Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

Leader of Alderney[edit]

Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this is a comprehensive list of the known leaders of Alderney. It also consists of a comprehensive background section that gives a breakdown of all the various guises of the leadership. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

List of ant subfamilies[edit]

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

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

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

While not very obvious, Ward's 2007 article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. From the website of Magnolia Press (mapress.com), the original publisher of Zootaxa: "All open access papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." (see [1]). Now, not all Zootaxa articles are open access (most are not), and the licenses are not mentioned in the PDFs. To confirm that this article is open access, you need to find the article listed on MP's website: search for "Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants" in the list of Hymenoptera-related articles, and you find that it says "open access" in the description.

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

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90  08:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, cited by many as one of the most beautiful women in the world, has appeared in over forty films in five different languages. This is my fifth filmography nomination on an Indian celebrity, and as usual, I look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90  08:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @AB01: -- KRIMUK90  04:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem :-) I can give my support now AB01 I'M A POTATO 04:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :) -- KRIMUK90  04:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list meets all of the criteria for a featured list. I have nominated this list three times before, however all of them failed, so I hope this time, the list will get the gold star. Simon (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Hammond organ players[edit]

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

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

Quick comments

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

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

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

Jimi Hendrix discography[edit]

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

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

Question, would the Jimi Hendrix Interview Album count as a release??Coal town guy (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Short answer: No, it is not within the timeframe of this discography, because it was released posthumously. Long(er) answer: By definition, a discography is "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings". If the release doesn't include music, it usually isn't included. Biographers McDermott (1992), Roby (2002), and Shadwick (2002) don't list interview albums in their Hendrix discographies. Shapiro (1990) lists two under "Miscellaneous"—a BBC transcription LP (1976) and Jimi Hendrix: The Interview album (Rhino 1980s). Portions of interviews are included in the film See My Music Talking (1968) and several posthumous videos, along with musical performances. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Lugnuts, Zia Khan 15:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a list of Pakistani players who have taken five-for on their Test debuts. The list was initially created by User:Lugnuts, I was involved in the expansion process. I believe this is now according to the FL criteria. Comments/suggestions will be appreciated, as always. Regards, —Zia Khan 15:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I've made a couple of minor additions. I think it's the same standard as other FLs for related cricket articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment – With the size of List of Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut being too small, isn't this a 3(b) issue? Vensatry (ping) 07:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vensatry, I've expanded the parent article! Hope your concern is now addressed. Please have a look now. Regards, —Zia Khan 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: There's a fine line here, one which needs to be drawn and a consensus formed. Arbitrarily, I would say that eight players who have taken five wickets on debut for a country justifies an article. @Vensatry:, what are your thoughts on that limit? I'll make a post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket to help find that line. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I don't personally have a problem with a list of 10 players.
  • Removed that one! —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Table should sort by last name, not first.
  • Done! —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Oval" sorts out of place; omit the "the" from the sort template.
  • It should include "The" as the article is named as (The Oval).
  • Done. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is regarded as a notable achievement. Why, exactly? I don't like the use of the word "notable" here, but if you choose to keep it, you need more references to support that claim.
  • Replaced notable with significant. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • first Pakistani player to take a five-wicket haul on his Test debut; he took use a colon here.
  • Done. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • He accumulated 11 wickets for 130 runs at his first appearance, against New Zealand in 1996, at the Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium perhaps a clarification that the 11 wickets for 130 runs is over the course of the match.
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Most recently, the feat was achieved by Tanvir Ahmed, against South Africa in 2010 at the Sheikh Zayed Stadium, Abu Dhabi; he colon again
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Amongst the bowlers, Shahid Afridi is more economical, with 2.21 runs per over, and Zahid has the best strike rate. "the most" would make the most sense here as he has the lowest number. Do you have a reference for "strike rate"? That's the only time the term is mentioned.
  • Done. This should be the best, I think (see this). —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's my review. Seattle (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

59th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1987 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Winners and nominees: Paul Newman's character was Fast Eddie Felson, not Nelson.
  • Presenters and Performers: Last word of this heading should be decapitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Prose: It features professional standards of writing;
  • Lead: I think the lead sums up the list and its scope well, including inclusion criteria and sourcing.
  • Comprehensiveness: List includes all items listed by the European Commission as having protected geographic status, with a brief description of the restrictions placed on each product.
  • Structure: The list is well laid out, and has been separated into section headings based on the 'classes' they are divided into by the European Commission.
  • Style: The list complies with the MOS. Is visually appealing and makes use of appropriate, free-use images.
  • Stable: The list is stable, and will only need updating if/when more items are approved for registration or removed (only one product has been removed since implementation of the schemes in 1993). Sotakeit (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Iggy Azalea discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list is fully comprehensive and is ready for the gold star. I will appreciate any comments/suggestions in order to help improving this list. Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, as my comments have been addressed. Great work! Holiday56 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments from WikiRedactor
  • Done. Simon (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The first line could be simplified as "Australian recording artist Iggy Azalea..."
  • But I think that the old one is alright.

Simon (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • When you mention Ignorant Art, it can just be considered her first mixtape, since labeling it her first record seems redundant.
  • Reomved. Simon (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting the record-breaking success that "Fancy" has experienced on the Billboard Hot 100 (something like longest-running female rapper at #1).
  • When you mention "Problem" later on, it is also worth commenting on the significance of Iggy holding the top-two positions of the Hot 100.
  • Those are quite redundant for a discography list. That milestone can be mentioned in the song article itself. Simon (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of major concern here, and I trust that you will address my comments as needed, so I will give my 'support to this well-developed list. Nicely done! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC), Cowlibob (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Frozen is recently an unprecedented commercial success and has garnered a number of awards from many film critics and circles, and this article seems to have covered all aspects of them. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Corvoe[edit]

Some quick observations first, then I'll go more in-depth. First thing I noticed is that there are numerous unlinked recipients. If the table is sortable, all recipients, whether its people or the film title itself, should be wikilinked so a reader doesn't have to go searching for the article. Jeff Draheim is notable enough to have an article, so he warrants a redlink. Also, make sure the references in the ref column are in the correct, numerical order (both the Annies and the Oscars are out of order). More later. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead
  • "The film centers on a fearless princess, named Anna, who sets off on an epic journey..." This does not read well at all, way too much fluff and promotional sounding language. For starters, change "centers" to "focuses", and make Anna mentioned first. "The film focuses on Anna, a princess..." (as she's far from fearless). Remove "epic journey". Not sure how to deal with "icy powers", but that doesn't read very well either.
  • "on a budget of $150 million" isn't quite accurate, as that $150m number doesn't include marketing. How about "against a production budget of $150 million"?
  • "Frozen has garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories with most of them being in the Best Animated Feature category and..." Far too many words in this sentence. Try something like "Frozen has garnered a variety of awards and nominations, many of them in the Best Original Song (for "Let It Go") and Best Animated Feature categories."
  • Songs titles aren't italicized, they're put in quotation marks.
  • "At the 71st Golden Globe Awards, the film earned two nominations and went on to win..." can be shortened to just "two nominations, winning..."
  • Monsters University should be italicized.
  • "both earning ten nominations each." This is redundant. Either remove "both" or "each".
  • "including for Best Animated Feature". For needs to go.
  • "the Critics' Choice Award for Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song as well as four Visual Effects Society awards." Run-on sentence here. I'd say change "...Original Song as well..." to "Original Song, and..." Also, it won the Critics' Choice Awards for Best Animated/Original Song, as there were multiple awards won.
References
  • I didn't see any unreliable sources, but some of the publishers/works are not linked while others are. I know some of them probably don't have Wikipedia pages, but Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo should be linked. BOM also doesn't need the publisher of Amazon.
  • Why is Deadline italicized in one instance, but not italicized and with a ".com" in another?

Not entirely sure that's everything that could be improved here, that's really just at a first read-through. I'm going to have to lean in the favour of opposing this nomination at this time, unless the list is significantly improved in the near future. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: I think I've fixed the majority of your points. The references seem out of order because they're also referred to in the lead as well. Have a second read-through and hopefully it should be more pleasant. Cowlibob (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Well, you definitely improved it significantly in the near future. I made a small copy-edit to the Visual Effects Society Awards. Also, I know the references are odd because they're referred to in the lead, but either a bot or an AWB user will eventually come by and fix the ref order anyway. It should always be numerical, rather than order of content. Once that's fixed, I will be happy to support. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the order. Thanks for the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure! I now endorse my support of this article's promotion. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent work here.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: on prose. Can't find any errors in the lead. Nice job! AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: No major concerns. Excellent job! -- KRIMUK90  15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, well-sourced. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Shakira discography[edit]

Nominator(s): WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list after revamping, rewriting, and restructuring it completely. Focusing on the topic of Shakira's discography, the list includes the peak chart positions and certifications of the various releases by the Colombian artist. I have made the list in accordance to the guidelines specified at Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE and it is similar in style to various other featured lists, like Madonna albums discography, Beyoncé discography, and Robbie Williams discography. Thank you WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • The picture of Shakira needs alternative text.
  • There are some external links that need to be corrected.
  • I think it is confusing how Magia and Peligro are considered studio albums and promotional albums in the introduction. I would drop the term promotional album in the article and treat them as just studio albums, so it is consistent with other Shakira articles.
  • I see "number one" for Pies Descalzos and "#131" for Dónde Están los Ladrones?; I suggest writing out the word throughout instead of occasionally using the number sign.
  • It is probably worth mentioning that the Billboard 200 is the U.S. Billboard 200 when you first mention the chart.
  • "Eight of the eleven tracks on the album's" should read as "Eight of the eleven tracks on the album".
  • I would note that the Top Latin Albums chart is a Billboard component chart.
  • I see the article shifting from "US" to "U.S."; I would pick one style to use throughout the article.
  • Sale el Sol is not her fourth studio album, isn't it her ninth overall?
  • There is no mention of Shakira in the introduction.
  • I would organize the references in columns of "30em".
  • The "Other appearances" section is unsourced.

WikiRedactor (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • You should wikilink "signature song" when mentioning "Ojos Así".
  • You're missing a quotation mark on "Underneath Your Clothes".
  • "It was a success in the United States too, where it shipped more than a million copies and was certified platinum." should read something like "It was similarly successful in the United States, where it sold more than one million copies and was certified platinum." (In my eyes at least, songs don't ship so much as they sell, and I think one million is a touch more clear.)
  • The note for "Sing" by Annie Lennox is not working.
Oh I forgot to remove it. Removed now --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Other appearances" section is unsourced. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@WikiRedactor: Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Support, great work! WikiRedactor (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Decodet
  • Support: All my comments have been resolved and I believe the article is now featured list-level. Congratulations! decodet. (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: and @Decodet: : There has been a massive mistake. A user untimely restored the old version of the page and removed my new edits. This is very embarrassing and I have notified the editor about his/her really careless revert. Kindly look at the new page please --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Commments from Magiciandude

Support Great job WonderBoy1998! Erick (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Support Looks great overall, no issues found. Simon (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS
  • "Her first two studio albums Magia and Peligro, released in Colombia in 1991 and 1993, respectively, performed poorly and had low sales"..... I think this would read better as "Her first two studio albums, Magia and Peligro, were respectively released in Colombia in 1991 and 1993. They performed poorly and had low sales"..... let's also give a range for such sales
  • "After a break from her career, Shakira found success" → "Shakira later found success"
  • "Like Pies Descalzos, it spawned numerous singles, including its 'signature track' 'Ojos Así'"..... I don't think we should note that it spawned that many singles for one album and not do the same for another. Instead just make note that "Ojos Así" is from Dónde Están los Ladrones?
  • "sales began to dip"..... began to decline

Overall, looking pretty good. Just a few concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I've addressed the comments --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Support, well done. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

List of National Football League rushing champions[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it to the point where it comprehensively covers the subject matter. The article gives an overview on what the topic is, who the rushing champions are for each season, and also what major awards or honors they received. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after a failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. The article contains a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

List of English Heritage properties in Somerset[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well illustrated, referenced and comprehensive list of the properties of English Heritage in the English county of Somerset. The format is based on the recently promoted List of National Trust properties in Somerset. — Rod talk 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Note - Nominator will have no internet access from 29 July to 10 Aug.— Rod talk 19:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

1929 in tennis[edit]

Nominator(s): Lajbi Holla @ me CP 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because these types of pre-professinal tennis era articles better qualify for a list format. They are basically compiled of vast series of reliable sources. We've started these lists a couple of years ago and it's the third edition of them and I feel it has been forged into a readable, well-formatted structure by now. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • The lead does not seem to have been copy edited.
  • "The year 1929 in tennis was a complex mixture" I would strike 'complex' as superfluous.
  • "The professionals were mostly coaches who coached for a living, while amateur rules prohibited tennis players to benefit financially from playing." This is wordy and clumsy. Perhaps "Most professionals were coaches, and amateurs were prohibited from benefiting financially from playing."
  • "The amateur events were almost all all-comers' event and the majority included a mixed title contest." Repetition of all - the first could be replaced by always. I do not understand "a mixed title contest". Mixed doubles? But then why mention that and not men's and womens' doubles?
    I felt that this explanation is needed because even in the Wikiproject:Tennis people seemed to be confused that there are no separate Men's tour (like ATP World Tour) and women's tour (like WTA Tour). At the time a championship had both gender singles, doubles and mixed doubles, which could be surprising to casual readers as it only happens in Grand Slam tournaments nowdays (because those four are the only tournaments where men and women compete together). In 1929 it was a usual thing but I want it to be noted in the lede. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think this needs spelling out as I did not understand it - e.g. "There were no separate men's and women's tours and almost all amateur events had men's, women's and mixed doubles contests." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The women's most successful players in the European international championships were Esna Boyd of Australia and two players from the United States Elizabeth Ryan who was thuspunished by the United States Lawn Tennis Association for her commitment to European events compared to those in the U.S. and Helen Wills Moody who won the two most prestigious tournaments in Europe," This has 3 lines without even a comma and two words run together - thuspunished. Needs tidying and I would leave out 'thus'
  • "The Four Musketeers" - this links to a disambig. Needs correcting and I would add who they are in this article.
  • "Also the Australian Championships was won by a British player, Colin Gregory." The word 'Also' is ungrammatical and unnecessary.
  • "the Davis Cup (called the International Lawn Tennis Challenge)" - perhaps "officially called"
  • "the Mitre Cup (South American version of the Davis Cup)" I am not sure any edit is needed but it sounds as if politics was involved. Chile played in the Europe zone of the Davis Cup and presumably the other South American countries went off and had their own cup?
  • Wightman and Davis Cups. 'edition' is an odd word here - year or held for xth time?
  • International Tennis Federation should be linked.
  • "The tournament was split into the American and European zones. The winner of each sub-zone played in an Inter-Zonal Final." I do not understand this. If zones were split into sub-zones then this should be explained.
  • "The United States defeated Cuba in the America Zone, but would then lose to France in the Challenge Round," Why give the winner of the American zone but not the European. Perhaps something like "The United States won the American zone, but lost to the winner of the Europe zone, France in the final, called the Challenge Round."

Table

  • N/A seems to be used inconsistently, sometimes no competition, sometimes opponent retired. Perhaps sometimes previous year's winner only played in final and had not entered, or had that rule been abolished by that time? I think it would be better to explain in each case, not put N/A.
    I used N/A for the "no information" (currently). That's its sole purpose. If there was e.g. no women's contest I greyed the whole coloumn out. Retired in the final is abbreviated "ret." as explained in the Key section. No competition is always phrased like "prizes shared" or "remained unfinished due to [rain]" or simply "suspended" depending on what sort of source is available to verify it. As for your last question no Challenge round was in effect at the time except for the Davis Cup (which is obviously called the Challenge round, which is in the lede) but do I have to explain the rules of tennis within a list article? I mean I already listed the change of rules that happened exactly in 1929 but do I have to present tennis to readers? Or mention that challenge round was abolished sometime before WWI? Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    The problem is that N/A is ambiguous. I took it to mean Not applicable. I think 'Not known' would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mixed doubles Cannes January shown as suspended. The source says due to bad light. If not resumed it should be shown as abandoned.
  • February Bill Tilden. "His US number one ranking was also due to be regiven to him." I don't think regiven is a word. Why not restored?
  • David Cup May 2nd round. The winners and losers do not line up on my screen.
  • June. "The British ladies' team beat the French rivals without losing a match." should be their French rivals or leave out the word 'rivals'.
  • I do not like the Footnotes and Works cited in boxes so that you cannot see them all at the same time but that is personal preference.
  • A first rate list but text needs tightening. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and the in-depth details. I will work on it and update this page accordingly. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Millennium characters[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Another topic from a little-loved show. I took a bit of licence with this one as it's not a style of list that's been covered much, and what samples I could find seemed to focus mostly on "in-universe" material. I've defined a scope and stuck to it, but for the most part Millennium was a series devoid of any real weighty characters beyond the lead role. I am a little underwhelmed by the lead; I think maybe it needs something visual to break it up but nothing leapt out beyond possibly moving the Henriksen image up (two attempts at PR led nowhere at all). As always I'll be watching this like a hawk to reply to any concerns as quickly as I can. Thanks in advance, guys. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of How I Met Your Mother characters[edit]

Nominator(s): Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because in the 76 edits I have made to the page, I have given it several thorough copyedits, added images and reorganized and do not think I can improve it any further. A recent peer review had little input, which I hope means that there were few issues. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Bleach video games[edit]

Nominator(s): Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. The issues from DragonZero's peer review has been resolved. Thank you for your time and patience. (Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC))

Comment by an IP, just read from /* Bleach: Blade Battlers */ to /* Bleach: Soul Carniva */

  • There should no <br> tag between {{vgrelease}}, see template's document.
  • You might notice, but in Bleach: Blade Battlers (Bleach~ブレイド・バトラーズ~?), "~" should be "〜". (Japanese have two kinds of wave line "〜" and "~")
  • "Released under The Best label on October 18, 2007 in Japan" - should be Oct. 25, and source is another game's official page.
  • "Includes 36 playable characters" - where is it in source?
  • "Bleach Wii 白刃きらめく輪舞曲(ロンド)" - "(ロンド)" seems not a part of Japanese title, I didn't find "Rondo" in your source page (except web's HTML title) and Sega's official page.
  • "[Bleach: Heat the Soul 2 was r]eleased under The Best label on November 23, 2006 in Japan" - Ref 38 said its released is Nov. 30, is there some reasons for wrote it in a week ago?
  • PlayStation Store release of Bleach: Heat the Soul 6 is just for 2010's "the best" title, also wrote as 2009 is good?
  • Do not differentiate Bleach: Soul Carnival and it's best version like above titles?

--222.82.228.174 (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cruisers of Germany[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This list covers all of the cruisers built by Germany, from the early 1880s to 1945, and spanning three navies. This list is the capstone for this monster Good Topic. This list is based heavily on the sub-lists it summarizes, and it was reviewed at MILHIST's A-class review process in May (see here). Thanks to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

List of currencies in North America[edit]

Nominator(s): Matty.007 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because (fairly obviously) I feel this meets the requirements. Hopefully this will be third time lucky, the previous two nominations seem to follow a pattern: small issues are raised, I try and fix them, a large issue is raised, I try and fix it, then no-one else votes. I have done the things suggested in the previous FLCs (sort by currency rather than country, remove all sorts of things, and re-jig it). Now, I hope there is nothing too major needing doing. Third-time lucky? Thanks in advance, Matty.007 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • First of all, I apologize for not getting back to the previous nom, things got busy. That said:
    • Guadeloupe and Martinique are not dependencies of France; they are part of it. Listing them separately would be akin to listing each U.S. state or Canadian province. Likewise, San Andres etc. is part of Colombia and should at least use the Colombian flag, if not simply say "Colombia". I'm unsure if the same applies to some or all of the Netherlands islands.
    • British Virgin Islands is missing.
    • No need to say "United States of America", few other long-form names are used.
    • The intro states that "all de facto currencies" are listed here. I know you mean this instead of de jure, but that leaves out a lot of currencies. For example, I know that Mexican pesos are accepted at some stores inside the U.S. along the border; does that make it a de facto currency of the U.S.? So my thought is this should focus purely on de jure currencies, with the major de facto ones (i.e. ones with official or semi-official support) mentioned either separately or with a healthy footnote. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Golbez, sorry, thought I had replied to this. Fixed first three (though US Virgin Islands is doing something odd, would you be able to fix it please?), but I don't quite understand what you suggest with the fourth point, please can you clarify? Thanks, Matty.007 15:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, is it listing de facto or de jure currencies? It claims de facto; where does that diverge from de jure? And "USA" is also too informal, "United States" is quite fine, sorry I didn't clarify that before. Also, the table is now a bit weird around the USVI. And... France appears to have disappeared entirely? As well as Colombia? I didn't say remove them, they're still in North America and their currencies are still used there. --Golbez (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
          • No idea regarding USVI, I'll have to try and see if I can get someone who knows their way around (Godot 13?) to help. Re-added France and Colombia. I think it is probably de jure, as you say. What are you suggesting is changed though, other than the opening statement? Thanks, Matty.007 16:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Well, is the U.S. dollar de facto or de jure a currency of Panama? Or Ecuador? If the list states itself to be a list of de jure currencies, but it's not a currency by law in those countries but is widely spread enough to be considered a national currency, they should have a note explaining why they're on this list. --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Ah, think I get you. Changed to de jure. Are there any currencies such as that, widely circulated but not the official currency? Thanks, Matty.007 10:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how many of those people have been to/seen an actual exchange office recently. Nergaal (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I also commented on this last FLN but they were not added. I really think they should include the 3 letter ISO codes, not just for exchange offices, but it's on plane tickets, train tickets, stock markets, etc. Quite useful to have. Mattximus (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As I have explained, Crisco 1492, Godot13, and Dudley Miles gave consensus to remove them. If they have changed their minds, I will add them but until then I cannot see the point of adding something which seems 50/50. Thanks, Matty.007 18:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead needs quite a bit of work.
  • A commonly used North American currency is the United States dollar". What are you trying to say here. What do you mean by commonly. Is it the most? The currency with the highest circulating value?
  • As I explained to Bloom further up this page, it is a common currency. I can narrow it down if you want, but there are several options (by amount of currency, by number of people using it) which it could be narrowed down to, and I think that disambiguating to that level is a step too far. Thanks, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But why does this sentence even exist? It adds nothing without some qualifier. A nice opening sentence for that paragraph would say something like the US$ is the most used currency by number of people and amount in circulation (with a ref). As is, it serves no function.
  • "It is the world's reserve currency." There are several reserve currencies, not just the US$. The US dollar is currently the one with the largest foreign exchange reserves which should be made clear.
  • Clarified. Thanks, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You have a mess of passive sentences. For example " In international commodity markets, the United States dollar is also standard." Should read "The United States dollar is also standard in international commodity markets". But you should probably qualify what standard means.
  • Attempted fix. Thanks, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Many more tweaks are needed. Please be careful of passive sentences one after the other. It makes for a tough read.
  • I changed a little, but there may be more instances. Thanks for the help, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is another passive sentence that should be made active: "By the number of countries in North America sharing a currency, the East Caribbean dollar is most used."
  • Please strive for one idea per sentence. This extremely long sentence needs to be broken up, it's unreadable:

In the phenomenon known as 'dollarization', the U.S. dollar has been adopted as the official currency of several other countries;[6] but semi-dollarization also exists in a few other countries where the U.S. dollar is recognised as legal tender alongside another currency, and unofficial dollarization exists in many areas where the U.S. dollar is widely used and accepted-although it is not recognised as legal tender. Mattximus (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed both. Thanks, Matty.007 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

World Fantasy Award for Best Collection[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, after two months that video game list is off the nominations page, so it's time we turn back to sci-fi/fantasy award lists! Following in the footsteps of the World Fantasy Awards for Best Novel, Best Novella, and Best Short Story, (not to mention the dozens of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, etc.) we have my latest: the World Fantasy Award for Best Collection. And it's a strange one. Not so much for what it is now, and what it originally was- an award for the best collections of fantasy works by a single author- but because for 10 years in the middle of the 40 it's been around, anthologies of works by multiple authors were eligible, until they so overran the category that they got split out into their own. I've tried to make it clear what's going on, though, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Anyways, this list follows the same format as the previous 28 sci-fi/fantasy award FLs- table, winners, sorting, yadda yadda yadda, and as always comments from those previous FLCs have been replicated for this list. Thanks all for reviewing, and hopefully this won't take another 2 months! --PresN 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments "hopefully this won't take another 2 months!" - You do understand what tempting fate is, I would assume...
    • The 2014 winner not announced yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, they announced the 2014 nominees a couple weeks ago, but they won't announce the winner till October. --PresN 17:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Might want to be explicit in the list. I don't see any footnotes or anything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. --PresN 00:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost there. CN for the announcement date, and then we're golden. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done as well. --PresN 21:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Really nothing to pick at. A very well written list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of nearest exoplanets[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

After quite some work I think this is a neat list. Let me know how can it be improved further. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

ST11 comments
  • the age on 82 G. Eridani is clearly wrong, since that's older than the universe itself. It also contradicts what is in the 82 G. Eridani article itself. This needs to be fixed since it's a blatant factual error.
good catch, I didn't even notice it. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is V = 6.3 the cutoff for naked-eye visibility, when the commonly-agreed upon value mentioned in most places is 6.5, and the Bortle scale gives even lower values?
I'll change it to 6.5 and update the note. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The tables in the exoplanets statistics section should probably have different cutoff values. Nearly all have most of the planets in a single category, such as most of the stars in the orbital radius table being in the first bin, which doesn't tell much to the reader.
That is an artifact for exoplanets in general, Mercury-like planets are easier to detect. I don't see how should I choose the cutoffs such as a reader can get something out of it, if not taking them from Mercury. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, you make a good point. You might want to say in the tables that the cutoffs are based on the mass of objects in the Solar System then, for clarity. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You have any ideas how to make such an addition "elegant"? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I found a solution for this. Let me know what you think of it. Nergaal (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead is too long to read comfortably. Please consider adding sections.
I tried to have the lead summarize key points in the table. Any ideas what could be moved into a section? Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I moved the technical stuff into a criteria section. Nergaal (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a way the statistics section could be presented more neatly? I think splitting it into two columns would be great for readability, since even on my 1280x800 monitor, it only really takes up the left half of the screen (note that this isn't a requirement for me supporting, but would be nice).
Good idea! Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Gliese 370 entry needs to be renamed to its HD number, considering that is what is most commonly used to refer to the star. So does the Gliese 785 entry. The Gliese 892 mention in the notes needs to be changed to its HR number for the same reason.
Done. Nergaal (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would remove the mention of the UPGS object from the 4th paragraph of the inclusion criteria section, since it is not currently confirmed as a rogue planet, and may be a brown dwarf instead.
That article gives it a min mass of 4 Mj. Wouldn't that make it a sub-brown dwarf? Anyways, I've added "potential" modifier to the sentence. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The "potential" addition solves the problem too, so this is fine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the table, I would change the "notes" column to a "references" column, and add the actual notes to right next to the planet designation.
Done. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

After all of these are addressed, unless I see something else, I will support. Only thing left is the age of 82 G. Eridani. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

--PresN 18:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I fixed all these issues. I will double-check once the doi bot decides to update the links. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active season in recorded history. With a large number of tropical cyclones, impact was widespread and there were some interesting systems. Felix threatened the East Coast of the United States once and Bermuda twice. Luis was a strong hurricane that brought destruction to the Lesser Antilles that rivaled Hurricane Hugo. Marilyn dealt similar amounts of damage to the Lesser Antilles as Luis. Opal was brought severe impact to the Gulf Coast of the United States. Finally, Roxanne's bizarre path in the Gulf of Mexico allowed the storm to produce extensive flooding in Mexico. Personally, I believe this timeline satisfies the requirements of a featured list. Enjoy!--12george1 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment from Golbez (talk):
    • "Although Hurricane Allison formed on June 2, 1995,[3] the season officially began on June 1" This is an odd construction, is it common in the featured hurricane timeline articles? It seems better to just say "The season officially began on June 1, with the first named storm forming just the next day" or something. --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I did something similar to your suggestion.--12george1 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Marina and the Diamonds[edit]

Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have based much of List of songs recorded by Marina and the Diamonds on my earlier nominations List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus and List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira; with my most recent nomination The Real Housewives of Atlanta (season 6) confirmed for promotion by a FLC delegate, I am ready to present this list to you all for FL consideration. Here, you will find a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Welsh singer-songwriter Marina Diamandis; credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources including Digital Spy and Idolator. I will be readily available to address any concerns that come about during this nomination process, and am looking forward to this discussion! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prism
  • Isn't this article written in British English? If so, "Welsh singer-songwriter" → "The Welsh singer-songwriter". I'm not sure on "Singer and producers" though, I don't know if it should have the definite article.
  • Done
  • "Diamandis' co-wrote" typo
  • Done
  • The last mention of Electra Heart in the prose could be substituted by "the album of the same name"
  • Done
  • The image is free to use and uploaded on Flickr with an acceptable license.

With regards to the rest, there's nothing I saw that needs correction. I give you my support based on meticulous sourcing, reliable sources and a comprehensive list of songs by Diamandis. Another great work by WikiRedactor. — prism 16:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prism: Thanks so much! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "Sound of 2010 poll organized by BBC" - she is British, so the article should be in British English and therefore the correct spelling is "organised". Also, it's the BBC, not just "BBC"
  • Done
    • "Songwriter and producers Liam Howe and Pascal Gabriel" - assuming that this is meant to indicate that both these people are both songwriters and producers, then "songwriters" should be plural too
  • Done
    • "Rick Nowels frequently partnered with Diamandis during production of the record, and were consequently...." - unless another name has been missed out somewhere, the "were" should be "was"
  • Done
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments Looks very good overall, I just have some remarks:

  • "She first came to prominence within the music industry after being ranked in second place on the Sound of 2010 poll" – the thing is, the Sound of... poll is decided by members of the music industry, so she'd have had to have been at least somewhat prominent within the industry for her to be ranked on the list at all. Perhaps "She first came to public prominence after being ranked..." would be better.
Done
  • Actually, that whole sentence is rather long – over 60 words, in total. It might be best just to change that semicolon to a full stop.
Done
  • How many different versions of Electra Heart were there?
Standard, deluxe, and U.S. versions, although some tracks only appear on a couple editions, and then there are iTunes Store exclusives with music videos and bonus content. Should the "different versions" bit be removed altogether?
  • I was a bit confused by the final two sentences. The penultimate one says that "Just Desserts" is Diamandis's only collaboration with another recording artist, but then goes on to say that she credited as a featured artist on "Electra Heart", which seems to contradict that.
The title track was added in later, so I've clarified that "Just Desserts" is now her first collaboration.
  • Speaking of "Electra Heart", I was a bit confused about that track as well – was it going to be on Electra Heart before being removed for some reason? Was it a demo that was leaked online? Was BetaTraxx asked to remix it, or is he just some rogue producer who got his hands on an unknown Marina & the Diamonds song and released it under his own name?
As it turns out, it is confirmed that BetaTraxx produced the original/official version of "Electra Heart", which would seem as though it was originally recorded for Electra Heart (although I don't think any citation explicitly states this). Even though its music video was released in August 2013, it wasn't until May 2014 that BetaTraxx remixed different versions of the song for official release. I've clarified that whole sentence in the introduction.
  • The caption for the photo of Diamandis isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating full stop.
Done
Done
  • What does the "N/A" in the albums column actually mean? Were these songs that were single releases only? Were they demos that were leaked onto the Internet somehow?
Those songs were not released for purchase, although they were released through Diamandis' official SoundCloud, YouTube, etc. "Electra Heart" and "Just Desserts" listed their songwriters in their YouTube descriptions (the latter of which I just now added), although songwriters are specified for "E.V.O.L." For the "Album(s)" column, I inserted the "N/A" because they were not part of any album.
  • Dagger symbols are missing from the cells of songs released as singles.
Done
  • Citations need to be in ascending order, i.e. [17][5] -> [5][17]
Done
  • Spaced hyphens need to be spaced en dashes.
Done

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: Thanks for leaving your feedback! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a complete list of Local Nature Reserves in London with photos and brief descriptions of each site. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw This is an interesting list, which provides lots of useful information. A few comments:

Rodw can you tell me whether you think this is OK?
Site Photograph Borough Area Location Map Details Access Description
Abney Park Cemetery Abney Park Cemetery Hackney 12.54 51°33′50″N 0°04′37″W / 51.564°N 0.077°W / 51.564; -0.077
TQ 334 868
Map Details YES This is one of London's Magnificent Seven cemeteries. It was closed to burials in 1978 and is now managed as a nature reserve.
Dudley Miles (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. If they are all done like this it would allow the inclusion of kml or similar template for mapping.— Rod talk 09:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have added the coordinates. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What unit is the area given in? Acres, hectares etc
    • This is shown under the heading 'Sites'. Would it be better to put it in the note?
      • I can't see this and would suggest adding it to note B or in the column header.— Rod talk 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • St John's Wood Church Grounds redirects to St. John's Wood Church Grounds any reason why that link isn't used?
    • Changed. (I think the stop in St. is probably an error but it is so minor I never got around to checking it out.)
  • Rainham Marshes redirects to Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve any reason why that link isn't used?
    • The name according to Natural England is Rainham Marshes but whoever created the Wiki article added Nature Reserve.
      • I would just pipe it ie [[Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve|Rainham Marshes]].— Rod talk 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I have been told off for this before. You are not supposed to pipe when there is already a redirect. See WP:NOTBROKEN.
  • Where references are to PDF documents (eg 2,5,69,82,130,140) then I believe |format=PDF is supposed to be included.
    • Done.
  • Ref 41 - The Chase - Havering seems to be missing the URL.
    • Fixed.

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 09:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

    • Thanks very much for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A few more comments Now that the issues above are sorted (or very close) I thought I'd take another look at the list.

  • Battersea Park Nature Areas (and a couple of others) - the lat & long seems to be duplicated presumably this is because it relates to one area, but it does look slightly strange. Does the area given relate to each of the separate areas or the total?
    • I have added a note (which I forgot before) explaining that locations are taken from the Natural England details pages. In some cases they supply two grid refs where the site is in separate areas. The NE maps give the total area.
  • Barking & Dagenham - why the "&" symbol when the link goes to Barking and Dagenham
    • Changed.
  • Castle Hill ( and others) - the description includes the term "scheduled ancient monument" but the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 defines only ancient monument and scheduled monument, but not SAM (see Scheduled monument)
    • I took this from GIGL but it seems to be wrong so I have changed it to Scheduled Monument.
  • Beam Valley and The Chase - Barking - one refers to the River Beam and the other the River Rom but they both go the same article
    • The River Rom article explains that part of it is known as the River Beam. There is only one artice for both.
  • Ten Acre Wood (and others) - should the abbreviation "N/Av" be explained (perhaps in note i)?
    • Changed to No
  • "Note e" tells us that several maps are missing but use the Greenspace Information for Greater London database instead of the Natural England database of Local Nature Reserves - why is one preferred over the other? Could GIGL be used for all.
  • I was confused by note f. & several of the notes explain that the Natural England database is wrong and point to alternative sources - have Natural England agreed they are wrong? How does the reader know which is "right"?
    • LNR is a designation by local authorities. NE just records information given to them about designations. They have corrected a number of errors which were internal ones in their system, but they say that it will take them time to get answers where they need confirmation from councils. The NE grid refs are correct even when the maps are wrong, and bodies such as LWT and Ruislip Woods management are far more authoritative than NE which knows nothing about the sites. I have tried to expand the notes to make the position clear in each case, although I doubt whether I have succeeded with the Yeading sites, where the situation is so confused that I am not sure whether there are two LNRs or three.
  • Have you looked at Parks and Gardens UK which I've found to be pretty good in the past. It may give another source where there is a dispute. (The one I did as a check Broookmill also gives an alt name)
    • I have not used this site. London Gardens Online is much better for London - see [2] on Brookmill Park - which is a different place from Brookmill Road nature reserve.
  • Lots of references use "London Wildlife Trust" as the publisher, but ref 156 just uses Wildlife Trust - best to be consistent. Most of the references look good but I've not done a formal sources review.
    • Typo corrected.

I think this is getting close to meeting the criteria and hopefully I won't spot anything else.— Rod talk 20:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

    • Thanks very much for all your trouble which has greatly improved the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Following my nit picks above, which have all been resolved. I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 07:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Robevans123 An excellent list - have been thinking about similar (but much smaller) lists for some principal areas in Wales (starting off with Torfaen). A couple of very minor points:

  • Would it be useful to add List of local nature reserves in England to the See Also section?
  • adding a summary="text" to the {|class="wikitable" creates a description of the table that can be used by screen readers improving accessibility. The text is not normally displayed. Very useful for the structure of the table to be announced - something along the lines of "a table listing the details of the nature reserves with xx columns for name (etc), and nnn rows"

Robevans123 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added both suggestions. Which class of reserve are you planning to work on? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support It looks good and ticks all the boxes. LNRs in Torfaen is on my to-do list. I shall shamelessly copy this format! Robevans123 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now: lead is completely inadequate. It gives me a bit of information about London, tells me what a LNR is, then throws them at me. What are the highlights of the list? The most recently established LNR? The largest? The oldest? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the lead. Is it OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, better. I've stricken my oppose above. A few quick comments
  • Why not use the {{convert}} template, so that American readers can have their acres? (i.e. {{convert}} gives you 97.31 hectares (240.5 acres)}})
  • If I remember correctly I had convert in another list and took it out because an editor objected that sort did not work. Can you have both on the same column? I think the ability to sort is more important.
  • I'd trim (named after Gilbert White of Selborne) from the lead as it's not quite pertinent
  • Done.
  • Also about Perivale: although it's been managed by Selborne since 1902, that doesn't necessarily mean it was established in that year. The article on it says 1974  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not get your point here - you may have been misled as the article on the wood itself was not clear, and I have added details there to clarify. Perivale Wood started to be managed as a nature reserve in or before 1902, (almost certainly in 1902, but the source is unclear) and managed by the Selborne Soc from that year, but it was not desigated an LNR until 1974. The wording is "Perivale Wood is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain. It has been managed by the Selborne Society since 1902, and was designated an LNR in 1974." This seems to me clear without going into excessive detail - but of course if anyone is not happy with it I can revise. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was not misled. You say it was one oldest Local Nature Reserve in Greater London, yet its age as an LNR is only 40 years. Since the program began in 1949, 25 years before the Perivale site was made an LNR, it's still quite possible that there are older LNRs in London. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not say that it is the oldest LNR in London, but that it is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain, established by 1902, citing a WP:RS. Perivale is the first London site to be designated an LNR for which the date is known, but as some sites are missing the date on their Natural England pages, I thought it best leave aside which is oldest London designation. As my wording is obviously confusing, can anyone suggest a better one? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One wonders what the relevance is if it's not the age of the reserve being designated an LNR which is notable... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • https:Wikipedia:Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview says "Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article", and the Featured List criteria mention that the lead should be engaging. I think the information on Perivale Wood helps on both these points. It prompted me look at the articles on Perivale Wood and also Local Nature Reserves, and I found out that the legislation on LNRs dates from 1949 - I'd assumed that they were more recent than that. Robevans123 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering I'm the one who asked Dudley to add "interest" in the article by adding the highlights of the list, you'd think I know the guidelines. My question was simple: what is the relevance of Perivale being one of the oldest reserves, if it is not one of the oldest LNR? This is after all about LNR in London, and not reserves in general. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that the fact that a London LNR is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain can be considered a highlight of the list. Thanks very much for your help, which has considerably improved the list, but I take a different view on this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Robevans123

You can give a table cell a specific sort value (which overrides any text in the cell for sorting purposes) by putting a statement like:

| data-sort-value="12.54" align="right" |12.54 ha (31.0 acres)

which will give you "12.54 ha (31.0 acres)" in the table cell. The table will sort correctly on the value given in the data-sort-value statement. See Help:Sorting for more details if needed.

Belts and braces - there is no harm in changing your column statement to:

!scope="col" data-sort-type="number" | Area

In fact, I would try this first, and test it with a few convert templates - setting the data-sort-type to number may be enough to stop the convert template confusing the table sort. Would save you having to add a lot of data-sort-value statements... Robevans123 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversion to acres added. Many thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Good to see it worked without having to add data-sort-value statements. Robevans123 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor is going round changing the names of local and national nature reserves articles from title to sentence case, including this article - wrongly in my view and without consultation. I have raised this with User:Bishonen. See Talk:Local nature reserve. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

List of works by Leslie Charteris[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Charteris was a tireless writer between his first foray into writing in 1927 and his final 1980 introduction to a re-print of one of his earlier works. He is, of course, best known for his creation of Simon Templar—aka The Saint—a "born buccaneer" who span off into comics, films, television shows, on stage and elsewhere, always identified by the stick man drawing with the halo. Charteris had more to him than this though, and developed Paleneo, a pictorial sign language, produced a guide to learning Spanish and translated the autobiography of the bullfighter Juan Belmonte. – SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick question, how does the infobox square with the article? For instance I see "Non fiction 2" but yet four are listed in the article. There's also something missing here: "Charteris also three works of non-fiction"... More soon if I get a moment this weekend! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi RM, and thanks for looking this over. The IB breaks things down a little more, with 2 non-fiction, 1 translation and an introduction all linking down to the one table. I've tweaked the lead para about it too, which may help explain (and gets rid of the typo problem too). It may still need something of a further tweak to be completely spot on, and I'll mull that over today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Support – I leave the arithmetic to others but the prose of the lead and the contents of the tables are first rate. The page is evidently comprehensive, and is reader-friendly and pleasing to the eye. Tim riley talk 13:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Ive added the commas, and removed the Dr, despite deeply disagreeing wight the MoS on the latter point. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are the American publishers' locations given in parenthesis? (Which you don't repeat in "Other Works")
  • I'm presuming that you give the publishers location as a short of shorthand as to whether the work was originally published in the UK or America, but 1) Why not just have a column that says that rather than jamming in the city the publisher is physically located in (it's not like the London publishers didn't sell the books in other cities in the UK, after all) and 2) in either case you don't have a location for Juan Belmonte, Killer of Bulls: The Autobiography of a Matador.
  • I think that's the standard for all biographies or source lists: you show the location of the publisher by city (and state/country, if necessary) – see WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • It's Charter Communications, not Charter
  • Screenplay heading should be "Co-writer(s)", since one of them had two
  • Why does one of the screenplays get a redlink, but no books do?
  • Looks good besides that. --PresN 21:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi PresN, Sorry for the delay here, for some reason this dropped off my Watchlist and I didn't pick up on your comments. I've got a day with the family I front of me, but will go though these shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi PresN, all now sorted, except the one point commented on above. Many thanks for going over this one: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – can't fault it! Cassiantotalk 19:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments ii

  • If the table captioned "The books of Leslie Charteris" is initially in publication order then alphabetical order, something's not quite right, Knight Templar shifts up when sorted by publication year.
  • You have "emphasizing" but then "Novelisation". Would stick with one variant of English.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Both schoolboy errors – both now fixed. As always, many thanks for taking the time to go over these: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

List of heads of government of Russia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A list of heads of government of Russia. Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose
    • Too many redlinks. One assumes the head of government of Russia is sufficiently notable that everyone in it should have an article.
      • If I get the time I will create them. Articles about Russian politics before 1917 are underexposed in enwiki, but I try to do the best to create at least stubs
        • Thanks
    • Why so few pictures during the Soviet era?
      • There are several reasons, one is the traditional copyright issues
        • Perhaps, but three random ones I picked from the Soviet era all had photos in their own articles. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
          • The pictures are non-free, so they should be used sparsely in articles--Tomcat (7) 10:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
            • If they qualify to go in the individual articles, it seems that they qualify for the list article. They aren't being used under fair use, presumably, since none of the articles are about the pictures. But I admit to not being an image copyright expert. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Delegate comment: No, inclusion in another article does not give an image a "free pass" to be used in a list. There is a need for contextual significance for all non-free images. @Crisco 1492: will be able to clarify or correct on this point. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "Russian Soviet Republic" is a term used several times in this article, yet so far as I can tell is not in common usage. It redirects to the article on the Russian SFSR, where the phrase "Russian Soviet Republic" never appears.
      • Changed to Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR)
        • Thanks
    • I don't think we should rely on a line in the intro to explain the date change; they should be specified by stating which states are old style. Likewise, the treatment of old style dates in the intro can be improved.
      • I added in-line clarifications.--Tomcat (7) 11:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Why are there gaps from 1801 to 1810, and 1917 to 1923? Just because these gaps might be explained in the intro, there still needs to be in-line explanations about them. Don't expect the user to have to jump back and forth within the table.
      • How about now.--Tomcat (7) 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Why include a political party column in the first table? This might make sense if it was actually linked to the other tables, but it's not, so the column goes entirely unused.
      • Because it will look too odd and small. I would keep it consistent. Secondly, the Russian Provisional Republic was a temporary republic which chronologically neither belongs to the Russian Empire, nor the Soviet Union
        • Except it's not consistent; none of the earlier tables have a Cabinet column. I would say remove unused columns, or combine everything into one table. There's no need to create a false consistency.
          • See below.
    • Inconsistent date styles, for example in the 'Cabinet' column for Silayev.
      • Overlooked that
        • Thanks
    • Why are some acting?
      • The answer would be the same as for all acting politicians. Acting politicians come to office after a tragic event, after resignation, etc. Vladimir Nikolayevich Kokovtsov was acting after the assassination of Stolypin
        • In the lists of U.S. governors I've made, I made sure to be very clear why a position changed hands, if not through normal electoral means. So if someone was acting, the list should inform us if it was because the previous person resigned, or died, or what not. This should not just be a simple list of the people who held the office; it must also educate the reader as to how they came to occupy it.
          • Added notes. Not sure why Kokovtsov became acting on 2 September 1911, probably ten assassination attempts of Stolypin by socialists was the reason to change the chairman. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned about scope. The Russian Empire, Russian Federation, and Russian Republic were independent countries, as was the Russian SFSR for five years. But then it became part of a larger country, and thus its head of government was not analogous to the head of government of a country. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Please clarify what you exactly mean. Especially the last sentence is not quite understandable. But I try to answer of what I understood. This article does not list secretaries of the Soviet Union, we have a separate article. The Russian SFSR with the future Soviet Union is the successor state of the Russian Empire, as is the Russian Federation of RSFSR.
        • I mean... the Russian SFSR was not an independent country. So its head of government had a much different definition than that of a country. Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR or the Russian Federation? My point is, you're jumping between independent nation and subunit. I know the Russian Federation was the successor state to the Soviet Union but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying, the offices are not analogous. One is the head of government of a country, one is the head of government a part of a country. No one would combine a governor and president into the same list with a U.S. state, even though they're both chief executives of their respective areas. However, I don't think this is quite a huge issue. After all, the only solution would be to split it out, which I might recommend, but there are enough other issues with the list that that can be tabled for now. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
          • "Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR" - probably yes; since Rykov the chairmen of USSR and RSFSR varied. Lenin, Rykov, Molotov, Stalin, Malenkov, Bulganin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Tikhonov, Ryzhkov, Pavlov and Silayev. [3] lists heads of government of RSFSR as Russian heads of government.--Tomcat (7) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm withdrawing this objection. The offices are not purely analogous, but the only other option is to split out the list. And, this isn't a list of prime ministers of Russia, or or chief ministers... it's a list of the heads of government of Russia, which means it's less concerned about the actual office or title. I mean, heck, the office of Prime Minister of Russia probably has less in common with being a member of the Supreme Privy Council than the office of chairman of the RSFSR had to do with the head of government of the Soviet Union, yet they still belong on this list. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comments. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A new one to add: There's a difference between "Independent" (like Zubkov) and "No parties" (like in the imperial era). All the more reason to remove party from the imperial era, and be specific what a dash means in the modern era, perhaps simply replacing it with "Independent". --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Removed the column. I think the dash should stay, as it may confuse the reader.--Tomcat (7) 22:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying remove the dash, I'm saying replace it with either "Independent" or "No parties". --Golbez (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I know, but I changed it anyway. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Did I miss something, or why has the review become staled? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 11:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope, switching to support. Oh, one more thing - the left color bar by Chernomyrdin's acting term isn't the right color. --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I changed the colour. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Encouragement of Climb episodes (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): KirtZJ (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thought I'd try my first attempt at a FL. Let's see how it goes. —KirtZMessage 01:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by DragonZero

Well, looks like I'm too busy to complete this too. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better if this was merged with the second season as one complete list, rather than a specific season, before considering nomination. Since the first season's short form, and the second season are only 15 minute episodes, it's not really neccessary to use two seperate articles. Wonchop (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't be an issue for FLC since there's enough content for it to exist, I think. If the second season's list was small enough, it might be merged, eventually losing it's FL status, similar to the Bleach chapter list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Akshay Kumar filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list provides comprehensive information about Akshay Kumar's films. He has starred in more than 120 films so far in his two decade long career. I expect constructive comments from the reviewers. This is my 1st FLC so please don't be too harsh to me. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I took the liberty to fix the tables so that it meets FLC. Probably still needs a bit of work. The lead however needs a significant copyedit/rewrite by someone well-versed in Bollywood as the prose is lacking. @Krimuk90:, you're an expert on these kind of articles. Are you up for fixing up the lead for this list? Cowlibob (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The lead needs a major rewrite. I'll see what I can do. -- KRIMUK90  06:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Isn't Hari Om Entertainment Akshay Kumar's production company? Doesn't that mean that he has co-produced more films than listed in his filmography? -- Sriram speak up 17:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Kumar's company had produced the films but he was not credited as the film's producer. Shah Rukh Khan filmography also lists the films produced by Red Chillies with the explanatory note that SRK wan't credited as the film's producer. I hope I have resolved your comment.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Lead
  • The sources provided don't mention that the first film that he had signed was Deedar. So why is it mentioned before his first role?

Citations added.

  • You don't "have" success, you "achieve" success.

Corrected.

  • "..promoted Kumar as one of the most successful actors of the year". How about "established Kumar as one..."

Thanks, you always give the best suggestion.

  • The fact that he played action roles in the 90s appears in between his credits for 1994. Why?

Moved to the appropriate place (I think so!)

  • In the second paragraph, why mention some of his 1994 credits that have already been mentioned in the first paragraph? Also, there is no need to mention all his releases.

Removed all of them.

  • "declared a hit". By whom?

Resolved (I think so!)

  • "However, his later films...". 'Later' is very vague. During which period did his films not do well?

Changed.

  • "He had given 14 flop films in a row before acting in Jaanwar". Very jarring due to the sudden change in tense.

Changed.

  • "..after the long spell of flop films". Not quite encyclopaedic.

Removed.

  • "After 2000 he changed from action genre to drama, romantic, negative and comedy" How can someone change to a "negative genre"?

Removed.

  • "With Garam Masala, Akshay surpassed Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan on the box office for the first time." Surpass in regards to what?

Added " in terms of box office collection".

  • " His success had soared in 2007.." Poor grammar, and replace "soared" with a better word.

Changed.

  • "hit films" sounds like a newspaper report. Use something like a box office hit, or a commercial success etc.

Done.

  • "By playing these roles he avoided being typecast as an action actor." Source?

Removed.

  • " Apart from feature films it had also produced a global warming based documentary.." Ehhm... "he" and not "it" please.

Necessary changes made.

  • Rowdy Rathore and Housefull 2 were critically successful? Source?

Added.

  • Why is "Breakway" suddenly not in italics?

Fixed.

  • "On 16 February 2013, many media outlets reported that the box office collection of Kumar's films had crossed 2000 crore (US$330 million) and till date is the only Bollywood actor to do so." Again, jarring tense changes.

Rephrased the latter part.

  • The final four-five sentences aren't quite up to the standards of a featured list, so I won't comment on those.

Working.

Okay, these comments are just the tip of the iceberg. The prose has many more issues. Since this is your first nomination, I understand that it is very difficult to get it right in one go. I, therefore, strongly suggest that you open a peer review before nominating this again. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90  15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90:Thanks for thoroughly inspecting the lead. Awaiting further comments!--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Louie[edit]

Nominator(s): Wikipedical (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive, up to date, and meets all other Featured List criteria. Corresponds with other Featured Lists List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development, List of 30 Rock awards and nominations, List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons, etc. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Agree with the reasoning for you declining some of the suggestions. Just make sure to update the TCAs later on this month. I'm not as well versed about TV show articles but it seems to be comprehensive enough. Overall, a great list. Cowlibob (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars[edit]

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it sevaral times so it could meet he creteria, and it has improved a lot since the first nomination. Bruno Mars has received several nominations and awards in a short carrer so far due to his efforts as a singer, producer and song-writer.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Mario, as I can see, this list is overall well done, and I'm quite impressed with your work on it. However, there are several source issues remained. Some sources are not reliable at all for an FL (Hypeable, About.com, Antimusic...). For this issue, I recommend you to use {{Cite AV media}}. The second issue is that I can see source parameters ({{Cite web}}) are not suitable. (Example, ref 1: "work" here is not "theguardian.com", but The Guardian). To be honest, I think you should check the sources carefully before getting this to FLC. Regards, Simon (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Chief Ministers of West Bengal[edit]

Nominator(s): —indopug (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another India-related chief ministers list, this time for West Bengal. The article is modelled on List of Chief Ministers of Karnataka, which passed FLC recently. Any comments will be addressed swiftly.—indopug (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments from Golbez (talk)
    • I'm going to take some things from my U.S. governor lists for this, but not all may be appropriate for this topic, so just a heads up on that. :)
    • I'm unfamiliar with the template, so it's fine if this isn't possible, but "0 years 160 days" is an odd construction. Is it possible to finesse that to simply read "160 days"?
Done.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the "term" should be split out into "took office" and "left office"; that way we don't awkwardly get dates on two lines.
Done.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I would have argued against including duration, but the terms here appear to not be on a set schedule, so I suppose that makes sense. In an office with a set "every X years" election schedule, that would be far less useful.
    • At present, the color key at the top seems extraneous, since it's not actually a key for anything, since every color block is next to its appropriate party. I would say remove it altogether.
I don't really disagree with you, but I've been including it ever since an FLC delegate said it should be there in a previous FLC (open the "Resolved comments" banner). I think it isn't clear what the colours represent if they aren't defined before hand.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not entirely convinced that the premiers of Bengal should be included on this list... to call back to another governor thing, it appears (and I could be wrong so please correct me) that the situation is similar to Dakota Territory, where it was split into two states. I wouldn't repeat the list of territorial governors of Dakota Territory on both state lists, I would have a separate article for that. Should the Premiers of Bengal be in their own article, detailing the premiership of that distinct political unit?
    • The caption for Ghosh reads "first chief minister" but according to the list he was first premier and fourth chief minister, not first chief minister; the caption should be updated accordingly.
Doing...—indopug (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • "As per the Constitution of India" 'As per' is a bit colloquial. I would prefer 'In accordance with".
  • "Given that he has the confidence". Should be 'he or she' - especially as the incumbent is a woman!
  • " All three erstwhile Bengal premiers" - I would delete 'erstwhile' as redundant.
  • "The first was Prafulla Chandra Ghosh of the Indian National Congress, who was succeeded by his party-mates Bidhan Chandra Roy and Prafulla Chandra Sen." I do not think 'party-mate' is a word, and it would be helpful to give the year stability ended. Not sure of the best wording, but perhaps something like "Until [year] the state was governed by three Indian National Congress Chief Ministers, firstly Prafulla Chandra Ghosh, and then Bidhan Chandra Roy and Prafulla Chandra Sen."
  • I do not think you need two photos of the current Chief Minister. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one rap songs of the 2010s[edit]

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because having worked on it extensively for the past few months, I believe it meets the featured list criteria. This is the second nomination in a series of three articles on Rap Songs number-ones, following a previous successful FLC. Holiday56 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
I'm not sure how to regard the stability of a list which will continue to gain entries on a regular basis for the next five years, but I'll see what other people think about that. Comments purely on the prose, etc, follow......
I was kinda expecting somebody to bring up the stability issue, but I figured that I wouldn't consider the list to be a violation of criteria 6 as no edit wars are really affecting the article and the content won't be changing significantly on a daily basis – really just one minor weekly edit consisting of updating the number of weeks at number one for a single or adding a new number-one hit – don't think waiting half a decade for a nomination is necessary in this case. Holiday56 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"With his 2012 single "Make Me Proud", Drake broke the record for the most number-one hits on the chart, taking over the previous title holder, Diddy; he has since attained 14 chart-toppers in total" => this could be read as saying that Drake has had 14 number ones since "Make Me Proud", which obviously isn't the case. I would say "With his 2012 single "Make Me Proud", which was his [n]th song to top the chart, Drake broke the record for the most number-one hits on the chart, previously held by Diddy; as of [whenever] Drake has attained 14 chart-toppers in total"
Reworded. Holiday56 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"34 singles have topped Hot Rap Songs during the 2010s;" - don't start sentence with a numeral
Reworded. Holiday56 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"on the week of October 20, 2012" - is "on the week" valid in US English? I am British and we would not say that, we'd say "in the week" or, if the date in question is a "week ending" date then maybe "on the chart dated October 20, 2012"
Reworded. Holiday56 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"with WQHT program director Ebro Darden arguig" => "with Ebro Darden, program director of New York City radio station WQHT, arguing" - not every reader will grasp that WQHT is a radio station
Reworded. Holiday56 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"the new chart failed into account to take demographic information" - think some of those words are in the wrong order ;-)
Reworded. Holiday56 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It now says "critics arguing that the new chart failed into account to take into account" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback; hope I've resolved everything. Holiday56 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
One point I raised 12 days ago still hasn't been resolved, but it was only a small thing so I fixed it myself and now support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment There is inconsistency in the titling of the three lists ("singles" is used in the 1980s/1990s and 2000s lists, while "songs" is used in the 2010s list). Is this intentional? --Philpill691 (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Philpill691: Yeah, it's intentional. This particular page was moved to reflect the chart changes which took effect in 2012 – prior to that this chart was based solely on sales (and in the 2000s, airplay) of rap singles, but with the new changes incorporating digital download sales, streaming, etc. it's possible for album tracks to chart without being released as singles. Holiday56 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The United States Naval Academy's football team has been led (or left leaderless) thirty-nine times since its start in 1879. One of the oldest and most successful teams in college football, four of Navy's coaches have made the hall of fame for their coaching talent, and another four are hall of fame players who happened to coach. This list failed previously after a long nomination. I have since addressed all of the concerns, and again believe this is ready for the bronze star. Here we go again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Prince Royce[edit]

Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts 13:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Renominating this list for consideration. The last nomination was unsuccessful due to lack of reviewers. This list follows similar formatting of FLs List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos and List of awards and nominations received by Ivy Queen. Thank you. DivaKnockouts 13:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Harbhajan Singh[edit]

Nominator(s): Vibhijain, Vensatry (ping) 18:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A previously failed FLC due to the nominator's absence. Vibhijain created the basic article, I improved it up a bit. Vensatry (ping) 18:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Only one comment: asked to follow-on or forced to follow-on? You use both, yet asked and forced have very different connotations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done as suggested (from asked to forced) Vensatry (ping) 15:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I present to you the list of Interstate Highways in Michigan. This is the first, of what I hope will be, a series of similar lists for the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, and hopefully the first of several similar lists on highways in the U.S. The list used List of Interstate Highways in Texas as a starting point, but it uses specialized templates developed to implement WP:USRD/STDS/L, a project standard for lists of highways. We hope to use feedback from this nomination to improve both this list and the new list standard. Imzadi 1979  02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this at the ACR and feel that it meets all the FLC criteria and sets a model for what highway lists should look like. Dough4872 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I like it a lot, but a question: In the table cell for I-75, it says "only highway on both Upper & Lower peninsulas, only freeway in the Upper Peninsula". What is the difference between a highway and a freeway? To me they've been synonymous. If that's the case, then the first distinction is unnecessary. --Golbez (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    The term freeway refers specifically to a controlled-access highway. -happy5214 18:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps a wikilink might help... --Rschen7754 18:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    The term freeway is linked in the Description section, which explains the specific requirements to be an Interstate Highway. Imzadi 1979  01:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    This doesn't explain the difference between "freeway" and "highway", though, and it just says "highway," it doesn't specify "Interstate Highway". I hope you see my confusion here, as someone who grew up with freeway and highway being completely synonymous, that maybe there's a better way of describing this. Maybe say "The only freeway in both peninsulas, and the only interstate highway in the UP"? --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    @Golbez: except that "highway" and "freeway" are not synonymous. There are three concepts at work here. An "Interstate Highway" (yes, the capitalization matters), is a type of freeway, but not all freeways are Interstates. A freeway is a specific type of highway, one with full control of access (meaning traffic can only enter at specified junctions and adjacent property owners cannot build driveways to access the highway) and grade-separated junctions (meaning that intersecting roads pass over or under the freeway on a different grade, or level). Beyond that, to be an Interstate, the freeway has to meet specific criteria for lane widths, shoulders, etc and it has to be numbered as part of the Interstate Highway System. Michigan has several freeways that aren't Interstates, some of which are constructed to Interstate Highway standards, some that are not. In short, if you were to draw a Venn diagram of the concepts, "highway" is a big circle, "freeway is a smaller circle within that, and "Interstate Highway" is within that, like the rings of a bullseye.

    In any case, I-75 is the only highway of any kind to traverse a route on both peninsulas, and as a result it is the longest in the state, again of any type. It is also the only freeway in the UP; the divided-highway sections of US 41/M-28 and US 2/US 41 are not freeways. Imzadi 1979  23:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    "except that "highway" and "freeway" are not synonymous." Except that I don't think I'm alone in thinking they are. It's perhaps a regionalism, or a distinction that I never really learned. I'm not saying they aren't; I'm saying, to many (most?) people, they are. It seems easiest to link to definitions, or be more specific as to what you mean by freeway and highway, like perhaps specifying controlled-access. Otherwise I suspect this question will continue to come up and you'll continue to have to answer it. --Golbez (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    @Golbez: it's not a regionalism; it's a matter of definition. Rather than continue an intractable argument, I've added two redundant links to the notes. However, if someone complains about overlinking, I may have to remove them. Imzadi 1979  06:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't mean the distinction between "freeway" and "highway" is a regionalism; I'm saying, growing up thinking they're the same, and using one or the other, is. It's easy to find dialect maps online with the question "Do you call it a freeway or a highway?" I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just saying, if it's confusing to me, it's likely confusing to others. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, another comment... this probably goes to project standards but it's just something I thought of so I'll put it here. It seems to me that it would be very useful for the auxiliary highways to include in the notes or another column what their purpose is, or at least their metro area. Looking at that list, I could not tell which are beltways around Detroit. Or bypasses. Or spurs. So, for example, I might include that 194 is a connector to Battle Creek; 196 is a spur to link 94 and 96; 275 is in the Detroit area; etc. --Golbez (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Added, thanks for the suggestion. As I've noted above, our project standards are going to be refined by this and future FLCs. Imzadi 1979  01:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment—I will be out of town until July 1. Any comments requiring attention will be addressed after that time. Imzadi 1979  10:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal)[edit]

Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list previously had outdated GDP information, poor referencing, and underdeveloped prose. Those issues have been resolved and it is believed that the list meets all criteria. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • This article includes a list of countries in the world sorted by their gross domestic product (GDP), the market value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year. The opening sentence isn't appropriate, for an article, it's improper to say "This article describes...", see WP:LEADSENTENCE. The lead should not speak about the article itself but should instead introduce the topic. The lead needs a complete rewrite from where it stands now; include a comparison of the various GDPs per country (highest, lowest, etc). Explain the italics used on various countries above the list. Provide a sentence on what exactly is photographed. As it stands, I'm leaning oppose. Seattle (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I have fixed the lead sentence, added to the caption, and clarified about italics, however I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting to "include a comparison of the various GDPs per country (highest, lowest, etc)". That's what the list does. Zach Vega (talk to me) 21:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Summarize the list in the lead. Say "The country with the highest GDP is x, while the lowest is y", or something similar. Search for sources that say why the country with the highest GDP has the highest; and likewise for the lowest. The lead is designed to summarize the article, or, in this case, the list. Seattle (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I have added the information for the countries with the highest and lowest GDP (United States and Tuvalu, respectively). Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Should information about other major economies be appended to the lead? Zach Vega (talk to me) 21:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Seven disjointed paragraphs won't work for a featured list. My suggestion would be to cut the lead to three solid paragraphs. I would cut the second paragraph entirely. The figures presented here do not take into account differences in the cost of living in different countries... Don't write using "here", don't refer to the article itself when writing the lead, just the material contained. If GDP does not take into account differences in the cost of living, say that, instead of the "figures here". I'd keep the start of the first paragraph and expand more on GDP, you can combine the third and first together to serve as the first paragraph. Cut the entire fourth paragraph, excluding the GDP calculation, which you can move to the first paragraph. Keep the fifth paragraph for now and make it the third. Combine the sixth and seventh paragraph to make the second paragraph. I can fine tune points of the lead after it has a solid structure. Seattle (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
              • I have made those changes except the last one. Combining the (now third and forth) paragraphs wouldn't make much sense, as they are completely unrelated. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Quick comment: Italy GDP has one too many digits in the UN list... Mattximus (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "New York (pictured) serves as the nation's largest financial centre." – unsourced
  • The image is very dodgy. The uploader has not made any other edits on Commons or en-Wikipedia, and can be found on various websites. I will be nominating it for deletion.
  • "...calculated as the population times market value of the goods and services produced per person in the country." This overcomplicates things. How about 'calculated as the total market value of the goods and services produced by the country", or something to that effect?
  • What are "demographic problems"?

Adabow (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Great list! One thing that I find lacking is that the intro does very little to discuss the tables - other mentioning #1 and #last; for example the top 25 is surprisingly consistent among the 4 sources so you might want to mention where are the top countries located geographically. And there are some non-italicized entries that are not ranked such as San Marino and Somalia; why? Asides from that, would you think that merging the 4 tables would be feasible? And in that case would you think that the median values could be used to sort the countries? Nergaal (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • This is a very good and valuable list. A few minor points.
  • "calculated at market or government official exchange rates." Worth a comment that official rates can be distorting?
  • "Tuvalu is the world's smallest national economy with a GDP of about $40 million because of a lack of natural resources, reliance on foreign aid, negligible capital investment, demographic problems, and low average incomes." This is misleading. Tuvalu is poor, but not one of the poorest countries in the world. It is bottom because it has the third smallest population of any country and the two below it are wealthier. Does "demographic problems" mean a small population? (It is interesting that the smallest by population, Vatican City, is not in any list in this article and the second smallest, Nauru, only in one list, although I think they are both richer.)
  • No change needed but some of the exclusions from the lists are fascinating. The UN and World Bank exclude Taiwan - the UN presumably because of pressure from China but does the same apply to the World Bank? Why does the World Bank exclude Zanzibar?
  • Notes. EU etc - I think it is enough to say that groups of countries are excluded from the rankings - superfluous to say which country is ranked instead.
  • Note 6. I am not quite sure, but I think the MOS would have the external links as references, not direct in the text.
  • I would suggest adding list of countries by GDP per capita to 'See also'. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

I have been fairly inactive recently but this is a fairly important list so I thought I'd take a quick look. I'm opposing over WP:V/WP:OR concerns - I quickly checked a few numbers from the third column (random choice). Looking at the WorldBank source:

  • (61) Slovakia has no 2013 value. Comparing its 2012 value with 2013 values doesn't seem correct, especially without explanation. Cuba, 2011. Slovenia is not in WB 2013 list etc. Others...!?
  • (65) Syria is not anywhere in that source.
  • The WB13 source goes Namibia then Mauritius. The list has "Guernsey + Jersey; Chad; Zimbabwe; Nicaragua" inbetween
    • The Chad figure contradicts the 13,414 value given
    • Zimbabwe given as 12,801 etc.
    • Different value for Nicaragua in source too
    • No value for Jersey + Guernsey that I can see (nor Channel Is., although they are more than J+G anyway)

With so many discrepancies from the only source I checked I cannot support this list. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Angela Aki discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Prosperosity (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, as it was modelled on the recently featured Kumi Koda discography page. Prosperosity (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Good work on referencing, redirects, and alt text. I do have a question though: why is the "TWN" (G-Music) chart included on the studio albums section if it never charted there? Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd left that in since I figured it was visually important to show that it didn't chart on the main chart (if you just saw that it charted on the sub-chart, you might get the false impression she did better than she actually did). I'm happy to get rid of it, though. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I would advise to remove the chart listing, as it doesn't add anything to the article. Zach Vega (talk to me) 01:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Done! --Prosperosity (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Write out all numerals in the lead or use all figures. See WP:NUMERAL.
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • seven studio albums, two compilation albums, five video albums, one extended play, 13 singles and 5 video albums. "Video albums" is repeated twice
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In the lead you list "13 singles" but in the infobox you list 14.
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • For her fifth anniversary, Aki released White (2011), an album composed of a mix of new songs, re-recordings and covers. Perhaps you could clarify what "for her fifth anniversary" means, "fifth anniversary" of what?
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Link or explain "video album"
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In references like 28 and 29 RIAJ looks like it's used as the work but in references like 30 and 31 it looks like it's used as the publisher. Be consistent. Seattle (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The list looks really good, it's referenced, no dead links etc. However, I think the lead would benefit from a sentence or two about her most popular works (on charts). It's just my suggestion though. Ryoga (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
How's that? --Prosperosity (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Perfect! Ryoga (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Five paragraphs are too many for such a short list. I'd combine the last paragraph chronologically into the second and third paragraphs. Seattle (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
How is that? I had to do some restructuring since the upper section was chronological and the final paragraph was reflexive. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

List of North Carolina Tar Heels bowl games[edit]

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've put a solid amount of effort into this article and I believe it now meets the FL requirements. Go Heels. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Since the establishment of the team in 1888 Linking only "1888" is a WP:EGG link
  • Since the establishment of the team in 1888, North Carolina has appeared in 30 bowl games.[1] Included in these games are three combined appearances in the traditional "big four" bowl games (the Rose, Sugar, Cotton, and Orange). I'd combine these sentences.
  • "20–10" is another EGG link
  • The 1974 entry either has the wrong text or the wrong color.
  • Reference 3 does not go to the appropriate bibliographic link.
  • Reference 9 uses an irregular retrieval date. Seattle (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the issues above. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ... in 30 bowl games, included in these games are three combined appearances ... Change "included in these games are" to "including". Otherwise, it looks good. Seattle (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Got it done. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions)
  • Support: good work! —Zia Khan 15:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)A


Nominations for removal[edit]

Vittorio Storaro filmography[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it needs many additional references. LADY LOTUSTALK 18:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Delist - So much sourcing issues this page has. Shame since its an interesting list. GamerPro64 01:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

List of municipalities of Finland in which Finnish is not the sole official language[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Finland

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the concerns raised on the list's talkpage, esp. that there is no sourcing for the information in the main body of the list. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The percentages at least are sourced to Tilastokeskus / Statistikcentralen (Statistics Finland, accessed 24 March 2014): "Population according to language and the number of foreigners and land area km2 by area 1980-2013" as shown in the table. Not "no sourcing". Rmhermen (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, no sourcing for virtually every "fact" mentioned in the lead paragraphs. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist until I see clear inline sourcing for the claims in the lead then it's a no-brainer for delisting. I am surprised a list with such lean referencing made it to TFL, but it was a nice attempt to do something different I guess. Other things:
    • "Alphabetical list" - the list is sortable by columns, not just alphabetical....
    • Plenty of blank cells which always troubles me.
    • "Åland" sorts odd because of the diacritic.
    • What the hell is "class= hintergrundfarbe6" in the table coding? We should be using standard and accessible coding for screen readers etc. That includes row and col scopes per MOS:DTT.
    • While pretty, what do the icons next to the municipality name do other than decorate the list?
  • Far from ideal, needs rapid fix or rapid delisting and while we seem to have gotten away with it (bar Lugnut's observations), this kind of list should not be TFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
And we would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling Lugnuts! Zoinks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Pesky Lugnuts.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you notified the original nominator? Seattle (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest doing that as a courtesy. Seattle (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't know who it is. You can ping them. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Came here from the main page. The "checklist" at the top of FLRC clearly says "Notify relevant parties blah blah blah". This step should not be optional, IMHO. It took about 10 seconds to look up the original nomination from the talk page and see that it was User:Biruitorul, a user still active on Wikipedia.
Anyway, enough procedural rambling above. On the content, I do agree that the article needs some fixes, although this seems rather possible considering the short length. SnowFire (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Until that step is mandatory, then I refuse to notify them. Hopefully they've got the list on their watchlist if the care enough. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - this list lay basically dormant for years until User:Neelix overhauled it with the intention of bringing it to the Main Page. Of course it would never pass FLC today, but back then, standards were looser. I (we, if anyone wants to collaborate) will see about sourcing (this looks to be a good starting point) and technical fixes. If the issues are addressed in time, good. If not, it'll be no big deal to take it back to FLC when it's ready. - Biruitorul Talk 00:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Norwegian, but the corresponding Norwegian list is also featured and it looks like that article contains more sources than the English version. If anyone knows Norwegian, those might be good sources to use. Neelix (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I've got a talking dog that speaks Norwegian. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man, many thanks for your constructive suggestions. I believe I've addressed them all, but if you or others have further concerns, do let me know. - Biruitorul Talk 16:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

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

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