not actually from the Kingdom of Saxony; they were appointed/promoted by the Elector of Saxony, and the electorate was a different political entity (at least in theory), hence it has its own article (Electorate of Saxony) which is distinct from the article on the Kingdom of Saxony. Secondly, you have not acknowledged my other points, which I fear may be a tad more significant than this issue. I do appreciate that you may not be able to respond quickly and that they are big queries, but I am interested to discuss those matters constructively. It will be interesting to see if others will have a say on the matter too. Once again, many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
And, of course, the same applies to the Kingdom of Prussia - it was actually Brandenburg-Prussia (Brandenburg being an Electorate and Prussia a Duchy) until 1701. --Noswall59 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
Noswall59, I'm not an expert on German states and especially not on old German states, so if you can I would appreciate if you correct them (Kingdom of Saxony => Electorate of Saxony etc.). Regarding your other points, I will not be making the lead longer as I believe the current length is fine. You also said you feared some of your other points might be more important and that I have not addressed them. If you still stand by these points, I suggest you explain them to me in laymen's terms one by one. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jonas Vinther:Okay, I've corrected the names. The other points are those made in my initial comment; I will itemise them below in detail:
  • That the article does not look at the Field Marshals appointed/promoted in other pre-unification German states, e.g. Wurttemburg, Bavaria, Hanover. Therefore, it cannot be said to be complete. If, as may be the case, there were no appointments from any other German states, then I think this should be mentioned and reliably cited in the article, to clarify to the reader that this is the case. It appears that Yakikaki later said the same thing in his comments above.
  • That there doesn't appear to be a way of me verifying the completeness of the article based on its sources. You have done a very good job at making sure that each person in the table is cited, but I don't see (correct me if I'm wrong) a reliable list of German field marshals referenced. This would be a helpful way for us reviewers to make sure that your list is as complete as it can be. You are, after all, covering a lengthy time period. This is not necessary per see, but would be very helpful.
  • That the lead and other prose is too short and does not summarise the list particularly well or in a way which seems to me to meet the standards of a professional encylopaedia. There is no summary of the appointments, their backgrounds, notable members, their reason for appointment, etc., nor (in much detail) of the rank itself, its history or its function. I can see several royals whose appointments were clearly not based on merit (Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, for instance); that is fine, but this could be explained to the casual reader. I am aware that the rank already has its own article, but you should still summarise its history and development. The point of the lead is that it should be able to summarise the topic independent of anything else, so as to provide a concise but useful overview of the article. I believe this lead does not do this enough. See the article Field marshal (United Kingdom), which is a Featured List.
  • Given the reasons mentioned immediately above, it seems sensible to suggest that this article be merged with the Field marshal (Germany) in line with the precedent the British article has set.
  • That, while this article's content is within the scope of its subject, I wonder if it would be better to have a separate article for pre-unification Field Marshals because the political make-up of Germany was so different. Having separate lists for each state also makes it seem more fragmented. This is not a problem with your content, but a general comment which may be a point of further discussion. If we look at the British article I have just cited, it remains within the scope of Kingdom of Great Britain, which was formed in 1707; in this article being nominated, we are talking about a national identity, rather than a political entity. I will leave this one to see what others say, and I won't make it a condition for my review, but I hope it will raise some questions.
Edit: The matter is further confused by this article: List of field marshals of the Holy Roman Empire, which seems to overlap with our one. --Noswall59 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
Note: Please understand that I appreciate the work you have put into this article and that it has been improved significantly by your efforts; but at present, it seems to fall short of the standards required here. Now, I would like to see this article reach FL standard, and I can see that you already have experience in writing articles of that standard, so I am sure you are capable here too. I do not want to discourage you, and I hope that this article can reach this standard. My advice would be to please take a look at the British article and see if you can't try a similar format here, because the British article does meet the standard and, while the content itself will obviously be different, it's format and length is of the encyclopaedic standard, both in terms of completeness and prose, not to mention the other areas required of a FL. King regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC).

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

  • Just a quick comment - in the Weimar section, it states that the German Navy was abolished, which is clearly not correct. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
True, my mistake. I confused the destruction of the U-boats with total abolishment. Will fix. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

comments by Auntieruth55[edit]

Nice job cleaning up a mess!

  • As a field marshal you played a compelling and influential role in military matters,[3] were tax-exempt, member of the nobility... How about "Field Marshals played a compelling and influential role...etc. Also, why are each of these qualities footnoted, rather than simply a foot note at the end of the sentence?
  • I'm very confused about the selection process for this. There were a lot of Napoleonic era field marshals that you have not included.
  • Perhaps it would be more useful to make a list of Field Marshals of the 20th century, or of the Second German Empire....?
  • There needs to be a section on the role of the field marshal, beyond a single para in the lead about it. I'd expand that paragraph into a section that gives examples of the function of a field marshal in different situations. (military matters, tax exemption, members of nobility, etc.) auntieruth (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, I noted in comments above that there is confusion about the titles of states (such as Kingdom of Saxony v Electorate of Saxony). If the link goes to the right historical entity, professionally I would not be concerned about whether I called it a kingdom or an electorate. Saxony was both a kingdom and its king was an elector, thus making his kingdom an electorate. The position of electorate gave him rights with selecting the new emperor. But his status as king was higher on an average day. So, I've always tried to refer to electors as such when they are in their roles as electors, and kings when they are in their roles as kings. I got into major discussions with people in the article War of the Bavarian Succession over whether or not Bavaria should be called a Duchy, an Electorate, or a Kingdom. auntieruth (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, Saxony was not actually a kingdom prior to 1806 and, when it became a Kingdom, its kings ceased to be electors (at least, according to the article) and its Electors were not kings until that year; see the List of rulers of Saxony and also the articles on the Kingdom and Electorate of Saxony. To be fair, though, just calling it "Saxony" in the header would probably suffice. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
  • As for the big question about "what is Germany": many have asked this, and not answered it. I'd suggest you avoid that question (it's unanswerable) and start with 1871. Even then, it's a bit dicey because the various states had their own armies, but I think it's more doable under those conditions. auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree on this issue with auntieruth. Skip the ones from before 1870 and concentrate on making the list really good from then onwards. Earlier field marshals should be listed for their respective entity, e.g. "List of Prussian field marshals", IMO. Yakikaki (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As you can see from my comments above, I also agree with this view, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
For the record, nothing in 2014 describes Germany better than Die Nationalelf. In that respect we need to add Jogi Loew to the list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I hear what you all are saying, but don't agree on much of it. And also, just because a list is incomplete, that does not mean it cant be a featured article - look at Bernard Lee on stage and screen. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
However, the reader (at least I had) would assume the list to be complete. If it is not complete, the reader needs to be made aware of this fact. Having read the other comments here, I have to agree that the suggestion to limit the time frame from 1871 onwards makes a lot of sense. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, I have found a book: Preußisch-deutsche Feldmarschälle und Großadmirale by Jürgen Hahn-Butry (written some time during the Nazi period I think). It is catalogued at OCLC World Cat ([5]) but I doubt you will find a copy - it seems to be very rare. This does seem to be the only book on this topic, which I find surprising. Nonetheless, it might be worth looking at the German language article ([6]), if you've not done so already. It may be possible to add more to the English list by using that as an example. For instance, the German list includes Friedrich Ludwig von Dohna-Carwinden, who was apparently appointed FM in 1747; he is not cited there, but his article on the German wiki ([7]) includes a citation which is a reference for his promotion: [8] (pages 22-23). That book cited might be a useful publication for others too - it appears to be war history book published in the 19th century (see [9] at the de wiki). Furthermore, I don't know whether there were ever lists of officers published by the German Army - in the UK there is the Army List, published annually. That might be useful if such a thing exists. Also, does Germany have an equivalent to the London Gazette? If so, that might be useful for finding notices of appointments as well. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC).
MisterBee1966, one can, just like the article about Bernard Lee does, add a "this list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" template. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
True, but I have my doubts that adding the {{expand list}} to this article at this stage makes a compelling argument to convince the reviewers to support your FLC nomination. As mentioned before, I think you would be better off limiting the list to the German Empire and Third Reich time frame. In its current state the article still has multiple issues, from weak lead, to technical issues and now I learn it is also incomplete. To achieve your objective, getting this list to FLC, you would be well advised to embrace some if not most of these suggestions and refrain a little more from pushing back on valid concerns. The choice is yours MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Noswall59, good job and thanks for finding the book. I would, however, strongly oppose including non-book sources in this article. I spent many hours finding book sources instead of non-book ones, and would hate to see newspapers or whatever in this article. I'm not acting like WP:OWN, merely stating my opinion as the main contributor to this articles possible FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jonas Vinther: Hi again Jonas, hopefully you will make progress with this. Just to point something out: the London Gazette is not a typical newspaper - it is a government register of appointments and official notices, and is, for that reason, a very reliable source for reporting facts. If Germany has an equivalent (which I imagine it might do) then it is worth exploring and I imagine it would be an entirely suitable source as well. Anyway, in reply to your other comments, I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into finding these references, which I have acknowledged before, but I do feel that you are essentially refusing to make a list more complete by not adding information based on reliable sources (for instance, the example I have given above). You also haven't really answered my point about looking at the German article. There are several examples of omissions in the English one where it can take little effort to find sources by looking on the German wiki. I have given on example above, for another, take a look at Heinrich VI of Reuß-Obergreiz, a FM of Saxony promoted in 1697; he had a long career and has an entry in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (transcribed at the German wikisource here), which is the authoritative biographical dictionary for Germany; it took two clicks to get that reference. Not all are going to be that straight-forward, and it would take a long time to work through that list, but you cannot deny that more information is not accessible out there. The article you cited above about Bernard Lee has been thoroughly researched and it is incomplete because it is clear that the information which would make it complete doesn't appear to exist any more (or at least not in any readily accessible manner); that is different from deciding not to incorporate information for reasons of personal preference, or not including it because it has not been searched out. I do believe, once again, that this article has scope for approaching completeness if this technique were adopted. As MisterBee says above, it is your choice whether you decide to look any further into this matter of completeness, or indeed any of the other points raised by the reviewers here. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC).
Noswall59, sorry for the long delay in replying; I actually forgot I even had nominated this for FA-status. Regarding the London Gazette, I have no doubt it's reliable and very trustworthy, I merely rejected the idea of including non-book sources on the grounds that it would look stupid with one or two non-book sources as the article mainly consists of book sources. But, if it can help the article and the nomination, I think it should be included, absolutely. I will be happy to look further into matters, but would appreciate some assistance. I would be happy to see you editing this article without asking for my opinion, as I'm sure it would only improve the article. I just really want to see this article achieve FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am not sure how to read this comment. It would help me if you could tell us what actions you intend to take on this article, don't forget that you had nominated the article, not us. I think you need to provide guidance and structure to the feedback you received so far. I am a bit lost now on what you will fix yourself and where you need help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

MisterBee1966, to be specific, I would like some help with expanding the lead and adding the remaining field marshals who are not listed. Obviously I have included all I know and could find a source for, but I believe it was Noswall59 who pointed out that some Prussian FM's are missing. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, I have looked at List of British field marshals, so I understand now the lead could some an expansion, but I don't have any ideas for it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The reviewers have given you a few suggestions already. If I were you, I would first address the question of scope of the article, meaning you have to address the question of what is Germany in this context. With respect to this article, I would limit the scope to the timeframe German Empire onwards. This eases your task significantly. In the lead, remember a Featured Article has to be largely stand-alone, you could give an abstract of German military history pertaining to German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West and East Germany and the unified Germany of today. Then you could talk about how field marshals fitted into these periods and why they were abolished or did not exist in certain timeframes. You could also talk about how and who appointed field marshals in the various regimes and what role they played. Maybe you could also talk about grand admirals. They held a position similar to a field marshals. I think this is how I would approach the problem. I hope this helps you a little and gives you an idea on how to move forward. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jonas Vinther:. Hi again, I agree with MisterBee on the whole. The scope certainly needs looking at and should allow you to develop the article. I am busy offline at the moment and so I won't commit to anything with regards to this article; I may well contribute in future. I will say that for the lead MisterBee is absolutely right, and you may need to summarise the rank, its seniority, its history, insignia, etc., and then summarise the list of those who held it - how many were there, were there any honorary appointments, perhaps tell us why. Look at explaining why there were no appointments under the Weimar Government and then why there are none after the war - assume the reader knows very little here. Hopefully, in conjunction with the British article, our advice should help you. Best wishes, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

List of Governors of Iowa[edit]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been gone from the governor list racket for a while but I was inspired by the election to hop back in. This was a relatively simple list; very few governors had the rudeness to die or resign. I'm trying something new with this than my older ones, namely removing the "other offices" and "living ex-governors". I am being bold and suggesting these aren't very valuable, and add needless maintenance to the article. It doesn't really matter which ones are still living, and as for 'other high offices', even my solid criteria end up being subjective, and if someone really wants to know, it's a quick browse through the articles. That veers into the territory of being about the people rather than being about the office.

Anyway, please let me know what you think of these bold ideas, because whatever we conclude to be the best will be implemented in all the others. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I undid your change removing former living governors (if you wish to discuss, please do so on the article talk page, not here). I am curious if the idea of listing governors' terms as "1/2" if it was a partial term is used in any sources? I suspect it isn't, and it is rather inaccurate and misleading, so I would suggest its removal and replacement with the terms as they might be listed in an Iowa history book (I may look this up later, but it would probably be 1-2 wks). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The use of fractions is purely to indicate that a particular term was split between multiple governors. It has no bearing in sourced material but has been successfully used in over a dozen other featured governor lists. I wouldn't mind replacing it with a list of terms if that could be done well, but generally, due to the nature of rowspans, it isn't. Look at List of Presidents of the United States, for example - Nixon's term is much, much smaller than Ford's term, because rowspan simply isn't up to the task. In the past, I've run into problems with rowspans becoming infinitesimally small, so that it becomes misleading to the reader. Going with one cell per row fixes that issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I take your point - and have had troubles with rowspans myself - but using a fraction to indicate a partial term can be terribly misleading. Better, I think, to have the full number of terms the governor served for part of, with an asterisk or a dagger to indicate that they weren't complete (or even a small (partial)). One might expect that if every governor has a whole number that some didn't complete the term and they should be aware of notes for partial terms, but the use of a fraction suggests an additional level of accuracy - and one that just isn't there. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
All I can say on that front is: the few people who have expressed confusion didn't express further when the footnote pointing out how the number works was shown to them; it gives us a handy place to put the footnotes, rather than a mostly-empty column; and the existing featured governor lists included that. If the standard has changed that dramatically, fine, but I'll need more than a single point of feedback to accept that. However, the other lists included the 'other living governor' and 'other high offices' sections as well, so I was bold and suggested removing them. Had to start somewhere. --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's just the sheer ... inaccuracy ... of it that bothers me. It's the old rule from math - the more digits to the right of the decimal point you have, the more accurate you are. Yet adding the greater level of specificity here (1/2) actually does not add accuracy to the list.
...And I've just had an idea. What about using "+" to signify a partial term? This avoids the accuracy problem while still clearly conveying that it was more than just the number for the complete term. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hm, how would you suggest using that? Also keeping in mind, there are multiple types of partials. For example, when a governor enters a term mid-way, is elected, and exits their next term mid-way. The odd solution I came up with was "1/2 + 1/2" as seen on the List of Governors of Arkansas. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just had a brainwave. Check out what I've tried. --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That looks pretty great! It seems to solve the various problems quite nicely while remaining very easy to understand. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm confused -- aren't Terry Branstad and Terry E. Branstad the same person? And if so, why link them both and not tie them together in the lead? For a moment, I assumed they were different people (perhaps father and son?) Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 06:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, removed the initial. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


  • The lead is on the lean side, I'd beef it up a little.
  • Try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs where possible.
  • Avoid the use of the hash character to represent "number".
  • I'm worried about the use of just colours to denote the party allegiance of the Lt. Gov, you name the party for the Gov each time, but WP:ACCESS seems to be failed for the Lt. Gov.
  • No images of any of the former governers?
  • Several footnotes are unreferenced, where can I cite them?
  • Ref 21 is an en-dash fail.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

    • I'll work on some of the others later, but re the Lt. Gov party - A note indicates that they share the governor's party unless specified, and each time when they are different there is a footnote indicating that. And the unreferenced footnotes can all be handled either through the constitutions (which I agree, need references) or the general NGA source. If I need to have a specific reference for each then I'd lose the joining of footnotes like we see for "died in office". There is one single-sentence paragraph; any suggestions on how that should be changed? And finally, what should it have other than "#"? --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      Quick reply, WP:HASH has suggestions regarding the hash symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • As far as FLs go, is it better to have images for some and not for others (depending on availability) or no images at all? It looks like a little over half of the articles currently have images in them. Several (but probably not all) of the others have images available that just aren't on Wikipedia or Commons yet. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • In cases where I couldn't get ~90%+ coverage, I'll just pick a few and put them in a gallery along the side. Usually notable ones, as well as ones from each decade or what not, so that it's the same length as the table. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because:

  • Prose. I won't pretend to be a good judge of prose, but I did give it a copyedit and I didn't notice any issues with the prose. I also asked someone I know offline, and they liked the prose.
  • Lead. I believe the lead does a fairly good job of introducing the topic and of explaining some basic facts about the tributaries as a whole.
  • Comprehensiveness. I think it goes into a reasonable amount of detail. It is not as long as the somewhat related FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, but it's my opinion that that other list is a little too detailed, so the list I'm nominating should be fine. This list could not easily be integrated into the article on Catawissa Creek without unbalancing the article.
  • Structure. The article contains a lead section with basic facts about Catawissa Creek and its tributaries. The next section contains a table of the tributaries of the creek and the subsequent sections contain tables of sub-tributaries. I belive that this structure is fairly intuitive and it is also similar to the structure of the FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek.
  • Style. I don't know the MOS by heart, but this does meet the specific guidelines at WP:FLCR. There are no redlinks and no major accessibility issues. The majority of the tributaries have pictures and all are CC-BY-SA images taken by me. Captions are impractical since the images are inside tables, but the meaning of the pictures should be obvious.
  • Stability. The list is extremely stable. In fact, there has been only one substantial contributor and two minor copyeditors. No edits to the list have been reverted.

I haven't had much luck with featured content, but hopefully this will pass. Thanks for considering it. --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think it would be best to list details similar to those found in List of tributaries of Larrys Creek; I think it's valuable information that would lead to a much more comprehensive list, and I don't see any reason to not include it when it's available. Also, nice job with the taking the pictures! I know it's not easy. However, I'm not a huge fan of the missing pictures (10 out of the 26). Not sure what others think, but it may be worth removing the images column, and instead provide only a few of the best images in a gallery (as is done with the Larrys Creek list). The water bodies aren't particularly distinguishable from each other, so I don't think images for each listing add much value (especially when other data could be included in its place). At the same time, though, doesn't hurt to include them. Finally, I'd definitely include page numbers when referencing the lengthy PDFs. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @SuperHamster: Thanks for the feedback and the compliment :-). I've added page numbers to all the PDFs. I've also added a little bit more information, but not all of the information in the list of tributaries of Larrys Creek seems terribly relevant. A paragraph describing the structure of the list seems rather silly and describing the creek's course and its watershed seems to go a bit off-topic. I already do describe Catawissa Creek's general location. It would be nice to keep the pictures in, since they do add some aesthetic value. There's still room for another column or two if there was some other information you wanted to include (elevation perhaps? or coordinates?). --Jakob (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jakob: Nice, thanks for the pages. Apologies for being unclear, but I was looking for more data in the table, not more information in the intro. I think any information available would be value (so evaluation, coordinates, remarks if needed, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a creek that is not even 50 miles long should not have a sub-article on its tributaries. A road that long should not have a separate article with all the intersections it gets. If this is not a 3.b violation, then it should be AFDed for GNG. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Feel free to try it. Personally, in fulfilling Wikipedia's gazeteering functions, I'm not entirely sure this is a GNG violation. Either way, I'm noting that I (with my delegate's hat on) consider this oppose inactionable at FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a good list and my issues have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Akshay Kumar filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Akshay Kumar's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. Issues raised during the previous FLC have been addressed. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome.Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


  • The captions are all basically saying "Kumar at _____", very repetitious
  • "Kumar was initially signed for a lead role by producer Pramod Chakravorty for the film, Deedar (1992) but made his acting debut in the 1987 Mahesh Bhatt-directed Aaj"..... this detail would be better in Kumar's main page rather than here. Just say Aaj was his debut and later mention his role in Deedar.
  • "The following year he starred"..... add a comma after "year"
  • "many of the films he starred in during 1997–99 performed poorly at the box office"..... give names of such films
I have mentioned a few of his flop films.
  • "Kumar's career prospects improved"..... something about this just doesn't come across as professional writing
  • "In the same year he received a nomination".... again, add comma after "year"
  • "In the same year he presented the television series" → "That year, he presented"
Thanks for the suggestion.
  • "His role in the comedy, Garam Masala, earned him"..... remove the commas
  • "appeared in comedy drama, Housefull 2, and action comedy Rowdy Rathore" → "appeared in the comedies Housefull 2 and Rowdy Rathore"
Thanks again.
  • "satirical comedy drama, Oh My God"..... remove the comma
  • "The following year he starred in heist thriller Special 26"..... once again, comma after "year"
  • "Indiatimes" should link to Times Internet, and only link this on the first ref used for this site
Fixed, now it links only on first occurrence.
  • Digital Spy should not be italicized, and I'd try to replaced this if possible. Not saying it's bad, just saying there's even better sources that could be used.
  • What makes "Bollywood Hungama" or "Sify" reliable sources?

Sorry, but this is not up to par. Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Both BH and Sify are considered reliable sources for India related articles. Many FAs and FLs use them. I have fixed the usage of comma everywhere in the lead.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: I've also checked above and they seem to be met. I've not used BH or Sify before but Bollywood Hungama has been used extensively in various FLs including recent ones like Hrithik Roshan filmography, Shah Rukh Khan filmography, and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filmography. Sify was used in Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya's filmography also. Have another look and suggest further improvements for Skr. Cowlibob (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. This looks better now, particularly the lead. Let's go through ref's again:
  • Is "Koimoi" reliable?
  • Remove "Press Trust of India" from FN20 so it matches the other Rediff links
changed |agency to |author
I was admittedly skeptical about this becoming FL, but it seems to have a chance now..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support good work fixing this up Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good to me. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA)[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I feel that this list does not meet our current featured list standards for various reasons, including the fact that the information presented is bloated and split into 3 seperate tables. I also wish to expand the content currently in the article to include names that were retired between 1945 and 2000 and refurbish it into a similar format to the other lists that feature retired names: (Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, Philippine, Australian and Southern Pacific) and feel that i need to post here as i do so. I also feel that the article name will also need changing back to List of retired Pacific typhoon names if we are too include the JTWC era names. Jason Rees (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you're planning on changing the format, you should just do so, and *then* do an FLRC to make sure it still complies. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

List of poker hands[edit]

Notified: User talk:2005, WT:POKER, WT:GAMBLING

Several issues were raised in this talk page post from April but none were acknowledged. The main concern is that there are a lot of stretches of unsourced material; the entire "Variations" subheader is completely unsourced; terms such as "kicker" are not defined or wikilinked to clarify for those of us who do not play poker; and sources 1-4 (Suffecool, Poker Tips, PokerWokrs, and Brian Alspach) do not appear to be reliable sources. The page was promoted in 2008, and no maintenance seems to have been done since. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Green Day[edit]

Notified: Gary

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list is in pretty poor shape, with a blacklisted links template on it for a few months now, a lot of messy citations and missing fields in the references. Also some dead links. Not up to par with current featured lists. Gloss 03:44, 7 November 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)

Delist I share some of the concerns listed above that have not yet been met. Also I feel that this list could use a map of both Tennessee's position in the USA (see: List of cities and towns in California), and a map of municipal boundaries, something like List of municipalities in Ontario. It would be nice to have three more columns: 2000 population, population change, and population density. I would also add images of the largest cities and towns like those in the California article. This would be my ideal list of changes. If some can be met I will strike out my delist. Mattximus (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)