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


Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



List of 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 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)

Alastair Sim on stage and screen[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Alastair Sim was a character actor par excellence, portraying faded Anglo-Scottish gentility; he was described by the comedian Ronnie Corbett as a "sad-faced actor, with the voice of a fastidious ghoul". His appearances in a series of comedies in the 1940s, 50s and early 60s are what will keep his memory going, but he was also a fine theatre actor with a long stage career. This list has been separated from the main Sim article, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support – a model of its kind. A few minor comments:

  • Lead: "although he had turned down": I think you mean "although he turned down", as this was in the 1970s after the earlier honours.
  • Caviare – the absence of a role is explained by the fact that this was a revue. Worth explaining in the table?
  • As You Desire Me, September 1933 – this was at the Gate Theatre, Notting Hill, not the Dublin one. (See The Times, 18 September 1933 p. 10)
  • The Devil in the News – a Stage Society one-off I see from the press archives, but none of them say which theatre it was on at. Very odd. I wonder if you might put in the table "Stage Society" with a footnote that it was a one-off matinée at a theatre not named in the reviews. Hold everything! It was at the Grafton Theatre in Tottenham Court Road: see here And Volpone was at the Fortune (same source).
  • You of all people – same source on p. 776 doesn't mention Sim, but spells the character "Portwine". By the way, I think you mean 1939, not 1938 unless your chronology has gone awry.

That's my lot. A pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 19:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • That's fantastic: many thanks indeed for casting your eye over this - and fot filling in some of the gaps! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 10 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)

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)

List of accolades received by Gravity (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC), Corvoe (speak to me)

Corvoe and I are nominating this list because we believe it meets the six criteria for a featured list. We welcome constructive comments and are happy to make changes to better the article if required. Cowlibob (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: There are quite a handful of red links in the table. Could you remove them? It would make the list look better.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: I've unlinked all the red links of people who are unlikely to have their own articles created in the near future. I've kept the ones which won or were nominated for major awards as those red links will help wikipedia grow. Hope that's ok. Anything else you would think needs changing? Cowlibob (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Support: Although I'm not done doing a thorough proofread on the list, I think there's no serious problems with it.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent list, and I don't have any major concerns with it. Just one small point: the film is described as a "science-fiction thriller and space drama film". I think calling the film a science fiction thriller is sufficient. -- KRIMUK90  06:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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 n addition "elegant"? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 4 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)

More to come, StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Premier League Player of the Season[edit]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list over the last week and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments: picture of Thierry is the same as on the Golden Boot, perhaps show a different pic/Ronaldo?
  • C. Ronaldo's pic is already shown next to the winners' table. And that pic of Henry is, IMO, the "least bad quality" image of him in an Arsenal home shirt. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 2 is pretty similar to the one at the Golden Boot, was it copied?
  • Yes, more or less. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Is talk page attribution not needed? Thanks, Matty.007 12:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's only two sentences that is necessary per WP:LIMITED. However, if it is needed (to be on the safe side), how is TP attribution done? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ref(s)": not notes/references rather than an abbreviation? Thanks, Matty.007 15:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The abbreviation has been accepted in every FL I've nominated, from the Golden Boot one to my most recent FL. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:36, 5 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 international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle[edit]

Nominator(s): —Zia Khan 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This list was previously at the FLC but didn't get sufficiently reviewed. I'm nominating the list because I believe this is according to the FLC criteria. Comments/ suggestions appreciated! Regards, —Zia Khan 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • No dead links. Files check out in terms of copyright.
  • All tables sort correctly, as far as I can tell.
  • My only comment is that the Template:Dagger and Template:Double-dagger used throughout the list should have alt text, as explained at the respective pages. Otherwise, it looks like it meets featured standards. Excellent tenacity on the part of User:Sahara4u. Seattle (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Seattle: I don't think this is necessary as the pages say "either the symbol or the alternative text is displayed according to the browser". In this case dagger and double-dagger are explained in the Key section! Other featured lists of the same kind (Gavaskar's, Lillee's, Steve Waugh's etc) don't have alt text for these kind of symbols, too. —Zia Khan 20:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I interpret the term "either" to mean one or the other. Meaning, the dagger will display on some browsers, or, the alternate text will display on other browsers. On the some browsers that won't display the dagger, if the alternate text isn't there, they won't be able to tell what the dagger represents because it won't be visible. No one will be able to tell who the dagger represents without the alternate text. Seattle (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done, alt text provided! —Zia Khan 21:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! —Zia Khan 20:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! —Zia Khan 01:25, 7 July 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)

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)

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)

Hrithik Roshan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90  07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

After successfully working on Rani Mukerji filmography, Aamir Khan filmography, and Shahrukh Khan filmography, this is my fourth FL nomination on the filmography of an Indian celebrity. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90  07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Great list. Comprehensive, concise and well sourced. Cowlibob (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90  11:42, 6 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 in 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. [1] 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)

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
  • A table is unnecessary if there are few items. There is only one here
  • When the issue above is settled, there is probably not enough content to warrant a Home Media section.

I'll see if I can make time to check the prose. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Anything else DZ? —KirtZMessage 18:12, 5 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)

Moons of Neptune[edit]

Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's the last article on the natural satellites of a gas giant in the Solar System that has not yet achieved FA status. I have tried to address as many of the unresolved comments from the previous FLC as I could, and will attempt to address all comments here as promptly as possible. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(Most of the content in this article was not written by me, BTW: I simply looked at the earlier FLC and attempted to act on the comments, as well as improve the article as best as I could in some places.) Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

*Comments - taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

the lead looks choppy with isolated sentences - try to meld into three paras....
Triton is unique among moons of planetary mass, being an irregular satellite: - yes though technically correct, scans oddly when one reads it - I had to read it twice to check grammar. I'd reword to "Triton is unique among moons of planetary mass in that it is an irregular satellite: "
Done. Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
25.1 gigametres (weird unit)- err, why not convert to km...and keep as an abbreviation...
I converted to km, but I'm not sure how to get it to abbreviate using {{convert}}. For now, the conversion is done manually until I figure it out. Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
(Saturn's satellite system is the next most lopsided, with most of its mass being in its largest moon Titan. Jupiter and Uranus have more balanced systems.) - (a) needs a ref (b) looks weird in parentheses - could leave them out. Might look ok as a footnote too.
I turned it into a footnote. However, I had some trouble finding an explicit ref stating this, although it can be obtained readily from easily referenceable data values for the masses of the moons in question. (The sentence might not be needed, though.) Double sharp (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, undecided on this - happy to go with consensus on what other folks feel. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if I should do anything to the first sentence, given that one of the 14 Neptunian moons has not yet been named. Double sharp (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Add a footnote that one is yet to be named - one could argue to make it "13 of which.." or argue that it is a naming guideline that doesn't necessarily exclude the one yet to be named. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Is what I did OK? Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Tentative support - I rarely review lists so this is sort of pending consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'm worried that the lead basically, apart from one paragraph, is all about Triton. I think this may be placing undue weight on a single moon, and the lead should focus more on some aspects of the system in general and not the single moon. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to focus it more on how Triton's capture affected the Neptunian system as whole. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm still slightly worried about how much attention is given to it. I would probably cut the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead, which I think go into a little too much detail on the moon for the lead. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I cut those two sentences. Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Support; only concert had been addressed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

SupportComments - pretty good overall, technical without being obtuse. A few comments:

  • "discovery of Neptune itself: over a century passed" - should be a semicolon, not a colon
  • "Neptune's equatorial plane: some of these orbit" - again, not a colon- you don't use a colon to connect two independent phrases unless the second completes a set-up from the first the first or is a list specified by the first, like you do in "at high inclination: three of these".
  • "Voyager 2 recovered Larissa" - is recovered the right word for re-discovering or finding the specifics of?
    • It is the right word, but for clarity I changed it to read "rediscovered". Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "respectively recovered all five of these moons" - if not, you use the same word again a bit later
    • I changed it to "re-observed" here. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • While you usually use yyyy-mm-dd, refs 7, 10, and 28 use either day month year or month day, year
  • Link Sky & Telescope in at least ref 7, if not also 22 and 23
  • Although about 1/4 of the wikilinks in this list are redirecting, the only one that's really egregious is Name conflicts of solar system objects, your "see also" link in "Names".
    • Fixed that one. Could you inform me where the other less egregious ones are so that I can fix them? Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead: water deities, retrograde, inclined, prograde orbits. Discovery: Gerard P. Kuiper, Mark Showalter, water gods. Characteristics: Galle and LeVerrier rings, shepherd moon, Adams ring, concave, giant planets, geometrical albedo, polar cap, cryovolcanism, (in the image caption: prograde, retrograde). Table: Diameter, mass, inclination, Kuiper. Notes: Roman numeral, retrograde orbits. References: PMID, but that comes from a template, not you. --PresN 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider archiving your online-only sources with something like or, so that changes/removals of content at those sources don't destroy your citations.
  • --PresN 19:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Switched to support, listed the redirects above. --PresN 20:44, 9 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)

Older nominations[edit]

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)

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)


  • "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)

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)

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)


  • 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)

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)

Dadasaheb Phalke Award[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 04:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The award is India's highest award in cinema given annually for the outstanding contribution to the Indian cinema. This is a listing of all the recipients since the award institution in 1969. Looking forward to some constructive comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Should the industry the recipient belongs to be noted? Soumitra Chatterjee is a Bengali film actor; while Pran is a Bollywood actor. Others like Lata, prominently work in Bollywood and Marathi cinema.
I don't think it should be added. The page would be vandalized so much. Anon users would also add state, language etc.
Fearing vandalism is not the cure of incompleteness. IMO, it is a very important detail missing. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Added industry column.
  • The I&B Ministry is responsible for it. Should be noted somewhere. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Added. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I am no expert for copyvio so I have asked somebody to take a look at all the images. - Vivvt (Talk) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks in good shape. I would, however, expect to see a summary of the work of each person rather than simply "profession" which really looks at their most notable work and why they might have been given the award. I think it helps put things in context and will lead to a greater understanding for readers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Will add the necessary details soon. - Vivvt (Talk) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • "The Dadasaheb Phalke Award is India's highest award in cinema given annually at the National Film Awards." I would say National Film Awards ceremony.
  • Done
  • "...set up by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and is conferred on a film personality for the "outstanding contribution to the growth..." ==> "...set up by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and is conferred on a film personality for their "outstanding contribution to the growth..."
  • Done
  • "In 1969, the Government of India introduced a new National Film Award, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, in the centenary birth year of Dadasaheb Phalke who is often credited as "the father of Indian cinema". Very awkward phrasing. I suggest something like this: "The Dadasaheb Phalke Award was introduced by the Government of India in 1969 to mark the centenary birth year of Dadasaheb Phalke, who is often credited as "the father of Indian cinema""
  • Done
  • " Dhundiraj Govind Phalke (1870–1944), popularly known as Dadasaheb Phalke, was an Indian filmmaker and has made India's first full-length feature Raja Harishchandra (1913). With the career spanned around 20 years, Phalke had formed a film company, Hindustan Films, and made 95 films and 26 short films including Mohini Bhasmasur (1913), Satyavan Savitri (1914), Lanka Dahan (1917), Kaliya Mardan (1919), and Gangavataran (1937)". These two sentences have several grammatical errors. Please correct them.
  • Done I have made the changes. Please see and let me know if it needs any further correction.
  • "The award was introduced to commemorate his contribution to the India cinema and is awarded "for distinguished contribution to the medium, its growth and promotion" Isn't something very similar mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph? Why repeat?
  • Removed
  • In the last sentence, please say "the most recent recipient of the award is..."
  • Done
  • Why is the cite web template used for newspaper sources? Please change them.
  • Corrected

Finally, I agree with the Doctor's comment. A little expansion on the recipient's most notable work will be great to have. -- KRIMUK90  14:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: and @Krimuk90: Per your suggestions, I have added some details about recipients' work. Please let me know if it needs any corrections. I may have done mistakes with the repeat text/verbiage. Feel free to correct. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Better, can you add profession then birth and death dates first though? Also, you'll need to source all of the information you've added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I would not like to add DOB and DOD as it does not add much value to the list. Also, none of the Nobel award FLs are having such details. Talking about references, the column mentions all the necessary sources supporting the text. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I too think that DOB/D is not needed. The next step after having those is to have separate section of "living winners". Such separate sections existed on Bharat Ratna eg and Prime Minister of India eg. Its like a countdown where we are waiting for them to die. The obsession also goes on to write down the age of the recipient at the time of winning, at the time of death and then footnotes are added to write about posthumous wins. And then there is another note added on the youngest winner and the oldest winner. And then again posthumous wins are to be clarified on whether they are considered in oldest winner or not. Oh! That's Hanuman's tail.... If there was any background on age/DOB/D and winning the award, it would be logical. We don't have any DPA death curse like the Oscar love curse. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Krimuk90:, and @Redtigerxyz: Please let me know if I have resolved your concerns. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Image concerns remain.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I spot a lot of peacock words and puffery which have crept in during the expansion I'm afraid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid the expanded section needs a thorough check for grammatical errors before I can support this. -- KRIMUK90  02:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


  • The very basic concept of giving out the award is to honour the "lifetime achievement" of individuals. This isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead; it's mentioned only in the infobox
  • Not done: The statement "outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema" clearly says the intent.
  • IMO, the lede does not adequately summarize the list. You need to explain about highly notable ones in a word or two.
  • Not done: "highly notable ones"? really? Are others not notable and have they got the award for free? Absolute case of POV.
  • POV? You don't get my point. What I meant was you need to explain a bit about "notable recipients". You definitely cannot scale down all winners to the same level. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So who do you suggest should be mentioned in lede and why? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It's upto the contributors/nominator to decide upon. Lead should summarize the list by talking about the winners, their profession, etc., not some arbitrary factoids like "XXX are the only siblings". Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Great. Already decided as a nominator not to add any "notable recipients" as its a pure case of POV.
Oh then two or more recipients being siblings is worth mentionable? I'll leave it to other reviewers. Vensatry (ping) 03:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You should know the differences among WP:POV, WP:POVPUSH and WP:WEIGHT. I'm insisting on the last one. Vensatry (ping) 03:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Its definitely rare when in the country with the population of 1.2 billion, the highest award in a particular field is bestowed on two people from the same family and thus notable. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Indian cinema linked twice in lede
  • Done
  • "The award was introduced to commemorate his contribution to the Indian cinema" is repetitive stuff. The sentences before this one are more than sufficient to convey this idea.
  • On hold Would like to have second opinion on this.
Have rephrased it now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Cash prize needs "as of ..."
  • Done
  • I see that this amount has changed from time to time invariably. You need to mention that too, probably as a FN in the table. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "While Prithviraj Kapoor is the only recipient to have been bestowed the honour posthumously,[6] his son Raj Kapoor was also awarded in 1988". I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
  • In simple English ...that father and son, both had been awarded with country's highest award in cinema.
  • In that case you need to rephrase the sentence. It starts with "while...." explains about posthumous honour and ends with his son receiving the honour. Doesn't make sense even at the "simple English" level. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the semi colon after B. N. Reddy is correct. Also, the sentence itself doesn't satisfy WP:V. Neither of the sources verify the claim. Page number 72 of Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema talks about Nau Bahar.
  • Everything is sourced...just that you haven't read it properly. Page number 72 of Encyclopaedia has a section "The changed musical scene" on the same page. Did you read that?
  • Of course they are sourced. But I'm only concerned about verifiability. The source for Nagi Reddy doesn't even talk about his brother. As for the "Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema", it only says Lata was honoured with Bharat Ratna and Asha with the Palke award. Even when both the sources are put together, the fact that the pairs are the only siblings to receive the award isn't clear. Also, when you first brought the list here, you did not mention about the Reddy brothers. So it's your own research. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A BIG LOL for "it's your own research". Provided another source which says they are brothers. Their parents would be so upset up in heaven by your claim. :D
  • Oh come on man. Stop being childish and do some homework before going in for some crude jokes. I'm not denying that they are siblings; I know that much before you know. You need to provide a source which says the three pairs are the only siblings to receive the award. Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not interested in going into the details of what you or I knew earlier. Its irrelevant here. When three of the sources say that the respective recipients are siblings, we need not provide bunch of sources to prove that others are not related to each others as siblings. Second opinion needed.
  • Then you shouldn't have made comments like that. In case you are not aware of our policies, we need multiple reliable sources to prove strong claims like this. Else remove it, it's your own research. Vensatry (ping) 03:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, you would not find a source of something that doesn't exists. So there will be no source that says "A B C P Q R are not related". I have and will always be against Wikipedia's blind dependency on "reliable sources" especially in trivial and minuscule matters. We Wikipedians on many occasions do better in-depth research than so called researchers with access to a printing press. At end WP:COMMONSENSE exists, hopefully. Btw, going by the rule book, the reference at the end of the statement "The most recent recipients are Rajkummar Rao (Hindi) and Suraj Venjaramoodu (Malayalam)" in the article National Film Award for Best Actor does not actually support the "most recent recipients" claim. In case you have doubts on some people in here being siblings, we can try getting OTRS emails from them. Until then, lets use commonsense over rules. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Your claim about the most recent winners is a case of WP:OBVIOUS. The one which we are discussing right now doesn't fall under that. Vensatry (ping) 18:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Just as obviousness applies to the style of writing, it applies to the content too; per what is commonly known as common sense. Anyways, you may put your doubts here and i can go and get OTRS or file RTI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Any reason for making the table unsortable?
  • Not done: Only two out of six columns contains info that makes sense to have it sortable, I would keep it unsortable. Again, its not mandatory.
  • Then why have you used row scopes? Is it a case of WP:OSE? Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that row scopes should exist only when some column of the table is sortable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure as the guideline is not very clear. But I've normally seen tables that use row scopes and column scopes being sortable. At least the winners column need to be sortable as it helps in accessibility. Besides WP:FL? has something about tables being sortable. Vensatry (ping) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Its not mandatory. Many FLs do not use sortable columns. This is just one example.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sortablity is a very useful feature in tables. In this case, we have 40+ recipients. The one you showed doesn't use row scopes. Anyways, you can have multiple opinions on this one too. Vensatry (ping) 03:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The list which you showed doesn't need to be sortable as they are many tables with just one or two rows. Vensatry (ping) 03:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The entries in the "Film industry" are awkwardly aligned.
  • I think it looks nice to have bullet format than simple <br>
  • Then you should align it centrally. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • None of the entries in "Notes" col. are sourced; seems like you've copied text from other pages without proper attribution.
  • Wow! I am absolutely certain that you haven't read any source. Tell me whats not sourced then I will correct it. Don't just type because you have keyboard!!
  • Yes. I've not done any spot checks. Here we go: The very first ref. for Devika Rani (Britannica) doesn't mention her being the first leading lady of Indian cinema and Bombay talkies being the first public limited company, etc., If you want me to carry out spotchecks for other refs, I'll do some "keyboard overloading" (if time permits). Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The ref already present in the article says "Dube Industries, which was mainly into construction, was founded by Rajnarayan in 1929. It diversified into films with the opening of Bombay Talkies, India's first public limited film company. " §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, but I cannot find any mention of her being the first leading lady in either of the sources. Also why is the ref nested? Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no need for a key to indicate posthumous win as there is only one recipient
  • Done
  • The FN for Raj Kapoor gets into too much of unnecessary details
  • I don't think so. Its a well published "fact" in multiple books and reliable sources, knowing that we had a DYK published on the main page about deciding vote about NFA!
  • It doesn't mean we should write every crap that's being published. Published trivia should be included based on it's importance and relevance to the context and not because of personal interest. Bringing in the DYK fact is absolutely irrelevant here; that was not an FLC. Besides, the fact carried a greater relevance to the context and was quite interesting when compared to some attributed hooks like the ones mentioned here. But in this case, it's running out of context and looks purely trivial. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You have randomly entered the entries for "Film industry" column. What's the criteria you;ve taken for each recipients? For eg., you say K. Balachander (Tamil and Telugu) while the Reddy Brothers were confined only to Telugu films.
  • Its taken from the source. Again, tell me whats not sourced, I will correct it. However, several sources can be provided to support the "industry" but then it would be cite kill.
  • CITEKILL is not an issue. You could nest the refs. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's better to remove some images as there are copyright issues. ANR's image is definitely not PD-US. Having images are good but not mandatory in these kind of lists.
  • Not done: I would keep all the images and remove only those which are not compliant.
  • Then go ahead and remove the "now tagged copy-vios" which you uploaded. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Once deleted from Commons, a bot automatically removes the red-linked images from Wikipedias. In case you have doubts on any specific images, please get them to DR over there or highlight them here so others can get them to DR. "Remove some images" is too vague for understanding whats to be removed and what not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The deletion process might take some weeks. We don't want such copy-vios to stay here if the list gets promoted in the meanwhile. Regarding your last point, I think I've made it clear in the previous comment. Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The DR is open for a week and usage in that period is perfectly fine. If it wasn't the one-week norm would have been reduced with common broad consensus. Anyways, all DRs are now closed as keep. Images are fine and good to stay. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Fine Vensatry (ping) 18:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Harv errors in references.
  • Very vague statement!
  • If you understand "harv", it would be understandable. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't worry. I've done that for you Vensatry (ping) 16:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Reference parameters are inconsistently formatted.
  • Very vague statement!
  • You have used page nos. in Bibliographies too. Randomly linking publisher parameters, etc., Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Corrected
    • I've listed only a few issues, but I can still go on and on. The main issue here is the content keeps changing drastically every moment since the list was brought here. It goes more like a peer review rather than an FLC. To be very honest, the list needs a fair amount of work before it gets promoted. Suggest the nominator to go for a peer review. Vensatry (ping) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "content keeps changing drastically"! Only "Notes" column has been expandedsince the list is bought here, that too based on the suggestions of two renowned reviewers and not one. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note – I found a few samples where the statement is not even correctly reproduced. I can do it for the whole article, but finding it difficult to find time as I'm terribly busy in real life. So requesting others to carry out a spotcheck. Vensatry (ping) 10:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Image update

Only 2 Some images are under DR at commons.

Rest all are okay or were kept post DRs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I nominated some of the images myself for the deletion for not having valid sources. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Strike when images are replaced. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
All the suspected images are deleted. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
L. V. Prasad img is nominated for deletion. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:L.V. Prasad.jpg. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Sitush
Table columns
The year column in the table makes little sense at present because it suggests that the first award was the 17th. I suggest that another column is added - "National Film Awards - and the information split between that and the current "year" column. Or the column title is changed to "National Film Awards" and the contents reformatted to [[17th National Film Awards (India)|17th]] (1969) etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The year and the number has always been an issue with NFAs. Now being accustomed to it, some regular editors/readers would know how to interpret it. The current format of calling it "Year" and the writing "YYYY(nth)" has been followed on National Film Award for Best Actor and National Film Award for Best Actress; both being FLs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comparatives. I still think that it jars: we are not necessarily (or, indeed, usually) catering for regular editors and readers. Everyone is new once. That other lists have the same construct might indicate a wider problem. I've only just noticed that this is a FLC - perhaps we should copy/paste these relevant sections from here to the FLC page? Are we allowed to do that? - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Valid point. I have added (Ceremony) to the column header for better clarification. - Vivvt (Talk) 00:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Film industry
I'm not entirely convinced that "Film industry" in the table heading will make much sense to non-Indian readers. We may need some explanation of how Indian cinema is grouped linguistically. Also, since the table is not sortable, we seem to be massively in breach of WP:OVERLINK. That said, I guess that some people might like to re-order the table by film industry or recipient name, so perhaps consider making the thing sortable? - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Sortablity would hardly be of use when some have more than one industry mentioned. It would only sort by first entry. And then as only one column of names was left worth sorting, the whole table was left unsorted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I realised that. Thus, we should reduce the overlinking in that column. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Reduced over-linking. - Vivvt (Talk) 00:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Clarifications needed
  • CN is requested with reason "something wrong here - introduced in 1969 but he was born in 1870, so it is not the centenary of his birth" for the statement "First presented in 1969, the award marked the centenary birth year of Phalke (1870–1944)".
The award is presented at the NFA ceremony. The NFAs are given for films released from 1st Jan to 31st Dec. So the entries are collected, sorted and whatever, and the awards are declared in the first quarter of next year. In recent few years, the ceremony is being held on 3rd May and the recipients are announced in April or so. So even if the award is actually handed in 1970, it is for the work done in 1969. The award ceremony is popular by its own serial number, but is at times also confused by media between the year presented and the year its actually for. That's how the 1969's award which was presented in 1970 falls under the centenary birth year. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Can we explain this? For example, "the awards are made retrospectively, at the NFA for the following year." - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
IMO, this award, in particular, is given for the contribution over the years. So tying it with last and following year would not justify the purpose. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I think my primary point is being missed: we say that Phalke lived 1870 - 1944 but that the award was first presented in 1969 to mark his birth centenary. Since the centenary of his birth was 1970, this makes no sense and it is only if you click on the link to the NFA article that you realise the ceremony was in 1970. Am I really the only person who is confused by this? As Vivvt says, the award recognises a corpus of work rather than a single event and my gut feeling is that the year should show 1970 even though all the other awards doled out at the ceremony are for 1969. Obviously, this then has a knock-on effect for every other entry in the table, which will need advancing by a year. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that this is kinda confusing but I am not sure how to address this concern. We cannot simply add up years by one because in the past we have had two of the NFA ceremonies in a single year. Like, 16th-17th in 1970, 46th-47th in 2000, 49th-50th in 2003, 51st-52nd in 2005, and 56th-57th in 2010. So this would not solve the problem. Rather should we say that it "marked a beginning of the centenary birth year"? - Vivvt (Talk) 19:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Did it? How can 1969 mark the beginning of 1970? I really don't know what the answer is here and I think we need extra input. Is there a way to highlight this issue? - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the centenary part for now along with the tag. I dont see it getting resolved soon. I would raise an RfC probably sometime later.
OK. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • CN is requested with reason "what is the point here? the statement is a non sequitor" for the statement "While Prithviraj Kapoor is the only recipient to have been bestowed the honour posthumously,[6] his son Raj Kapoor was also awarded in 1988." and probably on the footnote "In 1972, Raj Kapoor received the posthumous award given to his father, Prithviraj Kapoor. However, on 1 May 1988, when he was being conferred the award by the then President of India, R. Venkataraman, Kapoor had an asthmatic attack and was rushed in the President's ambulance. Kapoor died a month later on 2 June 1988."
The paragraph later on talks about the related recipients. And we have to somehow mention the relation of these two Kapoors. We also had to mention that Sr. Kapoor was awarded posthumously. For me, the link of son accepting the award and then being rushed to hospital and eventually dying was interesting. To not give undue importance to it, it was added as footnote instead of the main body. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the information should be removed entirely from the thing. My point is that there is no connection other than name between the two parts of the statement and thus the phrasing - especially the "but" - is wrong. "But" creates a dependency between two clauses - eg: "bread tastes nice straight out of the oven but less so when it is stale" rather than "bread tastes nice straight out of the oven but is made from wheat that grows in fields". - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Does this makes sense? "As of 2013, there have been 45 awardees and Prithviraj Kapoor is the only posthumous recipient awarded in 1971. Kapoor's actor-filmmaker son Raj Kapoor, who accepted the award on his behalf, was also awarded [with Dadasaheb Phalke Award] in 1988."[Footnote] - Vivvt (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Please see if we could provide necessary clarification for the tags. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgot this, sorry. Your draft is not great English. Try "As of 2013, there have been 45 awardees. Among those was the sole posthumous recipient, being Prithviraj Kapoor in 1971. His actor-filmmaker son, Raj Kapoor, accepted the award on his behalf and was himself a recipient in 1988." Or something close to it. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sitush:Changed a bit. Please see if its suitable and remove the clarify tag if its alright. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine by me. I'm sorry if I have been a pain - I was asked to copyedit and have been drawn into a process of which I have no prior experience. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather, you were fabulous with your comments. We were looking for a native speaker to do copyediting and your edits were much helpful in the process. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Awardee names in tables
  • With apologies but this first time at a FLC has brought out the pedant in me. We say Devika Rani Chaudhuri Roerich but our article is titled Devika Rani and a cached version of the DFF source for the table also seems to use the shorter form (the live site is not accessible to me here). We also say B. N. Sircar when our article is Birendranath Sircar, and in this instance I can't even see what the DFF prefers from the cached version.
I'm not trawling through every line of the table but do we need to standardise? There may be a fight between COMMONNAME and what the DFF says in some cases but we probably need to follow either one or the other rather than mixing things up. I guess that some of these issues are because our article titles do not always follow COMMONNAME even though they are supposed to do but others might be because the DFF adopt a more formal tone. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thats correct. Its very confusing at a times. So, changing table entries to the current wiki article names. Moving them to COMMONNAME needs another discussion and is out of the scope for this FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dr. Blofeld:, @Krimuk90:, and @Redtigerxyz: Please let me know if I have resolved your concerns. We got the list copyedited by a native speaker recently. Please see if you still see any issues. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather see inline citations in the description part rather than one in a column referencing the claims directly as I suspect for some the one source won't cover all of the claims in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please let me know which claims are unsourced? I would rather not like to have it changed to the inline than ref column as most of the FLCs follow the same format and I personally find it tidy. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to ask one of the delegates on this. My feeling is that when you make several strong claims about somebody in a column the facts should be directly attributed. Does the one source in each column really back up all of the claims made in each?? For me it would look tidier and more easily verifiable if you removed the reference column and used inline citations in the column. Will be willing to support once changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
With two of the reviewers suggesting the same thing..working on it. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Good job. :) However, I would strongly recommend that the quotes used in the notes column be sourced with an inline citation. -- KRIMUK90  05:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tending to Support
    • I have checked all images now. Only File:D. Ramanaidu.jpg is a problem, which I have nominated for deletion.
      • The file is removed from commons. However, I had put up a reason on the talk page why it should not be deleted but forgot to remove the tag on the file and it got deleted in the meantime. Bad timing!
        • I am not sure about the rationale on talk. You can ask for the complete text from OTRS of the permission. As far as I remember, there was a discussion on commons somewhere. Only under section Parties & Events are allowed. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I will check with some of the admins on Commons about it. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • In terms of text, the word only in "are the only siblings"; seems a little odd. You are naming 3 pairs; not only one pair Redtigerxyz Talk 13:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Rephrased a bit. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support: Waiting for your edits on Refs In Refs column, retain the ref that says that the award was given to XYZ in a particular year. Please move refs besides those quotes in descriptions. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support You should archive all web references. However, that does not stop me from supporting. :) Redtigerxyz Talk 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion. Most of the URLs were already archived by other users, I archived a few of them now. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the sources to be inline with the text. I still have kept one source from DFF at the header of the table which indicates the year in which award was given. Please let me know if you think multiple sources are required for any of the claims. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Dr. Blofeld: and @Redtigerxyz:: I am finished with the references. Please see if it needs more work or you have any other suggestions before the nominations gets archived. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A pity that it took other editors commenting to bring about the change I'd been on about for a while but this is much improved from when it was originally nominated and I'm now content with it. Good effort!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:23, 9 July 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)

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that this list meets all of the FL criteria. I have considered the name and decided to change the title from List of Christina Aguilera performances to List of Christina Aguilera concert tours per other FL standards (such as Madonna), as well as the performances done by Aguilera are numerous since her career debut. I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. Cheers, Simon (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Looks great, just a few minor things....
    • "The tour was met with mainly positive feedback, who praised..." → explicitly say who gave this praise
      • Done. Simon (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • However → However,
      • Done. 13:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Suggestion: perhaps use a website such as WebCite to archive sources?
      • I used, which is suitable enough? Simon (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Since when are we promoting lists with 5 items? Can at least the table be expanded to compensate for the extremely short list of contents? Such as adding countries visited? Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori[edit]

Nominator(s): S.G.(GH) ping! 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets, or will certainly meet with a little fine-tuning from list experts here, the criteria for FL. The prose I believe will pass, the list is comprehensive, and with a little assistance from those in the know (similar to what happened at the FLC for List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman) it should be deemed suitable. I've modelled the design on similar featured lists List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by James Anderson, neither of which I was involved with. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

25 days and not a review! What a drought. Some notes:
  • Link "wicket" on first mention in article.
  • Can you link 420 cricket to a specific article?
Sorry, how do you mean?
My mistake, I misread the statement. Seattle (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • He made his Test debut in February 1997 February 1997 is an WP:EGG link.
That link points to the article on the Test series that he made his debut in. Is this okay?
Link "debut in" along with "February 1997" and that should be good. Seattle (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Link "runs"
  • five-for until his 5/30 in July 2004 What does the notation "5/30" mean?
Five wickets at the cost of thirty runs, I'll explain it in the lead.
  • Number 17 has a typo "Drawm"
  • Number 17 #Shakib Al Hasan perhaps a typo?
  • "Key"– Result – The result for the Australian team in that match. New Zealand?
Fixed, that's me being an idiot.
  • He is yet to achieve would prefer "has not achieved" here.
Will do.
  • I would suggest reviewing other featured list candidates to try and get a few more sets of eyes over this list. Otherwise, the nomination will fail. Seattle (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Seattle: Thanks for your help, I've addressed your points. Could you please take a quick look at the two I've questions for? Cheers, --S.G.(GH) ping! 13:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • You hyphenate five-wicket in the title, and that's what the cricket glossary article uses, but everywhere in the lead you say "five wicket". Please fix.
  • "thirty runs - 5/30 - in July" - should either be unspaced mdashes like "thirty runs—5/30—in July" or spaced ndashes like "thirty runs – 5/30 – in July", but certainly not hyphens. I prefer mdashes.
  • You do "Inn." and "Econ." with a period in the table, but not the index.
  • --PresN 21:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Believe I've caught all of these, thanks! S.G.(GH) ping! 14:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


  • "Of his five wicket hauls, 20 have come in Test cricket and two in ODI matches." → Of his five wicket hauls, Vittori has taken 20 in Test cricket and two in ODI matches.
  • " wickets at the cost of 87 runs." → wickets for 87 runs.
  • "...he played his first match in March 1997." should be the first part of the sentence!
  • No need of "- 5/30 -", this is redundant.
    • Hmmm, I was hoping that it helped explain what X/YY meant when it comes up later in the article. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "...five wickets for the cost of only seven runs." → five wickets for seven runs.
  • Be consistent, use either numerals or words (i.e seven wickets at the cost of 87 runs, five wickets for thirty runs, etc.)
  • You have stated that "He has taken ten wickets across an entire Test match on three occasions." whereas the list shows only 2
    • Ah yes, this is a mistake on my part. His 10 wicket haul in Wellington against SL was a 7-for and a 3-for, thus only appeared once on this list. I've fixed it. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Wkts column doesn't sort properly for example 6 wickets for 28 runs should come earlier than 6 wickets for 70 runs and so on.

Zia Khan 04:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

    • Unfortunately I'm not particularly skilled at tables, I'll ask Harrias so take a look again. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry (ping) (lede alone)

  • You could also mention his action in the opening sentence (off/leg right/left arm).
  • Link five-wicket haul in its first instance
  • "involves the taking of five or more wickets in a single innings" -> "involves a player taking five or more wickets in a single innings"
  • Why not abbreviate Twenty20 Internationals when it's used twice in the opening para itself?
  • Full stop missing after "two in ODI matches". The first para looks messed up and possibly needs a re-write.
  • No need to honorify Mr. Hadlee
  • Add England in the pipe "Test debut in February 1997". Borders WP:EASTEREGG
  • Link Sri Lanka
  • Phrases like "His best return with the ball" and "cost of only ..." aren't plain English. Rephrase them in simple words
  • "He did not take a five-for until his five wickets for 30 runs" This sentence reads like "He did not turn 18 until his eighteenth birthday". The sentence needs re-structuring.

Vensatry (ping) 17:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discography of Audie Murphy[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a series of articles on Audie Murphy I'd like to nominate for Good Topic and Featured Topic. Audie Murphy honors and awards is already a FL. The main article is GA and currently at FAC FA. Film career of Audie Murphy and Military career of Audie Murphy are both GA. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment the standard format for discography-article titles is "X discography", rather than "Discography of X". See here. The article should be moved to Audie Murphy discography.—indopug (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Murphy didn't record these songs; it should rather be moved to List of songs recorded by Audie Murphy, in line with other articles. Adabow (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, but I think you mean List of songs written by Audie Murphy?—indopug (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops, yes. Adabow (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Two points: (1) The main article Audie Murphy just achieved FA status; (2) I'm not opposed to moving the article one direction or another. But experience tells me that everybody has an opinion on things like this. And the very real possibility exists that if we move it now, someone else is going to post here and insist a move to something else. If a move is necessary, let's do it at the end of this review, giving time for anyone else who thinks otherwise. I respect your opinions and experience on this issue. However "Discography of Audie Murphy" was not chosen by me, and was suggested at the main article talk page by someone else who has experience in this area. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I also feel that List of songs written by Audie Murphy is the correct name for this article. But yes, a WP:RM would be better. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I can move it myself, and will do so at the end of this review. Just want to give everyone a chance to weigh in on this. In the meantime, the review needs to proceed. — Maile (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support — looks good. Jimknut (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Support - with a couple caveats

  • I find it a bit odd that you just launch in with "Audie Murphy was a collaborator on several songs between 1962 and 1970", without taking half a sentence to tell the reader who Audie Murphy was, just something that he was also an actor and a decorated soldier in WW2.
I expanded. Thanks for mentioning. Sometimes I forget not everybody knows who he was. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Audie Murphy:American Soldier" - space after the colon? Although, in the references you use a comma-space instead
Good catch. The comma is how the book is actually titled, so I changed the colon to a comma. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Camp and Canyon Music assigned to Vogue Music Inc. 1966" - might be a bit more readable as "Camp and Canyon Music; assigned to Vogue Music Inc. in 1966"
Done, per your suggestion. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • --PresN 18:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the support PresN — Maile (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak (April 25–26)[edit]

Nominator(s): United States Man (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This list is the confirmed tornadoes from the first two days of the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak, the largest in history. This outbreak was in fact so large that it started breaking templates on the original "list" page, so the list had to be split in two (the first time that has happened with a tornado outbreak). Anyway, I feel that this is up to standards with the only other FL tornado list (List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak), and I think this should be able to reach FL as well.

The first FLN (see here) ended up having most of the focus on the title. If you have any questions/concerns about the title, please check there first to make sure I didn't answer your question when someone else asked it. I did correct the minor issues brought up by the only user that commented on the content, so I feel that it is time for another go. Thanks to everyone in advance for any comments you may have. United States Man (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - @United States Man: If you cite the NCDC's Storm Data Publication carefully, i feel that you could reduce the overall size of the list quite significantly. While i realize these are only accessible for 24 hours after the link is generated; you can webcite them which preserves the link forever. Also im slightly concerned that there is no sources used from outside NOAA on this list - if you can find some they may be great to cite and get the list size down even further.Jason Rees (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what you mean by reducing the list size. The only way to do that would be to take off tornadoes, which isn't even in the question. The list is fine, citing that storm data publication is no different than using the individual, and more in depth, storm events database that I have already used. Now with the outside sources, there will be little to nothing that any other sources have that is correct, other than local news articles that are just duplicating NWS survey information. United States Man (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The lists size is 115,373 bytes, which from memory the MoS says needs splitting. Now im not suggesting taking off tornadoes or splitting out the article further, but as i said earlier if you use the storm data publication carefully you should be able to bring that down. This is because you would be using ref name rather than constantly putting citation templates in, however i am not sure what additional information that you feel the Storm Events Database contains but the summaries are the same as far as i can tell.Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
On a side note dont be so dismissive off outside sources they may sometimes dont reflect the numbers we think they should reflect but they can be useful. For example this journal article in BAMS, has a few bits on the outbreak as a whole that could be useful to cite.Jason Rees (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I see now that they are the same. I never really compared them and just assumed that there would be a difference. I will work on that fairly soon then. But, as I was saying, it does no good to list an extra ref that is just duplicate info. If I come across something that can add anything, instead of duplicating the NWS, I'll add it. United States Man (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Done – I went ahead and fixed the references. United States Man (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi USM, apologies for the delay in getting back to you - i must off over looked the edit when it popped up on my watchlist. Anyway thanks for adding in that reference, if you look at the page history it is now at around 82kb which a lot better than 115kb. Will have a proper look over it and maybe support it if i get chance later.Jason Rees (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the point in having the {{April 25–28, 2011 tornado chart}} below the first table. The template tells us exactly many tornadoes occurred broken down on the EF Scale, which is what the totals column on the right hand side of the table tells us. If you need to keep the note about Canada id rather you found some other way to tell the reader about it.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I had a play with the table in order to add in a link to the EF Scale, which seems imo to be better than having it in the see also template especially if you accept my first point.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That makes good sense. I will just revert your test revert to add that in. United States Man (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to make the section headers April 25 event/April 26 event level two rather than level 3 so that its easier to edit the whole page.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The reason that we have level three headings here is so that it fits under "Confirmed tornadoes", and it isn't just a small section at the top with a table or two. I don't think it is making editing that difficult. United States Man (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Im finding it difficult because im using a laptop screen atm, but its not worth arguing about so i Support the promotion to FL. I will also see if i can find several other people to give this list a review.Jason Rees (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Support, assuming a few fixes are made:

  • Sorting the April 25 table by max width puts the one giant one out of order (probably since it's the only one in miles instead of yards)
  • "NE of Crossroad" in April 25 table is bold for no reason
  • April 25 table is sortable by start coord, but April 26 isn't
  • Sorting the April 26 table by max length puts the one tiny one out of order (probably since it's the only one in yards instead of miles)
  • You flipped the styling of La Porte/LaPorte- the county has no space, the town has a space
  • --PresN 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@PresN: Everything has been fixed. I didn't realize that the mi/yd difference would affect sorting. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I am sorry, but can nobody find a more sensible name for something that is supposed to be of "featured" quality. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That is something myself and others in the project have tried; we even held an RfC, but that unfortunately got nowhere. This is the best we have. If you have any suggestions... United States Man (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally your comment "This outbreak was in fact so large that it started breaking templates on the original "list" page, so the list had to be split in two...." does make me wonder.Jason Rees (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it did break templates. You can ask TropicalAnalystwx13; he was the one who suggested that they be split in the first place. United States Man (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Im just not sure that the template breaking was because of the size, since when i merged the two articles yesterday there were no broken templates.Jason Rees (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it may break again once that page is upgraded to the new table. I don't see what the big deal is anyway. United States Man (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally i have no problems with the title or two separate articles if it is justified. I should note that i have something up my sleeve to test out if the table will break when merged. It hasnt so far! Jason Rees (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per criterium 3.b. I have seen plenty of lists with 300+ items on them so I see no good reason to break it into two lists that take it hard to compare across the whole table/list. If something gets broken because of say wiki code, then the format should be changed until the code gets upgraded. 3.b does not state "unless not allowed by wikipedia's code". Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Nominator Comment – Okay, with the fact that 3 tornadoes were found to have been added by someone that didn't read the reference closely, we ended up with tornadoes from 2007 on this page. Also, per Jason Rees and Nergaal, I can probably condense this back into one list (at least I will see). For now, I will withdraw the request. United States Man (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Miley Cyrus discography[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because Miley Cyrus discography is a featured list now but i feel it should be at least reassessed if not removed as a featured list. There is a discussion about merging Hannah Montana discography with it. Thus the article is not stable and i support that Hannah Montana discography should be merged. Presently the Miley Cyrus discography also mentions some of the work as hannah montana. So either they should be separate completely or merged. Moreover you see 4 references that don't work due to incorrect use of reference names and at the top there is a tag that suggests a problem with the length of the article lead. In my opinion till these issues are not solve this article should not be rated as a featured list because these are supposed to be free of such issues. Abhinav0908 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Ipodnano05

  • Oppose If another article is being considered for merging with a featured article, it doesn't in any way make the featured article eligible for reassessment.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
There are other reasons too. have a look at it.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done All these issues have been taken care of, so no need of reassessment.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Made the lede neutral.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Shane Cyrus Its nice that you are helping the article to stay as a featured list but still there are a few problems. The lead mentions four studio albums, one live album, one compilation album, two remix albums, five soundtrack albums, one extended play (EP), twenty-six singles, ten promotional singles, two video albums, and eleven music videos but there is no coverage for the soundtrack and remix albums in the infobox and lists. Meet Miley Cyrus is listed as a studio album (the first one) but it is not counted in the lead.Abhinav0908 (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Someone had bymistakenly added some work credited to HM. Anyways removed now. Anything else?--Shane Cyrus (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Bangerz is listed as 4th but mentioned as third in the lead.Abhinav0908 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
And Shane Cyrus just to notify you the lead has changed again. It is to big now. Now the infobox and lead mention sountracks but they are not included in the lists below. The singles from Hannah Montana movie create a doubt in my mind on their inclusion. The issues have increased again. Seems their is no consensus on what should be included in the list and lead and what should not be included.Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You reverted that but no sources to the release dates are provided and the line about planning an acoustic album needs source too.Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Resolved the Bangerz issue. You don't use sources for what is covered in the article's body. The release dates are covered in the body. I added a source for "plans to release an acoustic album".--Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the dates are not sourced in the body too.Abhinav0908 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
They don't need to be sourced. See featured discographies like Lady Gaga discography or Jessica Simpson discography.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment; I am not too familiar with the criteria for discography FLs (I've only worked on lists of recorded songs), although I've rewritten the introduction for this article because that seems to be a particular area of concern based on this discussion. If there is any way I can help avoid having the article delisted, please let me know and I will do my best to remedy the concerns. Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I am confused about the singles from "Hannah montana the movie". We have a separate page for Hannah Montana discographyso i feel they shouldn't be included here.Abhinav0908 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Abhinav0908: I mentioned in the introduction that Miley recorded two songs as herself for the soundtrack; they would not be included in the Hannah Montana discography article because the songs themselves are credited to Miley and not Hannah. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, I missed that. It seems okay now.Abhinav0908 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Status, XXSNUGGUMSXX: I see that you both agreed that the article should be delisted before I rewrote the current version of the introduction; if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this version and leaving some feedback, I would greatly appreciate it. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • WikiRedactor, I applaud your work in revising the lead. When I first came across this, it was definitely not broad. Shane did expand it, though. Looks much better now, but still isn't quite up to par. Here's some things I'd change:
  • "The discography of American recording artist Miley Cyrus consists of four"..... quite a mouthful, try something like "American entertainer Miley Cyrus has released"
  • Done
  • In regards to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus, just have that as one title. The fact that it's a double album should still be noted, though. I'll let you improvise on this one as I'm not quite sure how to rewrite it myself.
  • Done
  • Make note of the charting for 7 Things.
  • Done
  • Have Billboard and "Hot 100" linked separately.
  • Done
  • Text reads that Can't Be Tamed was less commercially successful than her previous material, but I'm not too sure it charted the month it was released.
  • Done
I'm not sure what Status thinks now, but there's my 2¢. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 20:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Thanks so much for your comments, I've made the changes you have outlined above. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, though let's wait for others' thoughts. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 00:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
At the moment the list fine enough to retain the as a FL. I don't find any more problems.Abhinav0908 (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
@Abhinav0908: Thank you for taking another look at the article, I appreciate your time! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah now it can be kept. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 09:58, 19 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)