Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

List of works by John Buchan[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


Support, along with a few unimportant quibbles:

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

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

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

Scissor Sisters discography[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of accolades received by Blue Jasmine[edit]

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

Blue Jasmine was a particular highlight of last year primarily for Cate Blanchett's performance in the film. Here is the accolades list for it, as always, I welcome all the helpful suggestions and comments for improvements. Cowlibob (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Sega video game consoles[edit]

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

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


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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

In addition to Red Phoenix's comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

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

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

Academy Award for Best Actor[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because SoapFan12 and I have worked on the list more than a year ago to comply with Featured list standards. I strongly believe that this list has a potential to become a featured list. I followed closely to how the Daytime Emmy Award acting list were formatted. Birdienest81 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Matthew McConaughey is the most recent winner in this category for his role in Dallas Buyers Club. The sentence should be shifted to the end of the lead as we follow chronology to these kinds of lists. I have no other thing to say --FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @FrB.TG:: Done: I moved that sentence to the end of the paragraph.

Comments from Jimknut[edit]


Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments – I really like the list after reading through it. However, I do see one area that could be improved: the multiple wins and nominations lists, which are just bullet-point lists with minimal formatting. A simple two- or three-column table would look nicer in each case, in my view. Also, the See also section contains several links that are in one of the templates at the bottom of the page; they probably don't need to be duplicated and make the section long. Finally, the bibliography should probably be alphabetized, which won't take much work with only two books there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Fixed: I have alphabetized the bibliography by author's surname and eliminated duplicated Oscar links. Regarding the multiple winners and nominees section, however, I'm not sure what to do. I attempted to do a similar table as the one featured here, but other Wikipedians complained that it was too long. How can I fix the problem?
--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You could change the emphasis of the latter grouping to be about actors with the most noms, and pick a minimum number of noms required for inclusion that will help control the size. If you limit a table to actors with at least four or five noms, the table's size should be much more managable than if you try to put all of the actors currently listed in a table. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Done: I merged the multiple awards/nominations into one section. For the nominations, I put the limit to four to avoid a long column. Thanks for your help!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob[edit]

Overall great effort on this list.

  • I wonder if it would look better with Emil Janning picture being first as he was the first winner?
  • Add a reference that supports that Olivier directed Hamlet even though it's well known he did.
  • Add a reference that supports that Poitier was the first black winner.
  • Add a reference that supports that Benigni directed Life is Beautiful even though it's well known he did.
  • Dujardin was also the first French actor to win the award, might want to mention that with a reference.
  • Add references for the age superlatives section.
  • AMPAS should not be italicised in the references section, should be publisher=Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)

Cowlibob (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Courtney Walsh[edit]

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Courtney Walsh, the leading Test wicket-taker for the West Indies, took 23 fifers in international cricket. This list of his fifers is now, I think, according to the FLC criteria. Comments/suggestion from anyone will be much appreciated. Cheers! --Khadar Khani (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers[edit]

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

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

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

List of Beyoncé live performances[edit]

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

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


Comments from ThirdWard
  • Beyoncé's first co-headlining The Verizon Ladies First Tour –-> This could be reworded, maybe "Beyoncé's first co-headlining venture, The Verizon Ladies First Tour..."
  • The tour was overally praised by critics and Beyoncé along with Keys was particularly hailed for her elaborative performance and considered as the highlight of the shows –-> Try "The tour was generally praised by critics, with Beyoncé and Keys particularly being hailed for their elaborative performances."
  • Remove "two days before Beyoncé's 26th birthday." in The Beyoncé Experience table
  • the I Am... World Tour was a worldwide tour –-> "the I Am... World Tour was Beyoncé's second worldwide tour"
  • US $119,5 million --> US $119.5 million (english period used to break up numbers)
  • The tour is currently on track to become the second most successful tour of all time when looking at average gross revenue per show --> The tense of this might need to be changed now or very soon since the tour is over
  • A live DVD of the show and a one-hour Thanksgiving television special aired on ABC News in late November 2009. --> Differentiate the DVD and the Thanksgiving special. Maybe just add "A live DVD of the show was released, and a one-hour..."
  • After these minor changes I of course Support (Note I did significantly contribute to the lead in July, 2014) ThirdWard (Lolcakes25) (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

For starters:

Lead

  • The film stars an ensemble cast of...
  • For each character put the surname of who plays them e.g. Nick Fury (Jackson)
  • include when film went on wide release, box office total, production budget, Rotten Tomatoes
    • Changed premiere date to US release date. Not sure what the other information has to do with a list of accolades. That level of technical information is better suited on the main article.--TriiipleThreat (talk)
I would include those details to inform the reader what kind of film it is i.e. is it a big budget blockbuster or a small indie film? We can't assume that everyone viewing the article went to the main article first. Rotten Tomatoes is optional though. Cowlibob (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

  • awards & nominations -> accolades, total number of wins and... --> total number of awards and...
    • Not exactly sure what you mean here. Please be more specific.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Change the words "awards & nominations" to "accolades" and change the words "total number of wins and nominations" to "total number of awards and nominations" Cowlibob (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Table

  • Add Detroit film critics award nom, Motion Picture Sound Editor award nom, National film society nom, Online film & television noms, Phoenix film critics noms, SFX awards, Bradbury award nom, St. Louis and World Stunt awards.
    • Yes check.svg Done. Except for National Film Society and SFX awards. NFS doesn't appear to be a notable award. This is the ceremony for the National Film Society and I can't find a suitable source for the SFX award. Also the Motion Picture Sound Editor (Golden Reel) nomination was already present.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Good catch on that, I had misread that as this National Society of Film Critics which have been giving out awards since the 60s. SFX is minor enough to not be included, I guess. Cowlibob (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Recipient --> Recipient(s) and nominee(s), This column is sortable so all nominees should be wikilinked at every occasion leaving red links for people who have won or been nominated for a notable award.
  • Add sorting for recipient column so that it sorts by surname
    • Do you mean the recipient should be listed last name first (e.g. Johansson, Scarlett)?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
No, you should use the sort template e.g. Scarlett Johansson (see my edit to see the code) so that when someone sorts the list by alphabetical order the recipient is sorted by their surname. You only have to do it for the first recipient of each accolade. Cowlibob (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikilink the film itself as well in the table. Cowlibob (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  • MTV News, BBC News, Deadline.com shouldn't have italics.Cowlibob (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Need source for People's Choice Awards wins, VES wins. You can avoid needing to use an archive for these sites which were always going to change by using these alternates: for Annie awards [[1]] and for Oscars [[2]] Cowlibob (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Angela Aki discography[edit]

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

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

Ed, Edd n Eddy specials[edit]

Nominator(s): Khanassassin 15:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

While too short for a FA nomination, I feel that the content given is reliably sourced, well-written and properly formatted; franky, that it meets the FL criteria. Khanassassin 15:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nick Drake discography[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of ICC Champions Trophy centuries[edit]

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

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

Comments

  • Add "the" before Cricket World Cup in the lead?
  • List of centuries: This section heading can be shortened to just "Centuries", with the understanding that it is a list because of the article's title. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed both. Thanks for the comments Vensatry (ping) 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – meets the standards! --Khadar Khani (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Made some copyedits and did some rephrasing of the lead. I think you should cut the picture description to just "was the first player to score three centuries in the tournament's history" as it's confusing to include the record bit but other than that another good list. Cowlibob (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I've undone a few changes made by you in the lead. Agree with you on the picture's caption. Thanks for the support :) Vensatry (ping) 17:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries, your edits were an improvement. If you've got some time, I have another accolades list up for review at FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Blue Jasmine/archive1. Cowlibob (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

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

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

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

I think that the name of the list is wrong. For example, not even the precursor to the Russian culture/society existed when the first entry lived. Maybe "List of saints by the Russian Orthodox Church"? Nergaal (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The last part of the lead states "most of which are Russians in the most different sense, while others are essential and important people in the Russian history". "List of saints by the Russian Orthodox Church" would be odd as they are not saints only in the local church; better would be "List of saints in the Russian Orthodox Church", but that name is not really ideal. --Tomcat (7) 15:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Why? The latter name is much better than the current one. Nergaal (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Then I have to add every saint canonized by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in pre-Schisma era (for example Old Testament prophets or the Church Fathers); this would be unneeded work as they are self-evident saints, honoured by the West and the East.--Tomcat (7) 10:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Lauren Bacall on screen and stage[edit]

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

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

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

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

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

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

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


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

  • Support --Godot13 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • Support – A peer reviewer, I was happy with the responses there and I feel the article has only grown in quality since. Nice job! Cassiantotalk 23:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob[edit]

Overall, great effort on this list. Mainly some sourcing issues.

  • Main pic could be further described as Bacall in promo photo, unknown date.  Done
  • WSJ source is behind a paywall at least for me. Consider alternative?
It is. However if there is a reliable source (which you found) which isn't behind a paywall, we should go for that one. Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy 85th birthday source is a TCM blog by a "Shari Lee". Is this person reliable?  Done as in replaced
  • Probably could find a better source than Yahoo! blog for Chicago Hope and Yahoo! source for Get Bruce could also be replaced.  Done
  • What makes Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention, The Wire.com, Broadway World and Hamptons reliable? Cowlibob (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)  Done
    • Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention was honestly the only (what look decent enough) source I could find to reference Patterns, but I've since deleted it since it was a major role in her career, it was just a bypasser. I wouldn't say the Wire wasn't reliable, it seems to be reliable enough. I've replaced the other refs. LADY LOTUSTALK 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You could use this one for Get Bruce, [[3]]. I think laurenbacall.com looks like a fan site and not official. Here's an alternate for Mr. Broadway, [[4]]. Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So sorry that I am JUST now getting to these but thank you so much for your input! :) LADY LOTUSTALK 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Comment This isn't a necessity, just curiosity - is there a way to separate the tables like this? Especially the prestigious awards like the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, SAG awards, etc. I feel like that would be better for navigation. Again, not a necessity, the list is great and well sourced :) LADY LOTUSTALK 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Lady, It's possible, but not necessarily desirable! Having the results in one table allows readers to sort all the results together. They can see, for example, the number and range of awards won by Tariq Anwar, or Colin Firth, or how many "Best film" awards were won – and all in one table. I find the flexibility of the sort is more useful for general readers than separate tables, which is all a bit too "static" for my liking. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Reordered the lead a bit. One minor thing I would add is an introductory sentence before the 83rd academy awards which highlights that although the film earned recognition in a variety of categories, certain aspects of the film earned the most recognition in terms of accolades e.g Firth, Hooper, Rush and Carter. In regards to Metacritic, I've seen that bit of MOS most of the time interpreted as only news/magazine sources should be italicised so I wouldn't be surprised if someone else brought it up but it's so minor. Anyway, great list which is well written and well sourced. Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Cheers Cowlibob. I've seen Metacritic italicised and not italicised all over the place, and it's a shame there's no concrete decision made somewhere to make the MoS more clear on this! Thanks again for your time and effort here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support quality list, decent references, not seeing glaring omissions, all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, RM. As always, your comments are always great to have – and always lead to great improvements. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Twenty20 International records[edit]

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

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

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

List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts[edit]

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

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

  • I know that MA's university-level education is among the top in the US, possibly only behind CA's. Can't you find some discussion on that? Also, if I am not wrong, the enrolled-per-capita is also among the highest. I was surprised to see that the intro discusses almost all category types, except the most prestigious one - the research universities. You should fix that. Also wasn't there some top100 or so universities which featured several of MA's? I can't take very seriously a list which doesn't even mention MIT in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You're going to have to search for those for me, as I have never heard of any of that information before and I haven't been able to find it anywhere. I have also copied the intro style from the D.C. list, which is a Featured article in its own right, and I don't want to make this a long intro in the name of listing most groups. Besides, there are only four research universities, all of which except for MIT are already mentioned in the intro. In terms of the US News and World Report, I am not comfortable adding in something like that, since there are many different ratings that go on with colleges, and many of them place these same colleges all over the place. One example of this is where they place Princeton in the top, whereas Washington Monthly places it at 27th. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Timeline of Briarcliff Manor[edit]

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

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

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

Comment from Jimknut[edit]

If you want a box around the timeline then go to the top and add "class="wikitable"" in front of "align="right"". Jimknut (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Louie[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mac DeMarco discography[edit]

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

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

  • Having the sources for albums next to their release dates is a little tidier.
Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of these releases should definitely have articles, such as Ying Yang and the notable EPs. It's very bizarre having a disography page where one of the albums doesn't have a page.
I've started an article for Ying Yang and linked it, but haven't yet made one for any of the early EPs because I wasn't even sure Ying Yang was notable enough to warrant an article. I'll create articles for them if you're sure they need ones, though. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel Top Heatseekers is slightly inappropriate to be in the table, since he can only appear once as his next album made it on to the top 200 (i.e. there's only one possible data point and everything else will be — by definition). I'm all fine with it being in the prose like you have already, though. What are your opinions? --Prosperosity (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh I didn't know that. I've removed it from the table but kept it in the lead. Thank you for your comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Great! I'll give my support for FL. Good luck! --Prosperosity (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Littlecarmen (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments from Reywas92[edit]

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

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Assorted comments. I don't spend much time at FLC so if anything is way off base just say so.

  • Given both the length of the article, I would suggest expanding the lead
  • The last sentence of Arms versus seal is not a complete sentence - corrected
  • First sentence of design should not have mid-sentence caps, those aren't proper nouns in this context. There are several other instances of inappropriate capitalization - corrected, along with several others
  • Why use DMY for a US topic? MDY is more common in the US - I agree, however I hope that this list will be part of a Featured Topic in the near future. Three other FLs I have written/contributed to (that would be in the same proposed topic) are all in the DMY format. Trying to be consistent.--Godot13 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Generally I think a bit more copyediting is in order - the prose could flow better and be clearer at times. The Instances... section in particular needs some massaging. See also "a similar copy of this book was described by the Antiquarian Booksellers Association described" and other issues
  • Why do you have complete legal citations inline when all other citations are footnoted? - corrected
  • Suggest using {{convert}} to translate measurements - done
  • "20 copies exist in all libraries across the United States" - any non-US?
  • Don't include links in See also that were already included in the article. - corrected Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nikkimaria for the comments, I will work on it over the next few days. Could you clarify two things please: "Given both the length of the article," was there something else also? You suggest more copyediting in a particular section, but don't mention which... Thanks again.-Godot13 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I was going to mention the amount of "readable prose" (which differs from byte count), but then noticed that this article has proportionately more readable prose than most lists I see. The section in question is Instances of design inaccuracies. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Edits in progress.--Godot13 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Hi Nikkimaria- I think I've addressed most of your comments in italics above. I could not find any comprehensive library tools for searching outside the US so I'm not sure about that figure. I've done some copyediting and rewriting. I added two or three sentences to the lead (not enough?) If there are more specifics, or I haven't been clear above, please let me know. Many thanks--Godot13 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Hey Godot, I wonder if you could expand the second para of the lead a bit more? As to non-US holdings...I'm kind of torn. I realize that finding such holdings can be quite difficult; however, since Worldcat does show at least one non-US holding, I don't think we can just ignore the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
              • Hi Nikkimaria- I tweaked the lead a bit, and removed the Worldcat fact/ref. I feel less confidant making statements about the entire world's library system and their holdings... And honestly, I don't even know what "20 copies" means (i.e., where does that rank in terms of scarce, rare, extremely rare, etc.)--Godot13 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
                • Okay, that seems reasonable. The lead looks better now, thanks for your work on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Lady Lotus[edit]

A lot of my work is film related, but from what I could tell everything was very nicely sourced, the only things that I would mention is that maybe the images be the same size for consistency. One table's images are 125px and another table is 200px. Also, the names from the sentence "A few of those involved in the design of state arms and seals include (but is not limited to):" I would narrow down some of the names just so it doesn't borderline WP:LISTCRUFT. And then add alt text to File:Great Seal of Ohio actual view.jpg, after that, I support. LADY LOTUSTALK 18:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lady Lotus-I changed the image size as much as possible to be a uniform 200px, but I had to alter the Colonial Rhode Island size a bit so as not to throw off the spacing of the table. I re-enlarged the lead image only because at 220px the title was not clearly visible (there is some discretion over image size). Added the alt text, and reduced the list of state seal/arms contributors to the most historically notable. I hope these changes meet with your approval. Thank you again for reviewing this list.--Godot13 (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Support, good job :) LADY LOTUSTALK 11:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Yukon[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments. A good list. A few quibbles.

  • "The Municipal Act stipulates governance of these municipalities." This seems to me almost meaningless.Yes check.svg Done
  • "at the request of the Minister of Community Services" I would specify Yukon Minister (assuming it is).Yes check.svg Done
  • "Whitehorse, which is the largest among the three cities" I would prefer largest of the three.Yes check.svg Done
  • "Of the remaining 99.8%, Unorganized Yukon accounts for 98.1% of the territory's land mass". What is the other 1.7%?? Yes check.svg Done Dudley Miles (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your review, and good catch on those numbers! I'm still figuring out where the discrepancy lies... Mattximus (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Found it! I hope this change clears up the confusion. Mattximus (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought reporting the percentages of the two next largest areas was a bit too much, so I changed the note. Hope that is okay. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I think the "stipulates governance" sentence arose out of one of the five earlier FLCs and was carried forward. I have no issue with its removal however. Hwy43 (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your review and support, Dudley Miles! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This lists the criteria for becoming a municipality but skips the purpose: what it means for a community to become a municipality. Likewise, is there any difference between a "City" and a "Town", like additional responsibility, more regulatory authority, administrative requirements like a larger council?
    • Thanks for the suggestion. According to the legislation "The purposes of a local government include (a) providing within its jurisdiction good government for its community; and (b) providing within its jurisdiction services, facilities, or things that a local government considers necessary or desirable for all or part of its community. S.Y. 1998, c.19, s.3". It seems a bit tautological but I'm more than happy to include this if you think it adds. Specific services (fire, roads, etc.) are not prescribed by the legislation as far as I can tell. Mattximus (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I took the liberty of adding an abridged version to the lead. I think this should address your concern. Yes check.svg Done
        • Maclean25, main differences I am aware of are the different population thresholds to incorporate and the minimum size of councils. I have not previously found any evidence that city status carries additional responsibilities or more regulatory authority than town status. Hwy43 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, "A proposal to incorporate a community as a town can be initiated under the Municipal Act at the request of the Minister of Community Services, a municipal council..." - how can there be a municipal council if the community is not incorporated? the "municipal council" part only applies for altering municipal boundaries or dissolution. maclean (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Good catch. I fixed it based upon the same act. It turns out that the council is there for dissolution or changes to boundries. I added both cases to reflect that. Yes check.svg Done
      • Maclean25, a municipal council can conceivably request its municipality become a town. Though rare, a city could voluntarily request to change its status to that of a town, just as three towns in Alberta changed from town to village status. In Yukon, Dawson once held city status but now holds town status. It is unknown if this was done voluntarily by its municipal council or was imposed by the territorial government due to population decline. Given this, I have removed the additions regarding dissolution and boundary adjustments. Hwy43 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways in Michigan[edit]

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

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

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

Comments (first look)

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

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@JMiall: I've now gone through the conservation area audits with a fine comb and left out only those works for which I can't see any trace on Google Maps or Street View, incorporated the suggestions you've made on the article talk page and here and restored the pics of murals and tube station interiors. Ham (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. I've had another look through geograph for art in the NWish part of Westminster that seemed quite empty on the coordinates map. This is what I found: 1, 2, possibly the mural from 3 or is this the remains of old advertising?, possibly 4 but the image seems to be taken over a wall and looking on streetview they aren't particularly public murals, 5, 6, 7 (for the architectural list), 8, 9, 10 (too recent to be on streetview). I will search around for more. JMiall 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's some more from geograph in the fairly empty southern bit of Westminster: 11 (still on streetview in June 2014), 12. It might be worth mentioning the Rootstein Hopkins Parade Ground at Chelsea College of Arts which seems to have an ongoing selection of works on display. Anyway given it wasn't that hard to find more works in these areas this makes me suspicious that there's lots more works in the rest of Westminster that aren't included either. A problem in an area with such a huge amount of art. JMiall 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The Fitzrovia Mural doesn't seem to be in Westminster. JMiall 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@JMiall: I've added the Rootstein Hopkins Parade Ground, as well as [6], [9] and [10], as I've been able to find other online sources for them. I've also removed the Fitzrovia Mural. I'm still really apprehensive about citing sites like Geograph or Flickr as sources, which feels roughly on a par with citing Wikimedia Commons, another user-generated image upload site—​not up to scratch for a featured list. If a work hasn't been written about elsewhere it does raise questions about its notability for inclusion; WP:LSC is a useful point of reference here. The beauty of Geograph is that the photos can be added to Commons anyway, and be there as an aide-mémoire until more information can be found about the individual works. Looking at a Commons category like this (which includes image [5]), it's clear that not every work there needs to be included in the list. I personally think the page currently meets the criteria for comprehensiveness and that any additions are an added bonus but not essential (though I will address the remaining suggestions on the talk page next). Not to be immodest, but the list does cover the topic more comprehensively than any book that currently exists!
Re the north-west and the south being under-represented, it's worth noting that "Whitehall to St James's" is considered a "monument saturation zone" by Westminster City Council, and I would expect the more residential areas to have less public art. Ham (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem believing that this list is more comprehensive than any book. Hopefully you've been through all the major books on the topic making sure this is the case.

I've not reviewed a featured list before so may be applying too high a standard. My point of view is that I'm trying to review this list against a scope that has the possibility of being quite vague (What is art? What is public? What isn't architectural sculpture? What is permanent? etc) but against the criteria that the list should be of professional quality and attempt to include all items. So would I expect a professional quality list to include say just a photo from a user-generated website with no other info? No. Would I expect a list that is trying to be comprehensive to deliberately omit an item that verifiably belongs in that list? No. What I've been trying to do by suggesting various pictures from geograph etc is not to say that everything I've suggested needs to be in the list but that these things need further investigation because they may be evidence that the list isn't comprehensive. Is it 'practical' to investigate some of these? I'd say yes. So if there was info in a geograph page associated with an image that couldn't be found elsewhere then I'd email the photographer and ask where they got that info from etc.

Maybe I'm trying to apply the (professionally) well-researched criteria from FA when that isn't actually in the FL criteria? Anyway, I'm happy to believe that the really major items are included and that there probably aren't that many of the size of say ShackStack missing and that if you didn't add anything else to the list I wouldn't use that as a reason to oppose.

Some comments on the list rather than what isn't in the list:

  • Link Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain, Still Water (sculpture) on their entries.
  • I would cut down on the amount of bracketed text in the 2nd paragraph of the lead.
  • 'Many of the most notable sites for commemoration' – what does this mean?
  • 'on the western edge of the modern borough' – if this is an attempt to squeeze in the info that the borough boundaries have changed then I'm not sure this is important info for the lead.
  • Zimbabwe House is an unneceessary redirect (admittedly to an article that probably should be titled Zimbabwe House) (also do we need to know it used to be the BMA building here if the article is linked?)
  • It would be nice if there was some way the reader could tell from the text they see that the link in the Title/Individual column was going to take them to the article about the individual or the statue. (this is already done for some of them)
  • Might as well link St Martin's Lane and Drury Lane. And St James's & Hyde parks on first mention. + Queen Caroline, Royal Parks Foundation, Tiffany & Co, Queen Elizabeth II, Greatcoat, Diana, The Long Water, Frock Coat, Dirce etc
  • I'd link Father Thames without a piped link (which I'd prefer was a redlink than the current useless redirect) or just link the Thames part.
  • Sigismund Goetze looks worthy of a redlink.
  • 'The installation of the Canada Memorial in the park in 1994 marked the end of a traditional reluctance by government to site memorials in the Royal Parks' – this can't be true as the SHAEF memorial in Bushy Park had already been erected in March 1994.
  • Round the coordinates to the same number of decimal places throughout?
  • Do we need George Gilbert Scott linked 13 times in a row? Also the frieze table is overlinked.
  • another possibility?
  • I added a photo of Timelines.
  • Allies has a spare #
  • something could be said about the cooling tower it is covered by a number of online sources
  • this ref doesn't work for me. JMiall 00:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

List of ant subfamilies[edit]

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

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

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

While not very obvious, Ward's 2007 article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. From the website of Magnolia Press (mapress.com), the original publisher of Zootaxa: "All open access papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." (see [5]). Now, not all Zootaxa articles are open access (most are not), and the licenses are not mentioned in the PDFs. To confirm that this article is open access, you need to find the article listed on MP's website: search for "Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants" in the list of Hymenoptera-related articles, and you find that it says "open access" in the description.

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

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

Some comments:

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

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

Thank you for your comments and edits, J Milburn. I've made some changes to the list, more to come. WP:INSECTS has already been notified. jonkerztalk 20:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I have updated the article and addressed all comments. jonkerztalk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support
  • This is a very nice list, though I feel like a need a shower after looking at all those ant pictures
    • Thanks :) jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't link either taxa or genera, which is a bit strange since you're willing to link family and order
    • Linked both. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Aneuretinae row of the table, you say there's 8 fossil genera and then state there's 7.
    • Corrected. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Dorylinae row, you put both notes in the fossil genera column, but it seems that both notes are about an extant genera, not a fossil one- though they could be, you never state what the fossil genera is. If either of the notes are about a fossil genera, please state it in the note, and if they're about extant ones, move them to that column
    • The notes are referring the the fossil genera; I've updated the notes to make it clearer. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Formiciinae row: "With queens the size of a rufous hummingbird" - that's... an oddly specific comparison between an extinct ant and a modern bird. Is that the comparison made in the source, or is there some other reason you didn't just say 3 inches long?
    • It is from the source. The comparison makes more sense with this photo, showing a Titanomyrma lubei with rufous hummingbird for scale. Do you think this needs changing? jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I can tell from context that you put a dagger in front of any group that is composed solely of fossil species, but you never actually state that anywhere. You should do so.
    • Added a legend to the top of the list. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the sidebar, you have sources cited for... one subclade and one subfamily. And those sources appear to both be 2 of the 3 listed at the bottom of the box. Why are those special?
    • Removed inline citations to avoid confusion. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a particular reason you've chosen to stick notes on their own line in a cell instead of just leaving them next to the item like references?
    • "note 1" is too long to fit on the same line without messing up the layout. Adding the notes on their own lines makes sure that the number of species is still centered. This is what is looks like with lower case latin letters; maybe it is better? jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Type Genus column isn't sorting correctly- Formicium is getting sorted to the end. Appears you're missing a sort template for that one.
  • Fossil Genera column isn't sorting correctly; same row
  • The publisher for refs 16-18, 24 is AntCat, not "An online catalog of the ants of the world".
  • For ref 26, you don't need to list both work and publisher like that if they're identical and there's not another work by that publisher; in this case just list the publisher as AntWeb and leave out work.
  • Redirecting links are unavoidable for tree of life articles, given the constant merging and splitting of articles, but ones of note that aren't just redirecting to scientific terms or moving up/down the tree- Subfamilies in the lead, Carolus Linnaeus in the table and the history section (but not the refs), and Harvester ants in the table
--PresN 18:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, PresN, much appreciated. I have addressed all comments. jonkerztalk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Switching to support. For the notes, I prefer the 'letter' method, but if you want to leave it as it is that's fine. --PresN 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I've changed the style of the notes to "lower-alpha". jonkerztalk 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article, very nice layout and well referenced. I did not spot any major problems, or any problem infact. It's an article/list worth featuring! Burklemore1 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Hammond organ players[edit]

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

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

Quick comments

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

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

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

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

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

Jimi Hendrix discography[edit]

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

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

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

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Oppose I've only had a brief look over this article, but I can already see just too many manual of style errors for me to support. This was an ambitious article to improve, as there are really no other featured lists that cover a similar subject, and I'm sure that, when it does reach FL status, it will set the precedent for similar lists to follow. But, in its current state, I'm not sure that it is yet at FL standard.

  • The referencing seems quite odd to me. {{Sfn}} is really only needed if you're citing the same source repeatedly, but it seems like most of the sources given in the Sources section are linked to just once in the References section – why not just cite them directly using <ref></ref>?
  • The section headers don't seem as concise as they could be. Wouldn't something like, say, "Baked goods" be just as precise as "Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares"? The parenthetical remarks containing "etc." can probably be omitted, and I think "Fresh meat and offal" would be preferable to "Fresh meat (and offal)".
  • Per MOS:ALLCAPS, the words in all caps should be replaced with either sentence or title case.
  • Per MOS:DTT, each table needs row scopes, column scopes and table captions.
  • Spaced hypens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ).
  • There are colons with either spaces on both sides (i.e. " : "), or no spaces at all. Ideally, you need just one on the right-hand side.
  • The captions for the two images need terminating full stops.
  • Major geographical locations (such as countries) don't need to be wikilinked.
  • Why isn't "Traditionally farmed Gloucestershire Old Spots pork" sorted under T?
  • Similarly, "Anglesey sea salt/Halen Môn" needs to be above "East Kent goldings".
  • What's the difference between "English wine" and "English regional wine"? This wasn't clear to me.
  • "References & sources" -> "References and sources"

I think this article still needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish the participating editors all the best in improving it. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • A Thousand Doors:
    • Referencing: I went with {{Sfn}} so there wasn't a glut of writing in the coding. The names of some of the EC articles are quite long, and the links even longer, so I thought this style be a little easier to edit for future editors.
    • Section headers: They're taken word-for-word from the EC section titles. Would you think it better to explain this in the article, or still cut them down? I understand in their current format, they are a little long winded.
    • Spaced hypens, image captions, alpabetisation, "References & sources", row/col scope, colon spacing, capitalisation, overlinking (hopefully), wine explanation: fixed. Sotakeit (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Nominations for removal[edit]

Eminem discography[edit]

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

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

List of municipalities in Tennessee[edit]

Notified: Orlady, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Tennessee

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

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

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

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

List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

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

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

Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

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

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