Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



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

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

This article lists those who have received the highest grade of one of the orders of knighthood in the UK at a time when Britain was a leading power in the world; the list includes foreign heads of state, notable British soldiers, courtiers and ambassadors, reflecting the diplomatic relations and social structures of the time. Due to the number of people awarded the honour since it was founded in 1896, it seems sensible to split it into appointments by reign, and this is the first, covering the appointments made by Edward VII (reigned 1901–1910). I believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. This article follows the same format as the list of Queen Victoria's appointments which was promoted to FL in October 2014. It is complete and incorporates sorting on the name, country of origin and date of appointment of individuals. Similarly, all items in the list are reliably sourced, as is the lead. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

Kajol filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of the actress, who is known for her melodramatic yet intensive performances. The filmography has been thoroughly researched by me. As usual, looking forward to a lot of constructive comments. FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Julia Roberts filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Julia Roberts is one of the most successful film actresses. Known for her lead role in romantic comedies such as Pretty Woman, My Best Friend's Wedding, and Notting Hill. She is an actress who helped to break the glass ceiling in Hollywood by commanding pay cheques normally reserved for actors. Roberts also won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her role in Erin Brockovich. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Cowlibob (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Oppose per criterion 3(b). The size of the parent article hovers around 4.3k chars Vensatry (ping) 09:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Sword Art Online episodes[edit]

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

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

List of nearest exoplanets[edit]

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

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

  • Huh, the ping didn't actually ever send anything to me. You might try it again for the others. Anyway, I supported last time, so I Support again. Thing I noticed this time:
  • "A total of seven planets has been suggested for Gliese 667 C (but only two have been confirmed)" - the aside sounds better to me without the "but"
  • If this review (hah) is helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology FLC down below. --PresN 20:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Planets d, f, and g for Gliese 581 are not simply unconfirmed, but have been basically disproven at this point, so I would remove them completely. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be fine removing f and g, but if d is indeed retracted, wouldn't e become the new d? Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@StringTheory11, Dudley Miles:

Abhishek Bachchan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Abhishek Bachchan's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. I expect constructive comments from the reviewers. This is my 1st FLC so please don't be too harsh to me. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The filmography's lead is really long. If you compare this to featured filmographies, such as Shah Rukh Khan, Hrithik Roshan, Leonardo DiCaprio, they are way shorter. I think you can reduce it by removing nominations as this is a filmography, not an award page and restrict the awards to the most notable ones, such as Filmfare and National Award. It says "with Kapoor as Naaz". Really? I mean is it that necessary to talk about Kareena's character in the film as if this is the article about the film. Remove some films from the lead and include notable ones. Mention his hits with some flops (notable ones), but not all. Also, there are some strong claims that need reliable sources, such as it says "Guru received extremely positive reviews". By providing two reviews of certain critics do not prove that it received "extremely" positive reviews. Plus, remove some critics' reviews and box-office performance.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, FrB.TG. I will fix the issues by tomorrow. Jim Carter 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: I have shortened the article. It is now 2828 characters (485 words). Comparing to Shah Rukh Khan filmography, Khan is 3672 characters (597 words). I'm also doing some copyediting. Please tell me what you think now? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There are many issues in the refs. and the lead. I suggest to review other filmographies, to withdraw this and open a peer review.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 14:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes remove details about non-notable films like Naach Phie Milenege --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @FrB.TG: It would be better if you point out the issues in the refs and the lead before I consider withdrawing this FL. @Titodutta: I'll remove them. Jim Carter 04:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

I'm not going to sugar coat it, this list requires some serious work.


  • Remove the critic review for Refugee as sole critic reviews are POV. However you can mention that he was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Debut for this role (with a ref). - (Fixed: I haven't added about Filmfare nomination as I couldn't find any good source)
  • We can't use words like "moderate breakthrough" without a source backing it up. Also the poorly received bit needs sources with examples of poorly received films during that period. (Fixed: I have remove "moderate breakthrough". I have added a film with a source)
  • "fully fledged", I think you're trying to say that this film is what finally made him famous but you need a ref for that and need to rephrase it. (Fixed)
  • I would probably not use any reviews in the lead. Just mention awards he won or was nominated for, if you want to elaborate on the recognition he got for those roles. - (Fixed: Removed all the reviews)
  • I personally don't like to mention successes of films in terms of box-office in filmographies unless they are record breakers but if you want to use "commercial success", you have to have refs backing it up like Box Office India refs. Don't use terms like "hit", you can use commercial success. - (Fixed: I have mentioned three films in terms of box-office- Dhoom, Dhoom 2 and Dhoom 3. They all are record breakers of their release year. They are backed up by sources like Box Office India and Rediff. I have removed the word "Hit")
  • In the lead you only need to mention certain films not the majority of them. I don't know this actor well but from a quick look at his filmography, I would mention Refugee, a few of the films that you said were poorly received in 2001-03, Kuch Naa Kaho, LOC Kargil, Run, Yuva, Dhoom, Phir Milenge, Bunty aur Babli, Sarkar, Dus, Bluffmaster!, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, Umrao Jaan, Dhoom 2, Guru, Sarkar Raj, Drona, Dostana, Delhi-6, Paa, Raavan, Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey, Bol Bachchan, Dhoom 3, and Happy New Year. I've probably missed a few. - (Fixed: I have mentioned one film that was poorly received in 2001-03. I have kept only those films in the lead which you mentioned. I haven't removed Zameen (although you haven't mentioned) because it a important one.)


  • Remove the credited as column, nearly all his roles have been acting roles so no need for this column. Any films he produced, you can add producer in the notes section - (Fixed)
  • Remove note a, you've mentioned it in the lead so no need to repeat it in the table. - (Fixed)
  • Remove note b and simply add Bengali film to the notes section of the films
  • As the director column sortable all entries should be wikilinked.


  • Do a thorough check of the refs to make sure that they are RS. Ones that jump out at me are: dnnworld, glamsham, naachgaana, tellychakkar, bollyspice. Basically if there isn't a independent article on wiki about it, it's probably not a RS. Also that the refs back up the info in the table e.g. year of release, his appearance in the film, his role in the film, that he produced it, director, any appearances in songs. - (Fixed: I hope, I have fixed the issues. Note: I have not removed tellychakkar as it doesn't appear unreliable to me.)
  • They should also use the correct format for refs. For newspapers/ magazine sources they should be cited like this (examples): <ref>{{cite news|url=|title=I hate producing films: Abhishek Bachchan|work=The Indian Express|publisher=Indian Express Group|date=18 October 2014|accessdate=24 January 2015}}</ref>

For others: <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Bollywood's Top-Earning Celebrities|publisher=CNBC|date=|accessdate=25 January 2015}}</ref> - (Fixed)

  • Only use enough refs required to back up the info. I see there are five refs for Bol Bachchan which is probably too much. - (Fixed)

Cowlibob (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: I have fixed the issues you noted. Please take a look. The only thing I was unable to fix is I can't wikilink all entries in the director column as many of the directors don't have their articles and as the Featured list criteria says, "minimal proportion of items are redlinked.". Thank you. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: Please note that it's not appropriate to "cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors".--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Fixed Please review again. Jim Carter 09:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nashville Xpress all-time roster[edit]

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

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

List of World Series Cricket international centuries[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This list broadly follows the format laid out in List of Cricket World Cup centuries. I have omitted a number of the statistics columns as in many of these matches full statistics were not available, so it would be make a poor comparison. As always, all thoughts welcome! Harrias talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments - Being the uncultured American I am ;), this list is mostly Greek to me. However, I'll see if I can be of any help.

  • As far as I can tell, the term "century" is neither defined nor linked to anywhere in the article.
    • Oops! Added both a link and a definition on the first usage.
  • Are "WSC Australia" and "WSC West Indies" in rows 1 and 6 meant to have "XI" at the end. If not, are they teams that were not mentioned in the lead?
    • Just an idiot mistake. Sorted.
  • In several places on the table and one place in the last paragraph of the lead, the later (larger numbered) reference comes before the one with the smallest number. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but my personal preference is to never have this happen, since it looks a little less professional. Just my 2¢.
    • Should all be in order now.
  • Just as a note, all references appear to be proper and reliable. No dead links.

I'm really not a good judge of prose, so I'll leave that to others. This appears to be a well-composed list. Once those few points above are corrected, I'll be ready to support. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all of your points. Harrias talk 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. Now that my points have been addressed, I can't find anything wrong with this. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall it's a good list, but I am not sure that every reader understands what "Ref" is. I suggest to use {{Abbreviations}} to clarify it and the refs. are not in proper order. Consider using proper order, such as [8][3] should be [3][8] and so on.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As per above, I've fixed the ordering of the references I think, and added {{Abbr}} for clarification. Thanks! Harrias talk 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Support — Good one.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – All my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. Vensatry (ping) 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

List of works by Georgette Heyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is close to meeting the FL criteria. This list details the works by the British author Georgette Heyer (an article which is already a FA). I feel this list would complement the main article nicely.

Thanks in advance to all reviewers! I will work on reviewing some other nominations on this page promptly. Ruby 2010/2013 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Adding a quick note that I am unsure if the main image is permitted or not. If it is, I know that I will likely need to update the image page to reflect this new usage, but think that I will need a little guidance in what to do first. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

This is very much out of my usual scope but I couldn't resist as she sounds so interesting.

  • I don't think the image would be permitted as fair use but Crisco 1492 could clarify that.
  • Yes, I would be very interested in hearing Crisco's opinion! Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Heyer married later that year; she would later travel with her husband, a mining engineer, to Africa and Eastern Europe, experiencing new cultures that influenced her stories". How about. --> "Heyer married later that year. Her travels with her husband, a mining engineer, to Africa and Eastern Europe enabled her to experience new cultures which would subsequently influence her stories."
  • I like your wording. Now added. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1922, her first short story"
  • Now added.
  • "A prolific novelist, beginning in 1932 Heyer typically released one romance and one thriller each year." There's some punctuation missing I think.
  • Added another comma. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Today....." This needs to be reworded maybe "Posthumously...". I try to ensure that statements are credible forever or if not have a time marker on them however unlikely that the opinion will change.
  • Eh, I see what you mean about standing the test of time. But I seriously doubt that Heyer's popularity will change -- her Regency novels are her claim to fame, so much so that her other efforts receive relatively little attention in scholarly works. I did try changing the wording a little anyway, but nothing else seemed to be working so I went back to the original language. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tables need to be sorted so that titles are not sorted by "the" or "a"
  • I don't think format column is needed for any (barring one) of the tables as all of the entries are of one type (except for the short stories) which is already highlighted in the subheading.
  • I've removed the "format" column from all but the short story table. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • List also has a duplicate arguments category indicating one or more of the refs have a repeated parameter to fix e.g. publisher=|publisher=
  • I see the hidden category too but cannot identify what is triggering it. Do you know of a script that would help me find it? Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Cowlibob (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for reviewing! Let me know if there is anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset has made some very valid points below so I'll await your reply to them, before I make my opinion felt. The duplicate argument error though has been fixed kindly by Frietjes. Also, here's the script she used for future use: Cowlibob (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by BlueMoonset[edit]

I'm acquainted with Heyer's work. I'm glad to see this list, but it still needs a fair amount of work before I can support it for Featured List status.

  • The combination of Georgian and Regency strikes me as artificial and somewhat misleading. The Georgians tailed off shortly after the Regencies began, and I frankly think that, since she is best known for her Regency novels, these two should be separate categories.
  • There is talk about the 1920s and 1930s, but nothing to characterize the subsequent decades. That's a serious omission.
  • "A prolific novelist, beginning in 1932 Heyer typically released one romance and one thriller each year." This makes it sound like she continued this forever, when it was for only eight years. World War II started, she missed a year, did two more, and then nothing for almost a decade until her final two in the early 1950s. She wrote for nearly two decades after those final two mysteries. Also, "thriller" and "detective fiction" are rather different genres; the article needs to be consistent about this.
  • The Short Story table uses three different formats for the titles; quoted roman is the standard for short stories. If The Bulldog and the Beast should indeed be in italics, then it's not a short story, but a longer length.
  • I'd like to suggest that her second Georgian, The Transformation of Philip Jettan, be made to break between the two titles so the table isn't so impossibly wide.
  • "As one of the pioneers of the Regency genre": this is a problematic sentence, because it implies that there were others, and the Regency period novel in the comedy of manners form was her creation alone.

BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (and 04:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

  • Definitely some great suggestions! I completely agree about better articulating the timeline of her novels, and will get to addressing this and your other comments soon. ("Bulldog and the Beast" should not be in italics -- I think I accidentally introduced them when adding a new sort template the other day). Will report back here once I've worked on enacting your suggestions. Ruby 2010/2013 02:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Preity Zinta filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here it is, a filmography about an Indian actress, Preity Zinta. With unusual roles in several blockbuster hits, Zinta has proved herself one of the finest actresses, but sadly she is not seen these days in the male-dominated industry (Bollywood). The filmography is well sourced and researched. All types of helpful comments are welcomed.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think it looks good now! Support AB01 I'M A POTATO 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • "National Award-winning dramedy Dil Chahta Hai". "National Award winning" is WP:UNDUE
  • "The film is believed to be the most expensive Bollywood film of its time". "Believed to be" is not encyclopedic. It either is one of the most expensive films or not. I would suggest saying "it was the most expensive Bollywood film to that point".
  • Instead of saying she achieved "commercial" success, just say she achieved success.
  • "performed phenomenally well outside India". Phenomenally is undue again. Just performed well should suffice.
  • I get a little offended by a phrase like "working woman". No one says "he played a working man" in a film. Please mention her profession.
  • Bhaiyaji Superhit did not release in 2014. Since the status of it is unknown, say TBA in the year column.
  • In her television appearance, the channel in which the show originally aired is enough. So for "Up Close & Personal with PZ" just mention UTV Stars. Also, having a "role" column in this section will be good. -- KRIMUK90  05:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, Krimuk90. They have been resolved, I think.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 10:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: Good job! I have made some additional copy-edits for a better flow, but this is a job very well done.-- KRIMUK90  10:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

I'll try to do a ref check tomorrow. Standard rules, ensure that the refs support the table: appearance in film, awards, role, director etc. Also check the lead for the same. Critical acclaim should be supported by refs which offer a summary of critics views on a film not just one or two as that could be a POV issue. Cowlibob (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead refs

  • Ref 1 doesn't confirm that Dil Se was her debut film. Also doesn't support the "romantic interest bit" (I would probably remove this being conscious of gender bias, we would never put in an article on a male actor he only played a romantic interest for the actress.)
  • Added a ref. and reworded the latter.
  • I would probably separate out the roles ref into different refs as the info is found in different parts of the gallery.
  • That sounds good but this one is not in bad shape either and several filmographies use the same format.
  • Refs don't support the critical acclaim for Kya Kehna, maybe you could reword this to say her performance got her first nomination at Filmfare (with ref of course)
  • I have removed the sentence and I do not think I should add about her nomination as we do not talk about nominations in this page, only awards.
  • Not sure I'd use the term "financially successful" especially as the box office india source says Har Dil only did average business.
  • Done.
  • We can do better than ref 10 for DCH being a defining film.
  • Done.
  • Odd phrasing "achieved success"
  • Reworded.
  • I don't think I'd mention that Lakshya received positive reviews but was a poor performer at box office (seems more like something for the film article).
  • Reworded. A reliable source added which supports the claim.
  • Daily Mail is not a RS.
  • Daily Mail is one of the biggest-selling daily newspaper of UK. Per this source.
Selling a lot does not equal reliability. The Daily Mail has a reputation of poor journalistic practices. It's in fact used as an example of a mainstream media source which is unreliable. [[1]] Cowlibob (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed that source and it anyway makes no difference as the sentence is already verified by RS.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Television section looks good.

Cowlibob (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Table check

  • Ref 31 only supports name as "Preity" not "Preeti Singh"
  • AGF on 32 supporting her role and her starring in the Telugu films. Shouldn't really use Amazon as a ref. as it's last resort if nothing else is available.
  • Ref 36 doesn't support name of role or that it was a guest appearance.
  • Ref 37 doesn't support full name but this book one does: [[2]]
  • Ref 13 doesn't support "Sonia Kapoor" just the Sonia bit, and also doesn't support that Honey Irani directed it.
  • Ref 51 doesn't support full name of "Romila Dutta"
  • Ref 53 doesn't support full name of "Zaara Haayat Khan"
  • Ref 60 doesn't support full name of "Rhea Saran"
  • Ref 62 doesn't support full name of "Piya Goyal"
  • Ref 63 doesn't support name of "Alvira Khan"
  • Ref 71 doesn't support name of character
  • Need better source for Har Pal being delayed. If someone looked at just the BH source they'd assume it released in 2010.

Cowlibob (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

List of South Africa Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 07:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied the list up a bit. Look forward to your comments Vensatry (ping) 07:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Vensatry. Looks in great shape and as the same standard of the Pakistan article. I'll look for any obvious problems and fix them as needed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The lead states "The five-wicket hauls have come against six different opponents, more frequently against England: 14 times." That's unsourced and the Pakistan article lists the number of times against the other teams too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Added a ref. Since the SAF list is more than double the size of Pakistan, we need not list the frequency against every single opponent. Vensatry (ping) 08:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


  • "with 22 of them being South African cricketers." no need to repeat "cricketers".
  • "more frequently against " you mean "more against England than any other nation" - the frequency isn't the issue here, the sheer number is.
  • " 10 different venues, with six " would opt for ten rather than 10.
  • "Out of the 22 occasions, 12 have resulted in losses, six in victories and the rest were drawn" rephrase, something like, "Of the twenty-two matches where a South African has taken a five-wicket haul, twelve have ended in defeat, six in victory and the other four in a draw". Or something.
  • "The match happened to be his" happened to be -> was.
  • "As of January 2015, Sydney Burke and Alf Hall are the only South African debutants to collect ten or more wickets in a match.[10" this is interesting but it's jarring where it's placed, considering you're talking fivers before and after this single sentence....
  • "is the latest cricketer" -> "is the most recent South African..."
  • Link "figures" or "bowling figures" the first time.
  • "Vernon Philander has conceded the least number of runs while taking a fifer" -> "Vernon Philander has conceded the fewest runs while taking a fifer."
  • Is this Test debut or International debut? Are ODIs counted here? It's not clear from the title but I'm guessing it's just Test cricket, probably need to clarify that.

That's about it on a quick blast through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Isn't it clear from the title when it reads "List of South Africa Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut"? Besides, there are only a handful of players who have taken a fifer on ODI debut. Donald is the only SAF cricketer among that. Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, I can see where my possible confusion came from. Perhaps it's "South Africa cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut"? After all, a Test cricketer could debut in other forms of the game.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Vidya Balan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90  09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

After successfully taking Vidya Balan's biography and awards page to featured status, I am nominating a fully-sourced and well-written listing of Vidya's film, television and music video appearances. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90  09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Krimuk, please reduce the number of awards mentioned in the filmography as she has won so many awards. She has won Best Actress (Filmfare) awards thrice. You could add the awards just in one line instead of mentioning them in each sentence.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to know which films she won the Filmfare Awards for.
Indeed it is but you could add something like "she won the Filmfare Awards for Best Actress for Paa, The Dirty Picture, and Kahaani" instead of mentioning them in each sentence of the films. This is just to avoid repetition as most of the sentences start with something like "for her performance in XYZ, she won an award of ABC".--FrankBoy (Buzz) 16:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, changed. -- KRIMUK90  01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, the third line of third para is really long. Consider splitting the sentence.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I've split the long sentence. -- KRIMUK90  14:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments FrB.TG! -- KRIMUK90  01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see the featured star on the top of the list. I support for this one and thanks a ton for yours on mine.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90  14:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support All sorted. Well done! I don't know if 2 lists + a FA count as a FT but a great effort on these articles nonetheless. Cowlibob (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough review Cowlibob. Much appreciated. :) And yes, I will be taking her to FT next. -- KRIMUK90  11:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ooh wow! In fact I was gonna suggest you the same, Krimuk! Anyway all the best for your filmography and featured topic :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Amazing list by Krimuk90. You must complete your "Vidya Balan" trilogy on Wikipedia.—Prashant 21:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Prashant. -- KRIMUK90  01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Universal Studios Orlando Attractions[edit]

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

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


  • No DAB links, no dead links
  • Files check out in terms of copyright
  • Is there a reason "Attractions" is capitalized in the title?
That's a mistake on my part. Fixed now.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Refs" column should not be sortable
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Link "dark ride" and "4D" consistantly throughout the "Type/Model" section; the "Type/Model" section should not use a slash per MOS:SLASH.
Don't you think that's overkill of linking?--Dom497 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No. If I sort by "Park", neither the first 4D ride I reach nor the first dark ride I reach are linked. Link throughout the table. Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Use ndashs, not hyphens, where appropriate in the "Ride" and "Location" sections
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The height requirement really should have a conversion to cm
This wasn't an issue in two other FL's I have: List of Canada's Wonderland attractions and List of Kings Island attractions.--Dom497 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Add the metric conversion. Use Template:Ntsc to retain sortability. Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Eventually, Universal filled a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws, a heavily themed attraction that was based off the film awkward wording; do we need "heavily themed" here?
I reworded it. Better?
I replaced it with "largest". Is that better?--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
How do you define "largest"? By size, income, visitors, what? Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Tried again. Better?--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, "most major additions" is vague and tell me anything; you can't substitute an adjective and fix the problem. How do you define "major"? By income, size, how? Seattle (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Seattle: 3rd time the charm?--Dom497 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The table doesn't display the scope row tags properly; change the "|" to a "!" before the "scope="row"" tag
Doesn't work (see the article revision history).--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It absolutely does. Now, finish the table, and add a plainrowheaders to the table's "class". Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but can you please explain what the purpose of the exclamation mark is? Based off your demonstration it appears to create "row headers" which I don't see a purpose for in this type of table. (I'm not super familiar with how tables work...I just use a general template) --Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. Scope row tags are used to "help screen readers render header information about data cells", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Overview of basics. Seattle (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the references, New York Times should be The New York Times: the article is in its title
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ensure all newspapers' titles are italicized
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference 5 (Strother, Susan) was archived on October 17, not October 16
Sorry, in my time zone it was still the 16th!--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Same with reference 3 (Oliver, Mike), though Strother, Susan is also listed as an author in the reference. Make sure all archived links reflect the appropriate date of archival
Same as above!--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Use ndashes where appropriate in the references. Seattle (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Seattle: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC) @Seattle: I have addressed your further comments.--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

List of New York Islanders draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Gloss 03:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Back here with another New York Islanders list. With the seasons, head coaches, award winners, and players lists out of the way, it was time for another. The statistics have all been double checked, and information is all sourced, and I believe it's all well and good according to our FL criteria! Concerns and comments of any kind are welcomed. Gloss 03:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

All that said, I'm tempted to oppose the list based on the 7–4 drubbing my Flyers received yesterday... Harrias talk 23:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Harrias: Haha! It was a great game, what are you talking about? :) Thanks for the review! Gloss 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, nice work! (I'm hoping for a better result tonight against the Pens, but the season is a bust anyway. Still, it doesn't even start until 00:30 over here, it better be good.) Harrias talk 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you again! And I'm pulling for you guys tonight too, keep those Pens off our backs!! Gloss 00:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Savilian Professor of Astronomy[edit]

Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A companion piece to Savilian Professor of Geometry, another list of Oxford University academics, which I took through FLC in 2010. I rewrote this in 2012, but never got round to nominating it - I think I just forgot. Anyway, I've rediscovered it, repaired a couple of deadlinks and I think it's good to go. No doubt you will tell me what I've missed, but I hope you enjoy reading about what Christopher Wren did when he wasn't rebuilding St Paul's Cathedral! BencherliteTalk 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


  • You link Warden and Provost in the main body but not in the lead, seems anomolous to me.
  • "as the first professor, and Bainbridge took " why not "as the first professor who took..."
  • Joseph Silk is (a) overlinked in the lead and (b) over-named in the lead - surname only after first mention.
  • " "the wretched state of mathematical studies in England",[2]" don't we nomally attribute these sorts of quotes?
    • Not only done, but written Ida Busbridge to provide a link to the person who said this. How's that for service? BencherliteTalk 00:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "of reforms of the university" just a question really, were they reforms "of" or "to" the university?
    • "Reforms of" is best, I think. BencherliteTalk 08:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You link the Observer and the Observatory to the same page, I would "hash link" the former to the section which describes the position of Observer.
  • University Parks is pipelinked to Oxford University Parks which redirects back to University Parks. Unnecessary.
  • Minor, but instead of "not carry on his" why not "not continue his"?
  • "and John Flamsteed (Astronomer Royal) " I'd ditch the parentheses, and add "the" here, it's a reasonable inclusion to the sentence.
  • Link all colleges in "College as professor" column as it's a sortable table.
    • The only ones that are unlinked in that column are linked immediately to their left - I don't repeat the link in the same row
  • The Queen's College vs Queen's College, be consistent.
  • Blackwell is missing a University of Cambridge.
  • It appears that you may be using MIT without explaining it....
  • "Ecole Normale Supérieure " is one accent down on the deal.

That's it for a quick once-over. Hope it helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it does. All done save where noted. BencherliteTalk 08:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Just one comment from me: in Bradley there is a "discoveration of nutation". Would discovery be better? Superb otherwise! – SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Good spot! Non-word changed to something in the English dictionary... Thanks, BencherliteTalk 13:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Vikram filmography[edit]

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

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

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

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

Some new comments based on your new edits:

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

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

  • Any reason to 'justify' the text?I ask because I have not seen this done in any article, correct me if I am wrong.
I don't get you here. Can you clarify what you were asking? And, is it still a concern or has it been solved?
There is a "div align="justify"" field in the lead. I wonder why.
Well, I just found it better looking with aligning the text. While I do agree that most other articles does not use it, I didn't find any policy prohibiting text alignment.
@Krimuk90:No existing policy discourages aligning texts. -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll let an administrator decide this, as I am not qualified to make a decision. I am taking the liberty to ping SchroCat to ask if this is okay. -- KRIMUK90  02:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In " he has co-produced and co-directed one each of his films" I'm not sure what "one each of his films" mean?
Removed the statement.
  • "Following a brief stint in modelling, where he appeared in television commercials and a short film solely to get noticed,.." I can find atleast three things wrong with this sentence. Firstly, in "where he appeared", what does "where" signify? Secondly, in "..and a short film" the "and" would signify continuation of the previous statement, but I see no link between the two. Thirdly, I don't understand what "..solely to get noticed" means, and I really don't see the relevance of it.
Rephrased for clarity. Btw, "..solely to get noticed" means he got into modelling not because he was interested in it. He wasn't comfortable meeting directors and producers with his portfolio and asking for film chances. He believed that appearing in commercials would get him noticed and he would be called for a role.
  • "Vikram began his acting career.." His acting career began when he appeared in the short film. This would make it his television debut.
  • "largely unnoticed". What was unnoticed, the series or his role in it?
  • "His early film career was marked by a series of flops, which earned him the label of a "jinxed star". Following consecutive box-office failures in Tamil," So his first few roles were in Tamil films? Then you can merge these two sentences.
Done. Combined both sentences.
  • "..under established actors in Malayalam cinema in several ensemble films" - "several ensemble films" is redundant here.
Rephrased. Is it still redundant?
  • "During its making, he survived for months on a diet consisting only of fruit juices and lost 21 kilograms in 20 days to convincingly portray an emaciated mental asylum inmate." Highly unnecessarily in a filmography page. This information is relevant only in his biography.
Agreed. removed.
  • "fetched" is not a very formal term. Please change it to something more encyclopedic.
  • "..or which he sunbathed on his terrace for a sunburnt look and got dizzying headaches while practising to look blind" Again, not relevant here.
Again, agreed, removed.
  • "won him his maiden Best Actor award". Just say his first.
Okay. Done.
  • "..earned him a matinee idol status" That's not very encyclopedic either.
Rewritten more formally.
changed "with" → "from".
  • "..had to emote through body language." Isn't that obvious when he has no dialogues?
Removed statement.
  • "The film, which was labelled by a critic for The Hindu as "a symphony on celluloid"" Unnecessarily in his filmography.
  • "coveted" National Award. No, we don't use such words.
Sure, we don't.
  • "slew". Not a formal word.
  • "who moonlights as a Robin Hood in the guise of an anthropomorphic rooster". I don't understand what this means.
Clarified with better phrasing.
  • "He found his lone box office success..." Lone success during this period, I presume, since he did star in successful films earlier.
Have mentioned so.
  • "While the former was a commercial and critical success, earning Vikram his fourth Filmfare award, the latter received mostly negative reviews and failed at the box office." No citation.
Yet to be addressed.
  • "a loose adaptation of I Am Sam (2001)". What's a loose adaptation?
Means that I'm a loose! Face-smile.svg Just kidding!! Fixed.
  • "aspiring screen villain". So he was an aspiring actor who wanted to play a villain in the film?
Yes. That's right.
  • General note, claims of "critical acclaim" needs to have citations that say his performance was acclaimed by a large number of critics, and not just by one critic.
Added more references for such claims.
Done. Pls. strike out if convinced. -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the tables, names should be sorted last-name first.
Added sortname templates where applicable.
  • Are all his television commercials mentioned? Also, what does "2010-11" in the year column mean? Surely, the commercial released in one particular year.
No. He appeared in a lot of commercials before entering films, but sources merely mentions them. An editor pointed out that only notable commercials needs to be listed. Hence, those that are mentioned have articles discussing the commercials.
So, can this be considered resolved? -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I know how difficult it is to find reliable sources for commercials. But I guess this works on either all or neither. I'm not sure who decides on which commercial is notable and which one is not. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Since there is a separate awards and nominations page, I would suggest restricting his awards in the "notes" column to the most notable ones, which would be the National and Filmfare Awards, though some editors would suggest removing them altogether.
Removed other awards except National, Filmfare and State Film awards. I believe awards from the state government are equally honourable as National awards; hence retained them.
  • What makes "" notable enough to be included as an external link?
The wikipedia article itself stands testimony to its notability. Moreover, one of its founders, Karan Bali, have made a film An American in Madras on the American-born Tamil director Ellis R. Dungan, proving that its more than just an entertainment portal.
So, can this be considered resolved? -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't I yet to release too?
I released on 14th Jan.
The prose requires quite a bit of fine-tuning before this is ready to pass. I am not going to oppose this just yet, and see if it improves. Good luck!-- KRIMUK90  02:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Some additional comments wrt the new version:

  • I don't think the missing the National Award by a narrow margin is notable here.
Have removed it.
  • replace "string of" to "series of" or "number of"
Done replacing.
  • "warmly received from critics" ==> "generated positive reviews"
Well, I actually lifted the phrasing from Jake Gyllenhaal's filmography. Written as "attracted positive reviews".
  • "career slump" ==> "professional setback"
  • "a spate of " ==> "series of" or "number of"
written as "a succession of".
  • "he appeared as a costumed superhero with a CBI officer as his civilian identity". The "with" is misleading here.
Rephrased it. Is that better?
  • "Vikram found his sole box-office success of that period" ==> "Vikram's sole box-office success during the period was.."
Rewrote as suggested.
  • ".. joining the company Reel Life Entertainment as one of its directors". Confusing. He turned into film production by joining as a director?
Yes. He joined the film production company as one of its directors— not a film director but a company's director, like a managing director or something.
I think it is much clearer now. I have got the lede copyedited by a member of GOCE.
  • Citation needed for " While the former, a box-office debacle, earned Vikram mixed reviews, his performance in the latter earned him rave reviews and his third Filmfare award."
Well, for the time being, lets forget about citations. Coz, I have been making multiple drafts for the lead which results in newer claims being mentioned and older claims being removed. It isn't easy for me to update the refs every time. Once we settle with the contents of the prose, I will do a source check and update it. If there are any unreferenced claims in the lead, they can be removed later. But, the problem exists only in the lede. All claims in the article body have been adequately sourced.
I'm sorry but that's not how the FAC works. I'm not going to keep checking the list periodically to ensure all the claims have been properly cited. You should have ensured all your claims are well-cited before you nominated it here. You cannot say that you'll look into them after resolving the comments. Remember, the FAC is not a peer-review. -- KRIMUK90  07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The source you provided does not match your version. The source says, "His roles in Mani Ratnam’s Raavan in Hindi and Raavanan in Tamil were also well received by audiences", while you say that Raavanan garnered him mixed reviews. -- KRIMUK90  15:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Rephrased the sentence and added appropriate citations to substantiate the claims.
So, can this be considered resolved? -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "collected the Critics Choice award at the Filmfare". Replace the word "collected" with something better, and simply say "at Filmfare" or "at the Filmfare Awards ceremony".
  • ".. in addition to receiving multiple awards and nominations". at which ceremony? Say "other" ceremonies for clarity. Also, it needs a source.
Coming soon!
  • "Vikram's part, which co-stars Tabu and Isha Sharvani, was dubbed into Tamil and released as a two-story film". Not sure I understand this. So there was a third version of David?
It was an anthology film set across three time frames and centering on three protagonists, all named David. The hindi version had a wannabe rockstar, a drunkard fisherman and a scheming gangster. But, it was also released in Tamil with only two protagonist: the rockstar and the fisherman. While the former part was remade in Tamil with changes in the cast, the fisherman's part featuring Vikram was dubbed into Tamil.
I think it is much clearer now.
Sorry, but it's still confusing: "When released in Tamil as a two-story film, Vikram's part co-starring Tabu and Isha Sharvani was dubbed into Tamil, while the other narrative was remade". When released in Tamil his part was dubbed into Tamil doesn't make much sense to me. -- KRIMUK90  15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I have made it simpler, eliminating the details regarding the two-versions since they are clearly stated in his biography.
  • This was mentioned in the list of comments above, and not done: "In the tables, names should be sorted last-name first." -- KRIMUK90  02:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the playback singing section, why are two titles mentioned in one row? For example, why are "Kanthaswamy" and "Mallana" mentioned together? I don't understand the language, so am I missing something?-- KRIMUK90  15:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, he also songs the songs for the Telugu-dubbed version. Have tweaked the table now. Pls. check.
  • I presume " "cardboard" characterisation for the Raavan character is from a review. If most reviews have crititised his characterisation, I would suggest simply saying poor characterisation.
  • "Shankar's romantic-thriller I (2015) featured Vikram as an aspiring bodybuilder-turned-supermodel, who is reduced to a deformed hunchback when his career success earns the wrath of a few people. His portrayal and the physical transformation he went through to portray the different stages of his character received unanimous acclaim". Too much detail on one film. It's alright in his biography, but in his filmography it's a bit too detailed.
Made it much brief.
That introduced a new set of errors. I'll try fixing it myself.
  • I see the sortname has only been partially done. I thought we decided on sorting the names last name first, where appropriate. This has not been done.
I can only use sortname for people with second name/family names. Can't use them indiscriminately for everything. For ex: In SRK graph, Hema Malini has been sorted with 'Malini' as the second name. However, according to her biography, her second name is Chakravarty while 'Hema Malini' is her full name. I don't buy this. So, I'm not gonna add sortname unless warranted.
For Bejoy Nambiar, isn't Nambiar his last name? -- KRIMUK90  15:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
While it is possible, can't say that for sure. -- Sriram speak up 16:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Raavan "was a box-office debacle" claim is still unsourced.
Removed claim. Found it unnecessary.
  • "For claims like "Released in Hindi as ...", I presume the films were dubbed, so it's better to say "Dubbed into Hindi as..." etc.-- KRIMUK90  04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the references, the authors need to be written last name first, eg. Bhattacharya, Roshmilla.
Is that even necessary for India-related articles? -- Sriram speak up 16:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be?
  • The reference formatting for CNN-IBN is not consistent. -- KRIMUK90  15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
CNN-IBN should not be in italics. -- KRIMUK90  02:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Editor 2050[edit]

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

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

Comments from Vensatry[edit]

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

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

Comments from Prashant![edit]

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

Comments from Skr15081997[edit]

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

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

Link directors at every occurrence in the lists.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

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

Timeline of the 2013 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

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

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

Older nominations[edit]

World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another scifi/fantasy award list, FLC #31/? in the series, and #5/10 for the World Fantasy Awards. Following up the last FLC for Collections, here's the World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology. It's been given since 1988 for the best anthology of works by multiple authors, ever since it was split off of the Collection award for overwhelming the category. The list looks... well, pretty much identical to the other WFA lists and the other sff awards lists I've done, just with different information in the table. Comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The list looks fine, but the topic seems a bit obscure/niche. Hopefully these comments would improve such issues. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I've heard of both Nebula and Hugo awards, but never of WFA. Are they really on par with the other two as the intro seems to suggest? If yes, have any of these current winners received a nod from the other two?
  • wikilink anthology since it is not a very common term
  • is it possible to have a list of actual authors? I feel like publishers and authors are like producers and directors for movies, where the directors do most of the work
  • there are many redlinks. you think redirecting them to the main editors would be appropriate?
  • what do the winners get other than bragging rights?
  • who is the organizer of WFC? or in other words, who is behind the reputation of these awards?
  • in this particular case it might make sense to list the 5 judges also
  • not sure why you don't use rowspan=2 for novel and publisher entries with double editors, and =x for the year column

Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset and List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset this is the next in the series (the fourth of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available. — Rod talk 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks removed.— Rod talk 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Too many 'severals' in the lead.
  • Several 'severals' removed or replaced.
  • " Worlebury Camp which was probably built by either the Goidel or Brython people.[3] The Belgae people subsequently overthrew the initial inhabitants and occupied the camp for a time, but they were finally defeated at the hands of the Romans." The comments and sources are far too dated to be reliable. There are more up to date sources in the wiki article on the camp and at pastscape.
  • I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. How old would you say are inherently too "outdated" to be reliable. Just because a report is from 2007 or a website last updated 2010 doesn't to my mind make them unreliable. Are you saying new information has emerged since then, changing our understanding of the site?— Rod talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Your citations are dated 1919 and 1921 and the details sound to me like unreliable guesswork. E.g. Goidel or Brython people means Q (Irish) or P (British) Gaelic speakers, which does not make sense in this context, and it is unlikely that modern archaeologists would think that we could know that Belgae displaced earlier inhabitants.
  • It has just clicked with me that you are looking at the references used in the lead (3 & 4) I was looking at the references used to support the entry for Worlebury Camp (92-95). Give me a few hours to check which source says what and I will revise the lead.— Rod talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Aveline's Hole. The human bone fragments it contained, from about 21 different individuals". Barry Cunliffe says more than 50 individuals. Also you say Palaeolithic, but it is Mesolithic. I can amend if you wish.
  • Happy for you to change it or give the Cunliffe ref so I can do it here & on the article.— Rod talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing this one.— Rod talk 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The box and ball at the top of the shaft was added in 1877." Shouldn't this be "were added" or are the box and ball one thing?
  • They tend to be added as a single decorative feature, but I'm happy to be guided on this.— Rod talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I leave this to you.
  • "Deserted medieval farmstead, Banwell|Deserted medieval farmstead 420 m south of Gout House Farm" Repetition.
  • My oops - now fixed.— Rod talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The hillfort was refortified around 400" I would add CE (or AD).
  • Added AD (was actually between 430 and 480 AD).— Rod talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks - always useful comments.— Rod talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "occupation extended into the sub-Roman period, from which much imported pottery has been recovered." No change needed, but there were imports from the eastern Mediterranean including Byzantium at this time, and it would be interesting if this is true at Cadbury.
  • The best on this seems to be The pastscape entry which has " finds of pottery imported from the Mediterranean.".— Rod talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is known to have been occupied between 1290 and 1332." I would prefer is recorded in 1290 and 1332, as in EH. Known as occupied between implies a very short occupation, which may be wrong.
  • Done.— Rod talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Coins and pottery from 250 to 360". I think it is always better to say CE or AD with early dates like that.
  • Fair point - Done.— Rod talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Motte-and-bailey castle 650 m NNW of Sandpoint Farm". You date this 11C, which is likely, but I cannot see it in the source.
  • I have changed it to Middle Ages and added a ref (Gatehouse). The source previously used says "monuments of the early post-Conquest period" and "built and occupied from the 11th to the 13th centuries" bit these are general comments rather than specific to this site.— Rod talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "which was occupied from the middle of the 1st century until at least the fifth century, demonstrated by the coins of Theodosius, Magnus Maximus and Arcadius". This is not quite right. EH says abandoned c.380 and then some buildings re-occupied (presumably by squatters) c. 400.
  • I will take another look.— Rod talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You seem to have missed this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry I meant to go back to that and obviously forgot. Now revised - could you take another look at check it properly represents the Pastscape source?— Rod talk 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a difficult one. Pastcape says it was a defended villa estate, the list entry that the view that it was a villa is out of date. As Pastscape is dated 2007 and the list entry cites a 2014 source I think it might be best to ignore Pastscape. I suggest something like "This was an Iron Age settlement Romanised in the late first century. It grew to become a commercial agricultural centre which was abandoned by about 200 AD. Around 300 AD a defensive wall was constructed up to 5 metres thick enclosing an area of about 7 hectares. Remains include both a mosaic pavement and evidence of industrial activities, and coins shows that the site was occupied throughout the Roman period. The site may have been finally abandoned during an outbreak of bubonic plague in the middle of the sixth century." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have now gone with your suggestion - I'm just slightly nervous about whether "Romanised" should be capitalised or not.— Rod talk 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wondered about that. Still in my experience some expert will come along and sort it out! (In general in my opionion on Wikipedia there is far too much lower casing of expressions which ought to be capitalised, but life is too short to argue about issues like that.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "in 1968 the priory and adjoining land of Middle Hope was purchased by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty" It seems a bit over the top to give the full name of the NT, especially as it only owned the site for a year.
  • Drive-by comment I see that this is indicative of all lists of this type, but why is "scheduled monument" written in title case at some points, but in sentence case at others? Is it a proper noun or not? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. The vast majority (all but one on that list use upper case for Scheduled Monument) and I hope I have been consistent with all the Somerset ones (see Scheduled Monuments in Somerset). I think there historical variations linked to both articles Scheduled monument and Ancient monument. The law in the UK Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 specifies the legal basis, whether this makes it a proper noun I am unsure.— Rod talk 17:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think it does. As I've said on my talk page, the text of the 1979 Act refers to the uncapitalised "ancient monument" and "scheduled monument". Eric Corbett 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks I can move the Somerset articles (leaving a redirect from the capitalised titles) unless there is a more elegant (? bot) way of doing this? If I move this North Somerset one while an FLC is in progress will this break templates or similar?— Rod talk 19:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we generally end up moving articles ourselves rather than relying on Bots, particularly as we need to avoid double redirects etc. Happy to help if you can provide a list.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Narcissus horticultural divisions[edit]

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

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I know nothing about this subject but as it has no reviews I will give it a go.
  • The lead appears to assume that Narcissus is the formal name for daffodils but this is not explained. It should be clarified.
  • "The list of Narcissus horticultural divisions provided by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is widely used and cited." Widely used and cited is vague. I suggest something like "The British Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is the international registration authority for the Narcissus genus, commonly known as daffodils."
  • "Division 13, which includes all wild daffodils, is the exception to this scheme." Exception in what way?
  • color. As this article is about a classification by a British society, I think it should use British spelling - colour.
  • There are no references for the definitions in the table.
  • Notes are below references, but they are usually above.
  • There are inconsistencies in the references. 1 is missing isbn. 2 does not have date in brackets - and is no author available? 4, 5 and 7 no date (5 is dated 2015 - have you checked for changes as you accessed it 2014?). 6 non-standard date. 11 and 12 commercial catalogues are not suitable references. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

67th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1995 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. I have a little more time on my hands to work on this. Birdienest81 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support This looks good. The only thing I found was that in the ratings and reception section it says "6% decrease" in viewing figures when it's actually 7% increase from the previous year if I did my maths correctly. That's easy to fix though. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed: Changed figure. Oh, and I will look over your nomination, but it most likely a support as well. Thank you.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

SupportFrankBoy (Buzz) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry for the delay!

  • The intro is too much on the "light" side. It doesn't even mention Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption. Even the text below don't mention these two cult classics. No critics were surprised that they did not win anything? Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulp Fiction won Best Original Screenplay as indicated in the table. This list primarily focuses on the winners/nominees and the production of how the ceremony. I understand that many critics were upset that Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption were not named Best Picture, but for the sake for neutrality purposes and avoiding accusations of bias, we agreed to stick to what has actually won. We've had issues about who was snub in several instances, but there have been many opinions as to what has been snubbed or not. We decided to stick to what actually has happened. The only opinions mentioned are the critical reviews of the telecast since it pertains to the ceremony.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I get your point. You are saying that what has happened is "many critics were upset" but that is not covered in the article. Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In Oscar ceremony articles, we won't give attention to what was snubbed for the reason of objectivity. It's kinda like when people thought Fruitvale Station got snubbed for the 86th Oscars. Even though there were critics who thought it was snubbed, reviewers for WP:FLC deemed it too subjective.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The list is about the ceremony. If a film is perceived to be "snubbed" (which occurs every year by the way), that can be expressed in the articles devoted to the films themselves. By mentioning the winners/nominees, we are just reporting what happened, not picking a side. Cowlibob (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Jessie J[edit]

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

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

  • Quick drive-by comment: "Rapper Nicki Minaj wrote and sang a rap verse on "Bang Bang"" - by definition a rap verse isn't sung, you need to find a different word there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Done re-worded it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Linkin Park[edit]

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

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

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

FA review (see here for what the criteria are)
  • Quick drive-by comment: I think the article is nicely done. It's referable. The concern about me is the sorting, I think sorting the songs alphabetically would be good. Soldier qwerty (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this makes the article different from other articles. The sorting according to year can also help. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 14:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The I guess the article is okay! Soldier qwerty (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Soldier qwerty, do you have any further concerns? It will be useful if you express your final opinion about this nomination since it is nearly a month old. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 14:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography[edit]

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

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

  • Comments
  • Wow, this FLC sank like a rock through the list. Review time:
  • "He was working on enough material..." - This sentence wanders a bit. Try splitting it in half.
  • Jimi Hendrix Experience is redirecting to have a "The" in the name
  • "Released as The Cry of Love in 1971..." - this sentence isn't clear until halfway through that First Rays has been completed three times and The Cry was the first release. Maybe an intro sentence saying that it has been completed and released three times by different artists.
  • "At first, his record..." - At first implies a short period of time, not 22 years. Try a different intro, even just "from 1970 to 1992"
  • "In 2010, Sony..." - "became", "distributes", "produced" - tense swings. Try "Since 2010, Sony... has been the distributing label for the releases produced by..."
  • "some purporting to feature..." - this clause doesn't link with the first half of the sentence, and should be it's own sentence. Try "Some bootleg releases have purported to feature Hendrix as a sideman, but have been shown to be fake"
  • When was Dagger Records established?
  • Ugh, this list is so long
  • People, Hell & Angels is redirecting to "and" instead of "&" (three times)
  • Cornerstones: 1967-1970 is redirecting to a dash instead of a hyphen (twice)
  • Why is the table in "Extended plays" so narrow? a lot of song names are getting squished - this is a big factor in why this list is so long, actually
  • Hear My Train a Comin' is redirecting to a capital A
  • Star Spangled Banner is redirecting to "The" S-SB, but should also point to the "Adaptations" section since that's where it talks about his version
  • Little Drummer Boy redirects to have a The
  • Are You Experienced has a question mark in the article
  • Baggy's Rehearsal Sessions has a The in the article
  • I don't like that the "Experience Hendrix website" section tells you what you could stream in October; why not all the possible ones? Why not what is there now? Why not all that's been listed to date?
  • Wind Cries Mary redirects to have a The
  • The Star Spangled Banner redirects to have a hyphen, and doesn't match the earlier link
  • The references to " (official website)" should just be - given that the publisher is Experience Hendrix, it can be assumed to be official
  • All references that have the publisher as "X, L.L.C" or "X Corp" or "X Inc." should just be "X"; we don't typically include the firm's corporate status in their name
  • If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology FLC above. --PresN 21:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Yukon[edit]

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

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

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

  • Oppose per 3.b fork of List of communities in Yukon I don't understand why you put this much energy into convincing people that 8 entries deserve the featured status instead of it just giving it a try to the communities list and see if you can bring it to decent level. Also, it is hard to AGF when this FLC does not even feature a link to its parent article List of communities in Yukon. Nergaal (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: the navbox Template:Subdivisions of Yukon has been added to the article, within which the parent article, List of communities in Yukon, is linked. Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
PS: I wanted to give you some tips how to make List of communities in Yukon a FL instead, but I am sure that you would rather try to prove me wrong than give the communities list some TLC. Nergaal (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with you, but your request is both impossible and does not make sense. First, it was determined through discussion that it was not a fork, please see here. If you want to debate that please take it up at WikiProject Canadian communities. Second, I have had a discussion with the mods regarding the number of entries and received their encouragement to nominate again (please see above). Third, we are on a quest to make a featured list of all municipalities in Canada by province and territory, we are almost done, and your request goes against the scope of {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}. Also, please read previous nomination for details, but I will summarize the problem with your suggestion here:
    • There is no definition for what makes a community, whereas municipalities are official incorporated settlements of which there are exactly 8. What you propose is to add First Nation Reserves, bed and breakfasts, ghost towns, and mining camps among others. How do you decide what to include and what not to include? This must be answered for your suggestion to be taken seriously. If you do find a non-arbitrary list from which to draw upon, keep in mind there are no reliable statistics for those that are not municipalities. So the list you propose would have Whitehorse with 23,276 people and 416.54 square km and a bed and breakfast (Silver City) which has a single building of unknown population or area, that if it closed tomorrow would have to be removed from the list. This does not make any sense. You are arguing against a defined criteria, with an ill-defined criteria. Thanks for your efforts anyway. Mattximus (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I have been paying a close look at wp:FT for very many years, and I've seen many topics. Having a "Municipalities of Canada" topic where one article is piped to a wider article such as communities instead of municipalities is 100% fine. At wp:FTC you will not have problems because of this issue. Secondly, a communities FL would include the municipalities list as is now AND as much of the other communities that have an actual reference for. There hare plenty of FLs that are technically never 100% complete, but do have a sensible level of completeness. For whatever is beyond the scope of municipalities, there does NOT need to be a similar level of detail. For example:
unincorporated and First Nations: Name, Status, Population, location coordinates
ghost towns and abandoned communities: location coordinates and year of abandonment would suffice. Further information would be nice but not actually required.
Other and Small Yukon places: have a sentence for each with a citation. If exact location is not available, a name and a reference will suffice IMO.

Nergaal (talk)

Thanks for your reply. If we were to go your direction we would still need some kind of source that tells us what makes a community. Above you suggest four types: municipalities, first nation reserves, ghost/abandoned communities, and unincorporated places. What else? It's like you are making a list of cars, and you suggest throw in a few trucks, and a few airplanes. However, given you are passionate about this, can you province some kind of reference that provides a exact scope for your suggestion? I can then try to dig around, otherwise it's just arbitrary and random.
On a side note, it just seems odd that you are happy to trade in a 100% complete list referenced list, for one with a scope that is impossible to complete and challenging to cite (how do we know we found all unincorporated places? Does that bed and breakfast count)? I am interested in providing a high quality list of municipalities in Canada, and am not interested in researching ghost towns or bed and breakfasts as I see them as very different things. It's hard for me to understand why you insist on combining such very different things into one list. The length as is has been determined by two admins to be acceptable. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Matt; as legally defined, a community =/= a municipality. Conflating the two does not make sense, at all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If the List of communities in Yukon used the Yukon Geographical Names Database (or the corresponding Canadian Geographical Names Database) and the Yukon Gazetteer to define scope as 'populated places' it would have upwards of 100 entries. −maclean (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Maclean25: you participated in the discussion for the last FLC nomination and now this one. Do you have a position to share on this nomination? i.e., oppose or support?
    Also, thanks for the Yukon Gazetteer source. It can be used to greatly improve List of communities in Yukon. Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. I've copyedited; be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: thank you for your support! Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. I supported the previous nomination and I see no reason to change my mind. Just one niggle.

  • "Yukon's eight municipalities cover only 0.2% of the territory's land mass but is home to 80.2% of its population.". Shouldn't this be "are home" to agree in number with municipalities? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Good catch! Thanks for your continued support! Mattximus (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: likewise, thank you for your continued support! Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

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

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

Quick comment
  • Factual error: although Levi's entire innings was 51 balls, his century came off 45 balls. This fact (along with the fact it was the fastest by time) should be referenced in the lead. Harrias talk 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done Good pick up. Thanks Harrias -- Ianblair23 (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Further comments
  • The lead reads like a collection of bullet points, it would benefit from a rewrite to make it more flow better. It could also do with a bit more depth, perhaps mentioning that because it is such a short format, centuries are rare in Twenty20 cricket.
  • Some of the language used in the lead isn't very encyclopaedic: "Levi's knock" is a prime example of this.
  • "..and is arranged chronologically." As this is a sortable list, change this to "..and is initially arranged chronologically."
  • With regards to the discussion below, I'm happy with the columns used: I'm not particularly in favour of the addition of either H/A/N or Innings, although I similarly wouldn't oppose the latter.
  • I would favour the "No." column being sortable.
  • The format for ESPNcricinfo references is inconsistent, Refs 3–11 use "ESPNcricinfo. ESPN.", while 12 onwards simply has "ESPNcricinfo." I prefer the latter personally, but either way, remain consistent.
  • You should remove the publisher's name (ESPNcricinfo) from the title of references 12 onwards. Harrias talk 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments

  • Ref #1 needs author
  • Lead image needs an alt text
  • Why is ESPNcricinfo is linked in ref #4 and not in ref #1?
  • New Zealand, Australia and South Africa are linked twice in the lede
  • "Due to shorten format, it is rare that centuries are scored" is probably WP:OR unless sourced.

Vensatry (ping) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

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

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

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

List of schools in the Marlborough Region[edit]

Notified: Gadfium, WikiProject New Zealand schools

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

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