Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in 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 must satisfy the featured list 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 featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those 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 another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. 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 in a timely manner; or consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.  – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. 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 leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. 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. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Reviewing procedure 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. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your 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. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, 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. Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, 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 edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated almost 2 months 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 Johnson solids (FLC) Rock-climbing equipment (FLC) List of SB19 live performances (FLC) List of Line of Duty episodes (FLC) List of Green Bay Packers team records (FLC) United States congressional delegations from Idaho (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [1].

---

List of AACSB-accredited schools (accounting)

Nominator(s): Well-rested^Talk 12:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is one of the most important evaluations a school could go through with regards to accounting education, and because it is informative for future generations of accounting students. Well-rested^Talk 12:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment on the title of the list: as stated in the body of the article, there are currently two types of AACSB accreditation, business and accounting. This list focuses on the accounting accreditation only, since it would not have been possible to combine both business- and accounting-accredited schools into a single list (it would definitely have been over 60kb). At some point I might create "List of AACSB-accredited schools (business)" to focus on schools with only the business accreditation, so the two lists will have nicely consistent titles. -Well-rested^Talk 13:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment why is there a column that lists the state in some cases, the city in others, and then none at all in others? I would think it would be best to not mix levels of government in a single column. I suggest choosing one and applying it consistently to all colleges. Or if you want to maintain the "state", make it a second column. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed. That column actually lists only states, with the exception of the universities from China. The closest equivalent to "states" in China are provinces, which include Beijing (a Municipality) and Hong Kong (a Special Administrative Region). I've therefore edited the header to reflect that the column includes either states or provinces. -Well-rested^Talk 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Are you sure it wouldn't be better to just list the city instead of the state/province? At the very least you need to fill in those blanks for all but Singapore. Also, it's more common here to call it Taiwan rather than Chinese Taipei. And I believe that you should link at least the first incidence of the country in the table to the corresponding wiki page. Mattximus (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Mattximus. I think you're right regarding Taiwan vs. Chinese Taipei. I used the latter simply because the AACSB uses that in its list of accounting-accredited schools, but yeah I should probably use the common name. (I'm not too familiar with country naming conventions!) Suggestions implemented. :)
• Regarding the state/province/city, I think you're right that city might be better since it's a little more specific. What do you think of having both city and state as columns? Would that be overkill? Just checking before I make the change.

--Well-rested^Talk 19:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Changes being made. Just adding a note that I'll be making some changes to the list based on Mattximus' suggestions, in particular adding city information (either as a separate column or in place of the state column). I'm also considering adding some other information available on the AACSB's website, namely enrollment and possibly number of faculty. I'll add an update here when the changes are completed. -Well-rested^Talk 19:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Looks pretty good but I see from the above comment by Well-rested that some changes are in progress. Please update when that's done and I'll revisit with additional comments. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Drive by Comment - It seems that the school and university columns are not separated properly (there are schools in the university column and vice versa). Will return if there is movement on the list.-Godot13 (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - looks like Well-rested never managed to come back to this, there's been no activity for a month. It's laid out the way the header says for about half the list, then the city column turns into a state, then the college and university columns swap places and the US stops being linked. Also: Ref 1 needs more detail, Wall Street Journal at minimum should be linked in ref 3, and "and almost the top business programs in the United States" needs an "all". --PresN 19:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Sega Genesis games

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This one's the "big daddy" of all of the Sega games lists I've sent here, and its promotion would complete an excellent series: Sega Genesis is a featured article already, and both of the console's add ons, the Sega CD and Sega 32X have had their games lists pass FLCs recently as well, making this list the keystone to deep coverage in both the console itself and video game lists. This was a HUGE undertaking, at over 900 individual titles! Not only that, but adding in the incredible world diversity of the titles released from Japan, North America, and PAL territories to Brazil, Taiwan, Korea... it's taken a lot to track down so many titles and clean up what this listing once was, and I can count at least three or four days I've spent sitting at my computer cleaning this list up. After so much effort, it's finally ready for this, and I'm as always more than glad to address any concerns brought up during this FLC. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to be "that guy": The Japanese names. For example, Last Battle. The Japanese name begins "Hokuto no Ken". Now, this is Fist of the North Star, and is well known by that name in English, yet because it's not translated, that could be lost on the reader. Similarly but not identically, Phantasy Star IV's Japanese subtitle is Sennenki no Owari ni, which translates as ... the End of the Millennium. But, the Japanese title lacks the "IV", so it would still be a separate title, but should it be the Japanese or be translated? Now, this shouldn't just be fan translations; if no official or obvious translation exists, we should stick with the romaji. But, in the above two cases, we have an official translation (Fist of the North Star) and an obvious translation (the Japanese obviously matches the English subtitle) do we need to supply romaji? --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I do have a slight hesitation for that just in that the game was never released for the Sega Genesis under that title. I did something similar in List of Sega 32X games, where Sangokushi IV is a Japanese-only title, but it was released in other territories on other systems as Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV: Wall of Fire. Realistically, I think this may have to be a case-by-case examination, especially with any game series that has different releases in different regions. If you have more specifics, we can look at those cases. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Also, should we redlink the few unlinked titles in there? I don't see why not. Otherwise it seems odd that a very few of the entries in the list are blacklinked. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I actually explicitly went through and removed the redlinks. Not every game will eventually get its own article, I'm sure. Other lists, such as List of Sega CD games, have no such issue with the removal of redlinks. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments - You know, every so often I think that List of Square Enix games is getting pretty long at 350 titles and no end in sight, and think about how I could split it up. After looking through this 1000+ title behemoth, I never will again.

• Altered Beast should be linked in the lead

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• "of its games, as well as more difficult entries such as Ecco the Dolphin, and sports games such as Joe Montana Football" - I don't think that comma after Dolphin is necessary

• I actually got this one a while ago, so Done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• link Joe Montana Football

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• link Super Nintendo Entertainment System

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• link Mortal Kombat

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• link Electronic Arts

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Redirects: In the lead: List of Master System games->List of Sega Master System games, Sonic the Hedgehog 2->Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit video game), Aladdin (video game)->Disney's Aladdin (video game) , Sonic the Hedgehog (video game)->Sonic the Hedgehog (series)

• • Done, but some of these were just goofy. I actually moved List of Sega Master System games to List of Master System games for consistency - it makes no sense to have a Master System article named as such, and a list named the opposite. The second two have been fixed, and the last should actually be Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game), so it's been fixed as well. - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Like the last list, there's a bunch of game titles that are redirecting to similar titles rather than just sections of other articles; up to you if you want to fix them.

• I'd like to try and go in, but it will be an extensive project. For now, it should be close enough I would hope, but getting it all unkinked would be nice. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Don't sort titles by renaming them like "Addams Family, The" - sort them by placing them in a sort template: {{sort}}. It looks awful when you do the comma thing, especially with subtitles, and there's still 12 titles that are being sorted by "the".

• Ah, I was not aware of the sort template. Some issues here have been since this list already existed before I touched it, I've been working around how it was to get it set up right... otherwise, at over 900+ titles, this would have been a flat-out suicidal project. I'll see if I can work this out and get it fixed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done, but that took a while. I made sure to fix all of them, those with the "the" in front and those without. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• That will also allow you to get roman numerals in the right order- Double Dragon 1|Double Dragon, Double Dragon 2|Double Dragon II: The Revenge, Double Dragon 3|Double Dragon 3: The Arcade Game, Double Dragon 5|Double Dragon V: The Shadow Falls - right now when you sort by name double dragon goes 1-3-2-5, and mortal kombat goes 1-3-2, for example.

• Same as above.

• And Done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think asking for full release date rather than just year would be sadistic, so I won't.

• Thank you. I'm not sure I would ever be able to source everything for full release date, anyway. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Any way you could get ISSNs for the magazine refs?

• That one's a little bit of a tall order; save for Retro Gamer, I don't actually have any of the issues, and for Retro Gamer I've got electronic versions, not paper. I'll see what I can do. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Even if I can't get ISSNs, I was able to scrounge up a little more info about some of them, and added them. It's still tricky to find. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why is the publisher an external link on ref 9?

• It shouldn't be. Fixed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• You link IGN in ref 29 but not 14, and you don't link Kotaku in 11 or 12.

• Linked IGN in 14 and Kotaku in 11, and delinked IGN in 29. The FAC for Sega Genesis indicated an unwillingness to have publishers linked more than once in a ref list. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• As always, consider archiving the online refs that you haven't already so that the vagaries of time/the internet can never take them from you. This month's warning: When the Penny Arcade Report went offline this year, they removed their entire site from the web- anything not archived is now gone forever. --PresN 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I will be going through and doing this with all of my lists soon. List of Sega 32X games lost its FL status in 2010 when Sega-16 redid their website and some IPs tried to replace the sources with MobyGames... yeah, lovely, all of this while I was retired and not maintaining anything. I'll be intent on making sure that doesn't happen with any of my articles and lists again... though I wonder what would happen if one of the archiving sites ever went down... Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your feedback, PresN. I always appreciate that you're willing to review my out-of-relevance outdated Sega game lists, even at over 900 games. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - all of my above concerns are now addressed. --PresN 23:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Would it be appropriate to switch "Sonic" (the developer) to "Camelot"? Considering that this is an article about the Genesis, I think the current name could be confusing. Or at least "Sonic!". Tezero (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate to switch it to Camelot because they didn't publish games under the Camelot name for the Genesis, just like how games published by DMA Design are linked to Rockstar North but not titled that. Adding the exclamation point wouldn't necessarily be wrong or right in my opinion, but the links are correct, and the only developer this could be confused with is Sonic Team, which is always spelled out in the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll say support. Tezero (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very well done. Ready to support but not quite yet, a couple minor points: (1) When clicking on the individual letters for the 2nd appearance of the table of contents by alphabet for the smaller subsection, it brings the reader to the larger subsection's alphabet entries, so just suggest only using it for the larger section. (2) Might be nice to have an External links section with a few extra links of additional resources for the reader. That's all for now and I'd be ready to support, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Part of the idea of having two here for the larger section is because the table is so big, it helps users to navigate, and with over 900 items having one at each end is beneficial for the users. To eliminate confusion, I've moved the upper contents links into the section itself instead of being just above it. There's not a lot of external links actually necessary as well, I believe; as a list of Genesis games, its use of resources is already very detailed and comprehensive of the subject matter, and I don't believe an external link just for the sake of having external links is necessary in this case. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Thanks for the responses to my comments, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 07:25, 28 March 2014 [3].

---

Mack 10 discography

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list because there is no reason why this article should not have been passed as FL. All the comments by TheRamblingMan were addressed and no one else took the time to comment on this discography. I will be pleased to address any concerns with this article. Thanks, CrowzRSA 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick question I'm not familiar at all with Mack 10, but is "I Want it All" really a cover of the Queen song as you've linked in the Guest appearances section? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No it's an original song; I Want It All (Warren G song). It'd sound quite odd converting Queen's music to rap, in my opinion xD. CrowzRSA 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So link it correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Fixed. CrowzRSA 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Quite well organized. Presents a great deal of information in a meticulously referenced and simultaneously accessible format for the reader. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you!!!!!! CrowzRSA 05:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

* Comment: I don't think that a "see also" is an appropiate article hatnote, that section is for disambiguations. You should move that link to a "See also" section, and/or link it in the lead if appropiate. You should mention in the opening sentences that Mark 10 is a rapper, it is evident that he is a musician, but the detail of his music genre should be mentioned directly, not in a passing by "...being produced by fellow rapper...". "After signing to Priority Records in 1995, Mack 10 released his self-titled debut album that June": I think it may be better to say "in June". I think that "being produced" is the wrong tense, as you don't mean to talk about an ongoing activity in the past, but something that was already finished when the other things of the sentence were taking place. Use just "produced". In "Rhyme & Reason", you shouldn't include the word "soundtrack" as part of the link. "certified Gold in the US by RIAA for its sales" is a bit redundant: when you say or discuss about an album being certified gold, you are talking about its sales, so just end the sentence in "RIAA". "His fourth studio album, The Paper Route (2000), failed to earn the rapper any RIAA certifications; however, the album debuted at number nineteen on the Billboard 200" seems to be in the wrong order. I think it would be more natural to say the Billboard bit first, and then the lack of RIAA certifications. As "Bang or Ball" is the first album in a new label, you should mention the year. And make sure that the list is consistent with the main article on Mack 10: that article mentions a 2013 album "2000-1-0" and a 1997 collaboration "In tha Beginning...There Was Rap", which are not mentioned here. If they are missing here, add them, if they are incorrect there, remove them. Cambalachero (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed everything, any other issues? CrowzRSA 17:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I don't see any further problems Cambalachero (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! CrowzRSA 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone else have any comments/supports/objections? CrowzRSA 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments The two-sentence first paragraph gives the lead quite a fragmented, unfinished feel, IMO. Fixed "The album, produced by fellow rapper Ice Cube, saw considerable commercial success, selling 500,000 copies in the US by 1997" - unsourced Fixed I think a lot of the commentary on album sales in the lead is original research, as there are no sales figures to back this up (only chart positions, which are relative). Also note that RIAA certification are based on shipments, not sales. Are you referring to the fact that it says his album sales decline after his compilation? If so, it is now referenced. Can you point out the quote that supports this? I can't find anything in that article which does. Also, this reference formatting output is butchered. Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Mack 10's fortunes began to fade with The Paper Route (2000), his first album to fall short of either platinum or gold sales status, and his first to not spawn a significant hit. and ...considerable commercial success before his popularity faded toward the end of the decade.. Also While Ghetto, Gutter & Gangster, released independently by Bungalo, sold poorly With the introduction of the Billboard Top R&B Albums and Songs charts, I think it is important to stipulate that the "US R&B" charts you refer to here are R&B and hip-hop; perhaps 'US R&B/HH'? Fixed Songs chart is still "US R&B". Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC) My bad, fixed now. There is a considerable overuse of italics in the references. See MOS:ITALICS. MTV sticks out as a definite no-no for italics. Also I see Amazon.com and Amazon.com - be consistent. Adabow (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC) This is due to the "publisher" and "work" fields in "cite web" automatically italicizing work for some reason... Is this reason enough to leave it be? CrowzRSA 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I don't think so - just use the publisher field if you need to. Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Fixed Amazon.com, MTV, and iTunes. Also, looking at the US R&B/Hip-Hop chart positions, the peaks for "Only in California", "Money's Just a Touch Away", "From tha Streetz", "Tight to Def", "Connected For Life", "Lights Out" and "So Sharp" are not verified by the refs. Please check that everything is referenced—not only just the article need visible inline citations, all data must be verifiable by said references. Adabow (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC) I believe this is fixed, I accidentally cited the wrong chart and it messed everything up in the table Not fixed, there are still songs unverified by the refs. Also, the #98 for "Hate In Yo Eyes" should be for the R&B/HH not the Hot 100. Please double-check every single chart peak and make sure that they are correct and supported by the refs given. Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Fixed now, checked all, and also added Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart since Billboard had a record of it ([4]). Thanks for the comments Adabow, I will respond to them soon. CrowzRSA 02:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC) A couple more comments: (I won't oppose over these, but do consider): I think it's more designed for song articles, but per WP:USCHARTS I would discourage using R&B/Hip Hop Airplay and Rap Songs, as they are factors and distillations of the Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. Also, the current sectioning makes it seem as though guest appearances and music videos are not part of the discography (if they aren't, why are they in the article?). Perhaps level 2 sections could be 'Albums', 'Singles', 'Guest appearances' and 'Music videos'. Adabow (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I deleted the Hot Rap Songs chart, but not the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay because WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS states: If a song has not charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs you may add any of the following.... Since "Only in California" charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay but not the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, I left the chart in. As for the sectioning, that is an excellent idea and has been done. Thank you! CrowzRSA 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. Adabow (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Adabow! CrowzRSA 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any other users have comments? It's been a while since I first nominated it and I'd really like to see this pass. CrowzRSA 00:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Delegate comment: This nomination has been promoted. There may be a delay in the bot closing this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [5].

---

71st Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1999 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written.--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Very good list consistent with the others. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments – "and" is needed before What Dreams May Come" in the lead. Winners and nominees: "Shakespeare in Love earned the most nominations with thirteen nominations". Redundant use of "nominations" here. Ceremony information: Where Whoopi is used outside the quote, the more formal Goldberg should be placed instead. Space should be removed before ref 40. In Memoriam: Not sure another Whoopi Goldberg link is needed here, since there's one a few sections back. The hyphens in the title of ref 38 should be an en dash instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Fixed: I have fixed everything you have listed above. Thank you. --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Ratings and reception: "which was a 18% decrease from the previous year's ceremony." "a" → "an"? Fixed: The problem is fixed. --Birdienest81 (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support a good list.--Earthh (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Nice work on prose and organization.--Jagarin (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
;Comments from Tbhotch: "Shakespeare in Love won won" "Morever,..." "garnered record-high viewership figures and several Emmys" -> link Emmys "Robert Rehme" -> link it Spotchecks not done. In general great work. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed: I have fixed the errors listed above. Thank you for your help.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support excellent list. --Carioca (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 06:08, 17 March 2014 [6].

---

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

Nominator(s): United States Man (talk) 04:33, 13 January 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. Thanks to everyone in advance for any comments you may have. United States Man (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment without even looking at the list, the title needs work. (Part 1) is meaningless to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I really don't like it either, but User:TropicalAnalystwx13 and myself could never come up with anything. We even held an RfC, but that also got nowhere. United States Man (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - as the two parts each refer to specific dates, couldn't you just have the dates in the titles......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean like List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak (April 25–26)? United States Man (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. How about something like List of tornadoes in the USA on 25 and 26 April 2011? I do not see why you need to have the longer dates in the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This is Standard WikiProject proceedure. Plus, British date styles should not be used for U.S.-only events. United States Man (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). What about renaming it to simply List of tornadoes in the first two days of the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak ? — Cirt (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To me, that seems more awkward that the current title. I think it is a good idea to keep it as short as possible. United States Man (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What about List of tornadoes (outbreak of April 25-26, 2011)?-Godot13 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is that April 25-26 is not the complete outbreak, so it is kind of misleading. I don't think there are many good alternatives to the current name that User:ChrisTheDude suggested above. United States Man (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Additional Comments
• Leads seems a bit short
• In the table Confirmed tornadoes –
  • Perhaps add “(April 25-26, 2011)” to the table title
  • the total at the end of the line might be better visually if it were on par with the EF numbers (underneath the heading Tornadoes confirmed by rating). Right now it looks as if it should be the total for the entire line, not just the second half.
  • The grey N/A cells in the damage column. Is this not applicable or not available (unknown)?
  • Is it necessary to sort the coordinates column?

Finally, if you have a chance, I have a FLC too... - Godot13 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011, tornado outbreak (April 25–26), I should think, as the year requires a comma in the MM-DD-YY construction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That has been discussed heavily here, here, here, here, and here. I think that after a consensus could not be reached, people sort of just dropped it. If one page in the Project is changed, then all the other 75+ would need to be changed; and there was never consensus to do that. United States Man (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Somehow this list has drawn almost no attention, aside from the question of the title. I am archiving it now. Feel free to renominate after two weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 07:12, 20 April 2014 [7].

---

List of National Football League season receiving yards leaders

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this list for featured article because I've worked on this article from scratch, and I am satisfied that it meets FL standards and think it shows a good representation of the progression of football into a pass-oriented league. This article is a list of the NFL's season-by-season receiving yards leaders - that is, the players who had recorded the most yardage from forward passes. The list also notes which players are current players, which ones are in the Hall of Fame, and which ones received a major league award. Toa Nidhiki05 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Why is it that the only references in the list refer to the first three years? The rest of the years (1935-2013) aren't referenced, and if they are, its unclear. The whole "Other receiving yards leaders" doesn't appear to have a single citation. I haven't read the article or anything just noticed this and thought I'd bring it up. CrowzRSA 04:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Any information that is not directly cited in the article is cited in the general references section. The first three years are cited specifically because the league did not set a number of games for each team to play, so some teams played more games than others. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't intuitive to me that "Games" was not the number of games played by the players, but the number of games their team played (players miss games due to injuries, coaching decisions, etc). I know its in the key, but I would have expected it to be the games actually played like in FL List of National Basketball Association season scoring leaders (yeah, it's basketball and not football, but its a sport).—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean here... I'll toy around with putting a note on each player that played less than the number of games in a season. Toa Nidhiki05 22:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I would alternatively suggest that the historical number of games in an NFL season can be described in the lead, and leave the list to the player's actual number of games.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've modified it per your request. Toa Nidhiki05 03:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Striking my resolved comments. Content of the Games column is fine now. I don't plan on doing a more thorough review at this time, but it looks promising. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Incredibly meticulously referenced throughout, most impressive. Only a couple minor points: (1) Not sure why the Notes section then says in bold below it Notes and Footnotes; both could be removed with just the main subsection header remaining. (2) General references sect should just be renamed References, per WP:LAYOUT. Otherwise, very very well done! — Cirt (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've fixed the two errors now - thanks for the support! Toa Nidhiki05 03:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I see no problems with the list. Aureez (Talk) 12:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - the list looks good now that the ref issue has been addressed. Only wish Walter Payton made the list :( CrowzRSA 03:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose mainly on prose issues " for four consecutive seasons from 1941 to 1945." that's five seasons. This is mentioned in the lead as well. Fixed and removed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "over time - since the" should be an en-dash. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "...into the National Football League..." use the abbreviation. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) " amount of receiving yardage the receiving yards" grim. Remove "amount of" at least, and try to avoid "receiving yardage... receiving yards" repetition. That sentence has "receiving" four times.... Fixed? Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "has had the receiving yards leader" -> "saw the receiving..." Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "The player who led the league in receiving yards the most times was Don Hutson" Why "The player who..."? Why not just "Don Hutson led ..."? Changed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "six seasons leading the league in receiving" do you need to repeat the feat? It's obvious that you're talking about the same kind of record. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "The Green Bay Packers have had a player" why not "A Green Bay Packers player has..."? Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) No point at all in repeating ref 8 so many times. Just have it as a general reference. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Should Year be Season in the table heading? Yes, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) What is AAFC? Not mentioned in the lead. Elaborated. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Don't need NFL as a category because you have NFL records and achievements. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Don't need American football-related lists because you have NFL lists. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC) All these should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comment The first man on the list is the only entry with no footnote. Why is that? Other than that one issue, it looks great to me. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That was an accidental mistake, I must have removed it when I was fixing an issue noted here. It's back now. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC) [8].

---

1st Magritte Awards

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Earthh (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The only suggestion I have for the list is to make a table for the multiple nominees and winners (see: 84th Academy Awards). Otherwise, fantastic work.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those tables are so useful. That section is easier to read without tables.--Earthh (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few recommendations to improve the page: (1) Strongly recommend removing the sect Films with multiple nominations and awards, as it seems unencyclopedic, but also it's redundant to the infobox and elsewhere higher on the page which has similar info. (2) Suggest adding Portal:Belgium to the other portals in the See also section. (3) Might want to wikilink the director and producer in the infobox. (4) Subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award -- not sure which citations are confirming this info. That's it for now, otherwise nicely done overall. I particularly like the Background sect. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Cirt. I'm not sure about removing that section, every FL about award ceremonies has a "Films with multiple nominations and awards" section. I don't think Portal:Belgium is so useful when we have already Portal:Brussels, what do you think? I didn't find so many information about the director and producer to have separate articles. Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are sourced by ref 13.--Earthh (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hrm, well I've thought it over, again, and I respectfully stand by my comments above. The section may be in other pages but it doesn't look encyclopedic, and it's unsourced, and it's redundant to multiple places higher up on the same page, including the infobox and other subsections. Please let me know if you care to respond to my comments, above, and I'll consider changing to support. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should leave that section per convention. Portal:Belgium would be redundant since we have already Portal:Brussels. Director and producer of the show did not even have a profile on IMDb, there's no encyclopedic content about them.--Earthh (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll defer to your judgment about the portal placement, and director and producer info. Subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award still appear to be unsourced. Keep me posted if you change your mind about the unsourced and unencyclopedic section Films with multiple nominations and awards and I'll gladly consider switching to support. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've given it some more thought and I actually wish to change my position and state that I don't think I should hold back from supporting based on the section Films with multiple nominations and awards. So the only thing left to do would be to make sure the reader can easily understand that subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are sourced to that ref, best to make that more clear please, as at the moment it is only apparent that this ref is citing the subsection Awards, and not the others. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are subsections to Awards now, in this way the reader can easily understand that they are sourced to that ref.--Earthh (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. After helpful and polite responses by Earthh to my above comments, I am now ready to Support. High quality page. Deserves the star. Great work, — Cirt (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt, for your support and helpful comments.--Earthh (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome! Sorry if there was confusion after I re-thought out my position regarding above. I'm certainly glad my comments were helpful. — Cirt (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment - There are a lot of overlinks in the list, and you shouldn't list Maggrite Award and Académie André Delvaux per WP:ALSO. Except for these concerns, it's excellent! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Gabriel Yuji. I've removed some links and fixed the See also section.--Earthh (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice! You have my Support now. However, I think the links on the image captions are also unnecessary since they are linked on the table. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comments:

• Best films of 2010 - yet there is a 2008 film here...?

By that we mean best films released in Belgium in 2010.

• That needs to be explicit in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is written in the lead.

• Académie André Delvaux, - can we avoid repeating this twice in quick succession?

Where? Currently it is not repeated twice in quick succession.

• Twice in two sentences is not "quick succession" to you? Wow. The Academy, the AAD, w.e. ... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, could you be more specific so I can fix it?

• Overseen by the Académie André Delvaux, the Magritte Awards replace the Joseph Plateau Awards, which were disestablished in 2007. - isn't this redundant to the above paragraph?

The Joseph Plateau Award info is presented only there.

• In other words, the majority is redundant. This can be reworked to flow more smoothly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?

• their works during the 2009–2010 period. - in the led you just say 2010

The Academy considered films released in the previous calendar year (2010) which, according to their rules, run from September 2009 to September 2010.

• This also needs to be explicit in the article, with reference. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"their works during the 2009–2010 period" is not enough for you?

• (the first film to garner that many nominations), - well, obviously, this is the first award ceremony for these awards. Should probably be removed

Removed.

• the first film to receive six awards: - per above

Reworded.

• Has anyone checked the images yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the images.--Earthh (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's not what I asked. Has a reviewer checked the images to ensure that all are inline with Wikipedia's copyright policy, that the attribution is correct, etc.? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No one has done this yet.--Earthh (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, what happened to this?--Earthh (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• This still needs an image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked the images, everything is fine.--Earthh (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• You =/= neutral reviewer, but = article author. Image reviews have to be from reviewers at this level. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Could someone check the images so that we can close the nomination?--Earthh (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the images, and they seem to comply to fair usage standards. I also added alt captions to the photos. So it seems to be all fine.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Erm, except that there should be no fair use images in this article except for the poster. I'll check, so this can be closed.

• File:Joff cannes.jpg - I don't see convincing evidence that this is a free image. Is there anything more solid? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, these are the only available images.--Earthh (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed that questionable image.--Earthh (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. Another delegate can close this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [9].

---

Bibliography of Sax Rohmer

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sax Rohmer was a prodigious writer between his first book in 1910 and his death in 1959. He started his career writing songs and sketches for music hall stars George Robey and Little Tich, and ghost wrote Tich's autobiography. He is probably best remembered for his creation of the villainous Fu Manchu, who appeared in 15 of Rohmer's books, before finding a further life in the cinema. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – I am familiar with this subject thanks largely to my work on the Tich FA and my FAC intended work on Robey. As such, this is a very accurate account of the information given on them. I have made the couple of small fixes myself as they were really small and more effort would have been needed for me to post them here rather than to just get on with it; I see no further issues whatsoever. Great stuff! Cassianto^Talk 10:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments typically good stuff, some minor technical points.

• Blank publisher for "Aboo Tabah", probably worth a note.
• "Other works of Sax Rohmer" shouldn't that really be "Non-fction works..."?
• "by M. Retford." vs "and T. W. Thurban" in Notes. The consistency of the use of full stops is the issue here.

• Sorry, being blind here, but I thought I'd got the full stops in place: where am I missing them? - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The books of Rohmer" previous captions have used his full name. And this appears to be more specific than "books", "novels and story collections"...
• New York or NY? Unless one means the city, the other the state I suppose...?

• Yep: I've gone for the city in full and the state in the shortened form. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just a curiousity for me, the book is called The Mystery of Dr. Fu-Manchu but the character is referred to here as Fu Manchu (i.e. without the hyphen). What's the deal?
• Not sure you need Category:Bibliographies by writer as Category:Bibliographies of British writers is more refined.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• All done, bar the one where I'm being dense! As always, many thanks for taking the time to go through this! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Only one minor suggestion: You might want to move the page to Sax Rohmer bibliography, per prior precedent of the WP:FL at George Orwell bibliography. Otherwise, nicely done! — Cirt (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks Cirt: much appreciated! There are a couple of different formats for bibliographies and I've plumped for this, largely because I find the format of "Sax Rohmer bibliography" gramatically lumpy! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - with a few comments

• "was a British song and sketch writer, and author" - that comma just seems awkward, maybe "was a British author and song and sketch writer"

• That's not quite right either, but I agree the previous version was awkward and tweaked to something more appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Notes shouldn't be sortable in the Non-fiction table

• Yep, done. - SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Given that the first table's heading is "Songs and musical monologues written by Rohmer", the others should be in the same style (i.e. Plays written by Rohmer, not "The plays of Rohmer")

• Ive standardised to "xxxxx by Rohmer", which should be ok. - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• --PresN 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks PresN, much appreciated! Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comments:

• No image of the man?

• Nothing free that I could see, unfortunately: I'll have another search around, as I've got access to a source i didn't have when I wrote this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Born" twice in two sentences

• Swapped out one for "pseudonym". - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• His formal education finished in 1901 with the death of his alcoholic mother - probably not intended, but could be interpreted as his education led to her death, or that she was teaching him

• Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• ghost written - I think this should either be one word or hyphenated

• Hyphenated in BrEng: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why no films based on Fu Manchu? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• There are a few, but Rohmer didn't have a hand in any of them, as far as I can tell. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for your quick replies. I will be promoting this nom now. There may be a delay in the bot processing it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:55, 18 February 2014 [10].

---

List of New York Islanders players

Nominator(s): Gloss • talk 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Although promoted years ago, List of Calgary Flames players and List of New Jersey Devils players seem to still serve as good models for these kinds of articles. I used them both to help me with this one, and after checking and double checking all of the numbers, this list should be good to go. I'm very open to further improvements as you all see fit! Gloss • talk 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hwy43

*Comments from Hwy43: A TOC of article sections within the lead would be helpful for navigation. There are inconsistent date formats applied within the references and a third unique date format in the lead. May be more elsewhere. They should be made consistent. I believe the American standard date format is MDY. The title of the second ref should not be ALL CAPS, regardless if the title at the linked webpage uses it. I'd like to see the general references converted to inline citations, duplicated where necessary. These are my initial observations for now. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, @Hwy43:. I've taken care of the first three. However the general references cover all of the statistics for the goaltenders and skaters tables. If I were to duplicate them throughout the article, they would appear over 500 times. Gloss • talk 02:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC) No need for 500 duplicates. What about the column headers for each table? Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Gloss • talk 05:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Additional comments from Hwy43: At the top of the page, add the template {{Use mdy dates|date=January 2014}}. The first image's caption ends with a period despite being an incomplete sentence. Those captions that are incomplete sentences should not end with a period per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Formatting and punctuation. The season dashes are inconsist. The lead and tables appear to use mdashes, while the notes below the key tables appear to use ndashes and finally there are hyphens used in the image captions. There may be other inconsistencies. Make the second and third notes under the "Key" section the same inline format as the first note then move all three notes to a new "Notes" section somewhere below the final table as the second note applies to both tables that follow the "Key" section. Please add scope cols and rows to the formatting of the two tables to conform with MOS:ACCESS. Although the Flames and Devils FLs don't at this time, I'd like to see both the "Goaltenders" and "Skaters" sections having one or two paragraphs worth of section leads each. I'd suggest these leads indicate the amount of players in each list and the team leaders among the various statistical categories. I recognize some of the image captions do this, but it would be helpful to have all this information together (mentioning the same in the image captions can remain). We are getting close. Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC) @Hwy43: I've taken care of all but the last two. As for the scope cols and rows, I'm embarrassingly clueless on how to do that. I'll look into it, but any help would be appreciated as I try to figure it out. As for adding prose to the two sections, I'll have to put some thought into it. This would be the first time a "players" list had prose before the tables, so I'll do my best. Gloss • talk 05:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) See this table in edit mode for how the col/row thing is done at another FL. Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC) I've taken a crack at the scope cols and rows. Hoping that I did it correctly! If I did, that's also taken care of. Gloss • talk 06:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC) @Hwy43: I've also added leads to the tables. Let me know if this is what you were thinking or if you have more information in mind that you think could be added. Gloss • talk 07:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC) You are part way there on the cols and rows. My understanding of WP:DTAB within MOS:ACCESS is that each row below the column headers within the two tables needs the scope="row" at the beginning. Regarding the section leads, they look good. The only thing I'd add is the skater with most PIMs. Hwy43 (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC) @Hwy43: Both are completed. Gloss • talk 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Very good work. Hwy43 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support a very good list. The new standard for lists of NHL players by team. Hwy43 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate the help, thanks! Gloss • talk 08:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC):

List is in really good shape, but I did notice a few of things.
1 It looks like you used the wrong size dash for the seasons. it looks like the longer M dash (—) was used when an N dash (–) should have been used.

Good work fixing this in the tables. There are a few more instances in the lead.

@Leech44: All fixed! Gloss • talk 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

2 The sorting is not working properly on the playoff columns. The large amount of dashes int his column throw things off. Either {{sort|-0001|—}} or {{sort dash}} should be used which will fix the sorting issue. 3 Save Percentage note should be referenced. Other Player lists have a reference for this so it should be easy to find and copy over. 4 When using a color cell there should also be a corresponding symbol. (see List of Detroit Red Wings players for an example.) 5 While I couldn't find a specific requirement. It might be a good ideal to change the notes to alpha characters to further distinguish them from the references. 6 Eliminate the empty cell in the goaltenders abbreviation table by using a straight vertical listing. (Like the a fore mentioned Wings list or List of Vancouver Canucks players)

@Leech44: I've taken care of all of these fixes. Gloss • talk 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leech44 (talk • contribs) 01:03, January 15, 2014‎ (UTC)

Resolved comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)

Weak oppose from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Richard Brodeur did not win a Stanley Cup with the Islanders; he was only with the team for two games in the regular season. Check to make sure that only players that have their names engraved on the Cup be indicated. Goaltenders with 0's in their OTLs before 2005 and Ties after should instead have em dashes, don't you think? Ties aren't applicable in the current NHL, and should be indicated with an em dash instead of a 0 for goaltenders who joined the Islanders after 2005. This is extremely minor; more like a pet peeve than a mandatory thing that you have to do. The Goaltender column would be more visually appealing if there was no fixed width. Trust me on this one. I should really write a Wikipedia essay on this sometime, but ain't nobody got time for that. No one calls Ron Hextall Ronald. Indication of retired numbers would be nice. Both tables need captions (MOS:DTT). Captions need to be more descriptive. So instead of "Goaltenders", it should be something along the lines of "New York Islanders' goaltenders" (MOS:DTT#Correct table captions). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Awesome job with the list. The main thing to fix is the indications of Stanley Cup winners. Other than that, great work, and let's hope the Islanders get back into their 80's groove! :) P.S. Your userpage tells me that you have contributed to 11 featured lists, yet I can't seem to find you on this list. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I'll take care of this all later today. My old username was "IMatthew" - it was changed a few months ago. I changed it on that list but I guess the bot reverted me. Gloss • talk 17:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC) @K. Annoyomous: I took care of all of your comments. I agree with you on the ties/OTL thing, so that's taken care of too. Gloss • talk 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC) @Gloss: O wow. I just learned two new things: the new ping function and your name change. Shows you how inactive I have been. The bot did that to me too when I changed my name a few years ago. You just have to change your name on all the FL yearly logs, cause that's where Rick Bot retrieve his data from. To get you started off, here's Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2008 :). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC) @K. Annoyomous: Ha! Glad I could help you with both of those :) I'll take care of the captions right now and thanks for the link, I'll get to that sooner or later. Gloss • talk 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 03:08, 1 March 2014 [11].

---

List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already a candidate running at the FLC which has two supports, so this one shouldn't have problems. This list is based upon List of South Africa women Twenty20 International cricketers and I think this meets the FL standards. Comments/suggestions are appreciated, as always! Cheers, Zia Khan 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Çomments

• "The first Twenty20 International match was held" ---> "The first women Twenty20 International match was held"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Year of latest game" ---> "Year of last game" (since you have used "present" for players which have not retired)
  • Done. —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• "01" ---> "1" (50 column)
  • Done. —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Add a note telling that how are ties and NRs taken into consideration while calculating the win%.
  • Done. —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am on a wiki-break till March, so please count it as a Support if the above concerns are fixed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! —Zia Khan 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work on this list. A couple of comments, not sure if these are important:

1. "Pakistan have played 37 Twenty20 Internationals under four different captains" - should this read "Pakistan have played thirty-seven..."?
2. The pictures above the table - should they be aligned so they are down the side of the table? I seem to recall a cricket-list that did this, but I can't for the life of me remember which one it was!

Both done. Thanks for the comments. —Zia Khan 12:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks again for your great work with these cricket lists. I made some minor edits in the meantime to this article, let me know if you have a question on any of those. Still recovering from England finally winning in Oz and the 3rd ODI between NZ and India! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. High quality effort. Meticulous sourcing throughout. — Cirt (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Regretful oppose needs updating.

• Image caption could use some work so it's written in nice prose, e.g. "The Pakistan women's team at Sydney, in the 2009 ICC Women's World Twenty20"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• " two of the top 10 " maybe "two of the top ten"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• And I imagine it should be "top-ten-ranked"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• I would consider the use of the T20I abbreviation so you don't have to keep repeating the mouthful every time!
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe consider including the result of the first T20I the Pakistan women played in?
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Source [4] indicates that they have played 43 games, not 37 per the lead. It also means that you should update the statistics in the rest of the lead and in the table.
  • Updated. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure where the "under four different captains" is sourced. In fact, this seems to imply just three.
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• "which competed in" -> "to compete in".
  • Done. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Is it "women T20Is" or "Women T20Is"?
  • This is based upon List of South Africa women Twenty20 International cricketers. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Runs doesn't sort perfectly for me, I see 0 then two em-dashes, then another 0...
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take another look and do some more source checks once the article has been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, I'll wait for you. Please also have a look at the other one. —Zia Khan 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Mild oppose

• The first link of the opening sentence should be linked to Women's Twenty20 International rather than Women's Twenty20 cricket.
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• There seems to a connection issue with ref #1
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Not done. It isn't working for me. —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• The succeeding sentence is a bit confusing
  • fixed. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• extra the in "the The Vineyard, Dublin"
  • Removed one. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Ref #4 doesn't support the claim
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comma needed after "In 2009"
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• "She and Nain Abidi" poor grammar
  • reworded. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• most capped player -> most capped players
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• 56 and 56 n.o aren't equivalent scores
  • Removed the 56 part. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• You could use batswom(a/e)n since we are discussing about women's cricket
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• "to score a fifty in the format for Pakistan" which format, WC?
  • clarified. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Are you sure that Bismah Maroof's batting average is the highest?
  • Yes. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Technically not so. At least three have better averages than Maroof. It's better to add a note here —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Needs "As of ..." for most of the individual records
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Maroof also has taken 16 catches which are more than any other Pakistani as a fielder" not true
  • source provided. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Link doesn't work. It's probable that you mis-typed the URL —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Figures for the following sentence need to be updated
  • Updated. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Sadia Yousuf has the best return" not sure what you mean by return
  • Fixed. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Need to mention the team Sarah Taylor is playing for
  • Done. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• "She also has taken eight catches as a fielder" you mean Taylor? The ref. doesn't support the claim here as well
  • removed the sentence. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Since the team was formed, 28 women have represented Pakistan in T20I cricket" a little confusing
  • What is confusing here?. —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've not checked the table and sources. I see the usage of "Having ..." three times in four successive sentences. The prose needs a little amount of work before it gets promoted. A spotcheck may be carried out since I came across two sentences where the source didn't really support the fact during a random check. —Vensatry _(Ping) 10:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Done. I think, I've sufficiently addressed your concerns. Let me know if I'm missing something. Thanks for the review! Regards, —Zia Khan 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• There are quite a few concerns which still remain unaddressed. Once they are done, I'll revisit this page for further comments. —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• This article is nearing two months and has two outstanding opposes. As such, I am archiving it. I recommend continuing discussion with reviewers before nominating again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [12].

---

List of National Natural Landmarks in Colorado

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This list, which covers some of the most beautiful and unsullied areas in Colorado, closely follows the format I used in the Michigan and Alaska lists, both now FLs. I look forward to your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -- this list is looking good, but after reading the Michigan list, I would like to see a little more information on some of the more notable landmarks in Colorado. Is there any content you can add? I'm not suggesting you expand the lead that significantly, only to add a sentence or two about some of the sites' significance (culturally, militarily etc.). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the corresponding list is actually List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan, not the National Historic Landmarks list you linked above. The NHL list is summarizing almost 40 sites, while this NNL list is summarizing 14, in a different program. I'll look at the Colorado list tomorrow, and see if there are any little bits and pieces I can add in, but wanted to make sure you were comparing to the right list :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, you are correct. That's what happens when you're reading late at night, I suppose! :) Sorry about that. Now looking at the correct Michigan list, could you specify in the lead the first two designations you are referring to (and the latest one)? Ruby 2010/2013 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough, now added. Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• User:Ruby2010, do you have any further comments regarding this list? If so, they would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• This list looks great and worthy of becoming an FLC. I support its promotion. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 19:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. A very good list. I would suggest linking "unconfined aquifer". Dudley Miles (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support and the suggestion, which I have now acted upon. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very informative list. Quite educational and encyclopedic. Meticulously sourced throughout. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and support! Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "13 fully within Colorado and one shared" MOSNUM says use either numbers or words to describe similar things, so "Thirteen" or "1".

• Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• " two Natural Landmarks, while two Landmarks" various varying description of the landmarks, you abbreviated them to NNLs in the lead, why not just use that each time?

• I did a bit of tweaking to this, but I don't think it made it much better. Do you have any better wording to get rid of the two landmarks...two landmarks... repetitiveness? Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Over doing the accuracy of the conversion, we don't need square miles to the nearest 0.001.

• Rounded to the nearest 1/10. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Owners include private individuals and several municipal, state and federal agencies" vs "Both public and privately owned properties can be designated as NNLs." isn't this effectively saying the same thing twice?

• No, not the same thing. The second says that both public and private properties can be designated as NNLs, the first says that NNLs owned by the various groups listed have been designated as NNLs in Colorado. For example, Colorado has NNLs owned by municipalities, while Alaska doesn't. In Michigan, a public university owns at least one NNL. I think there's at least one state where there are no NNLs on private land. So, the first is what is done in that state, the second is what could be done in nation-wide. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• "may object to" why would they do this with all the benefits thereafter described?

• They don't want the guv'mint on their land? Honestly, I'm not really sure, but I would guess it would boil down to the distrust/dislike that some people in very rural areas (which are where the vast majority of the NNLs are) have for the federal government. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Top North American" do you mean the best when you say "top"?

• Yes, changed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• "5.000 sq mi" see above.

• Rounded to the nearest 1/10; also fixed another one that was to the nearest 1/1000. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• General ref and specific ref 1 appear to be the same.

• They are. The general ref covers everything in the table that isn't specifically referenced to other sources, while the first specific ref covers the information in the lead that precedes it. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• "A major example of" any need for "major"? Is it backed up by reliable sources?

• The source calls it an "excellent illustration". Any suggestions for rewording? Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• National Park Service is linked in ref 1, not in the general ref which comes before it.

• Now linked in both places. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• "species- and plant-..." are plants species?

• Ugh. Now changed to animal- and plant-. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I have replied to everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man, I think I have addressed everything above. Any further thoughts? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support with a comment- you're mixing date types in your references; pick one (yyyy-mm-dd or Month dd, yyyy). You also have a few redirecting links in the descriptions that don't seem intentional, if you care to fix those. --PresN 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. The dates are standardized, as far as I can tell - publication dates are month day year, access dates are yyy-mm-dd. This is a completely legit way of styling references, and is the style I generally use in everything I write. Not sure which redirect links you're speaking of, or why they're a problem? Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Huh, looked it up, and it turns out that's true- pub dates have to be consistent, and access dates have to be consistent, but they don't have to be the consistent with each other. Never knew that; always thought it had to be one format for all dates in the references. Still looks silly to me, but to each their own. As to the redirects, it's just minor issues that don't matter much- quarries, wetlands, igneous, and I meant unconfined aquifer, honey ant, and hanging garden as well (also: Indian Springs Trace Fossil), but on second look they seem more or less intentional. --PresN 07:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Perfectly happy with 99.9% of the list; my only minor quibble is that the image used in the lead, of Hanging Lake, makes the lake look quite... dinky. The image used in the table seems much more impressive, and I'm wondering if it might be better to swap those two around, because at present the initial impression is that you're leading in with an ol' swimming hole. (The fact that this is such a petty gripe should indicate there's plenty right with the rest of it. :P). GRAPPLE X 01:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [13].

---

IAAF Road Race Label Events

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit out of my normal area of editing, this one. Was a tidy little list to start with, but I updated it for 2014, made the tables accessible and fixed the sorting. I removed a list of criteria and wrote it into the prose for the lead, although I'm still a little concerned about the flow of that bit. As always, let me know your thoughts and suggestions. Harrias ^talk 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Beirut Marathon is listed as a 20 km race. This is either a typo, or unusual enough to need a separate source. Courcelles 18:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right it shouldn't have been 20 km, not sure why that was like that. Harrias ^talk 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like there's some double rounding in the list of distances: in metric a marathon is a fraction under 42,195m. Since a marathon is defined as 26 miles 385 yards, it may be better to state this directly instead of using a decimalised figure.
  • Is data available giving the year in which each event first attained label status? Are there any former label events? Is the performance of athletes tracked across these events, and do we know who has won the most?
  • Could do with a couple of images from races in the list to meet 5b more fully. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption doesn't need a full stop.
• "as being one of the" not sure about "one of" here. There are multiple races...
• "other. Within the "other" " should the first other be "other"?
• "three years in a row " three consecutive years would be a bit tighter.
• "for another three years" a "further" three years I thiknk.
• I would force sorting distance so it's in actual distance order rather than alphanumerical order, i.e. 10 miles should sort after 10 and 12 km.
• Any reason why some locations are in English (Prague) and others not (Venezia)?

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few recommendations to improve the page: (1) Redlinks are totally okay for Featured Quality content pages, however, in the Key section might be helpful for the reader for 10 miles (road running) and 12 kilometres (road running) to exist at least as Wikipedia stub articles with a couple sources each. (2) Last paragraph of the lede is a little skimpy as a two-sentence-long-paragraph, might be nice to see it either merged, or expanded. (3) I'm not seeing where the References are cited for the Races subsection. (4) Please consider using {{Portal bar}} to add some portals either to the bottom of the article, or just add a few to the See also section. (5) I made a minor formatting change to the References section, per WP:LAYOUT. That's it for now, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to all those who have posted comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, I am currently tied up with life off-wiki, and won't be able to commit much time to the encyclopedia, so for the moment I will regretfully have to withdraw this nomination. Harrias ^talk 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 05:56, 17 March 2014 [14].

---

List of Romanian football champions

Nominator(s): BineMai 22:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this is a very complete and competent article regarding football statistics from the Romanian football league. Ideas and suggestions are highly appreciated thank you. BineMai 22:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). I see this follows on from the nominator's prior high quality efforts at List of tallest buildings in Bucharest. A few minor suggestions: (1) Perhaps you could add sisterlinks in the External links sect. (2) Sects Early championships and Divizia A - might be best to break up some of those big paragraphs in those sects. (3) History - just a comment that I love that even though this is technically a list page, there is a healthy amount of sourced material in paragraph format, great job with the research! (4) Notes - suggest renaming this sect to "Footnotes". (5) See also - might be nice to have three to four more entries added here. Excellent efforts overall by Bine Mai, — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Cirt for your support and for the kind words, nice to know that someone appreciates my work. Regarding your suggestions: 1 - willing to add sisterlinks section but what links should i populate it with, 2 - already breaked these sections to prior name and period of existance. Perhaps the Divizia A section is a bit long but I can't break it further without having several one-two sentence paragraphs that would not look nice, 3 - thanks for this comment, 4 - done, 5 - added three more entries that might help the article. Overall i thank you for your competent suggestions and remarks. Cheers! BineMai 11:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • You're most welcome! Sisterlinks I dunno if there's any type of category on Wikimedia Commons that could be relevant, or you could add photos there and create a related category. Or if not, no worries, either way, just a friendly suggestion. :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• The list looks good but I am not quite 100% happy with it:

Resolved comments

**You could add a table with statistics by city. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Done BineMai 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC) I removed the #2 column since that should probably contain the clubs never winning but coming 2nd several times. Nergaal (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Ok i agree with this BineMai 23:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Ref 8 appears to be dead so I can't check on the "Bukarester FC" and "Bukarester FK" thing. "Româno-Americană București" seems to be a strange name to me. I updated the link to the Romanian League but now thay changet the format and there is no runner-up team presented. BineMai 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC) This ref really needs to be figured out. Even using waybackmachine I couldn't find the vice-champions listed there. Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I think you can use this website to reference each year [15]. Also, after looking an the Italy's version of this list I think you should also add the #3 team. Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Done BineMai 01:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I moved the refs to a separate column since it seems to be a standard among FLs. I also added the 3rd places columns in the performances section - try to double check I added the correct numbers. Nergaal (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC) That really does look alot better in this format BineMai 23:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC) perhaps it might be worth updating the retrieved dates from 2010? Done BineMai 11:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC) In the intro, I would change the sentence on Venus to make it clear that the sentence refers to the 3rd most prolific team and merge the first two sentences in the 2nd paragraph. Done BineMai 00:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I am curious as to why are there 3 pictures on the first 5 editions, but none since then. Added another pic. BineMai 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC) In the Performances section please change "The following table lists the performance of each club describing winners of the Championship" to something like "the following table summarizes the performances of the clubs that won the championship". In this paragraph perhaps mention how many clubs were runner-up without ever winning. Done BineMai 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC) "best results in the group stage" does not mention the year when it happened. Done BineMai 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Championship should not be capitalized. Done BineMai 01:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC) " No sources chronicle the top goal scorers of the earliest league championships." Sure about that? Perhaps change it to no sources are available? I am sure some old newspapers did chronicle it, but may not really be available. Done BineMai 01:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Since when has the supercup been contested?
    • Is this necessary? BineMai 23:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, the champions play for the supercup, same way they qualify for CL. Nergaal (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention the notable performances in the Europa League from the champions?
  • It might be worth considering putting everything on the continental performances as a separate section.
  • perhaps mention the longest winning streaks?
  • Some clubs are never wikilinked, such as UCAS Petroşani
    • Yes there are clubs without wikilink because they don't have a wiki page. BineMai 01:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but some of those might have been renamed and now exit under different names. Nergaal (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comments - How reliable are "kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl", ziare and romaniansoccer.ro? I also am having trouble accessing fotbalromania.com. Aureez (Talk) 11:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The first one, while it seems to be a private site [16], I know this site to have lots of statistics on soccer games and I never had any reason to doubt the numbers the guy provides. Ziare.com seems to review the submissions of new editors (at least) before publishing, so it is not a blog-like site. romaniansoccer.ro is the website linked by the Romanian Football Federation on its own site under the statistics tab, which likely implies that the federation itself seems the statistics published on that website reliable enough to suggest them. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How does Ziare and kassiesa verify the data they have? it's not enough to be a convenient source of data. Aureez (Talk) 18:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know. When I google "UEFA rankings" I get this link to the guy's website. Unless that is tailored for my MAC address, it would suggest that google ranks his site high. Another non-answere: for the Ziare link, the author is trying to reference a relatively well known/accepted statement within people that follow Romanian football. Nergaal (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Kassiesa is reliable he appears to just collect the info from other websites, the UEFA website does list the same statistics though, also WP:GOOGLE#Verifiability states it doesn't determine how reliable the source is. Also the statement which ziare is a reference to I don't think would likely be challenged considering the 24 wins Steaua București has in Liga I. Aureez (Talk) 21:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• This list has been up for well over two months, and no consensus has formed. As such, I am archiving this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of plantations in West Virginia

Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this list because it gives an exhaustive listing of former plantations once operational in the present-day U.S. state of West Virginia, and provides a comprehensive introduction. The list also features images of the majority of the plantations accounted for. I am also nominating this list because I feel it meets most FL criteria and can easily be improved to meet the criteria not already achieved. -- Caponer (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• This list has also been approved for Did you know. The DYK review is available here. -- Caponer (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Comments - I didn't read the text yet, just skimmed for obvious problems

• Lists shouldn't start with "this is a list of" any more than articles start with "this article is about"

• Modified to conform with this suggestion. -- Caponer (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• You can't use just color to differentiate things in a table- use dagger symbols or the like as well

• Would it actually make more sense to remove the NRHP reference number column altogether, and just include the symbols in the name column? -- Caponer (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• If you think the number is useful to have in the table, then just do symbols - like "03000346^†" for NHL, and "03000346^‡" for NRHP. If you don't think the numbers are useful, just stick the symbols after the name and drop the column entirely. Your call. --PresN 04:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to keep it, so I've added the symbols to each row. -- Caponer (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Your table isn't sorting names that start with "the" correctly- see the {{sort}} template for a way to fix it

• Fixed! -- Caponer (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The notes column is completely empty- why is it there?

• Removed. I had originally thought to place facts about each property in that column, but could not decide upon consistent content for each. -- Caponer (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• You don't need access dates on real book souces- unlike websites, they don't change

• Removed the access dates. -- Caponer (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

--PresN 03:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

PresN, have I properly addressed all your above concerns? -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Another quality, interesting article from Caponer, I see. :) One (easily remedied) concern I noticed is your long sentences, which could be split or at least injected with a semicolon to ease readability. I've included a few of these below, along with a few other minor issues:

• Plantations initially developed in the counties lying within the Northern Neck Proprietary of Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron within the Shenandoah Valley and South Branch Potomac River valleys, carrying over the practice of slavery from the plantations of the Piedmont and Tidewater regions of Virginia, where plantations had become the foundation of society and industry -- can this be split at all? It's a bit long and consequently confusing.

• I've split the sentence to read as follows: "Plantations initially developed in the counties lying within the Northern Neck Proprietary of Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron within the Shenandoah Valley and South Branch Potomac River valleys. These plantations carried over the practice of slavery from the plantations of the Piedmont and Tidewater regions of Virginia, where plantations had become the foundation of society and industry." Thanks for the catch! -- Caponer (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Washington family sentence is also long; it could do with another comma at least.

• I've split this sentence up as well, thus moving the listing of plantations to its own sentence. -- Caponer (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• You mention the American Civil War in the paragraph after the discussion of secession and statehood. This seems odd, especially for readers unfamiliar with the war or its dates. I recommend making this a bit more chronological.

• The article is written in chronological order, but the link to ACW should definitely be moved up in the text, so I've moved the full link to the section discussing the Reorganized Government of Virginia. Good catch! -- Caponer (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• You end the lead a bit abruptly with the ending of slavery. Could you add some more information on what became of some of the houses? Something like, "Since then, many of the plantation houses have acquired places on the National Register of Historic Places, an official list that includes sites, buildings, and structures deemed worthy of preservation..."? Also, who owns these houses? (are they largely privately owned still, or does the government have ownership now)? I realize some of this information might be difficult to find. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ruby, thank you for suggestion an extension to the lead as it was quite abrupt. I've added a modified version of your suggested sentence, and have also added a sentence about many of the houses serving as private residences. I'm not sure what citation would go here, as this information is gleaned from the NRHP registration forms and the sources listed at the bottom of the page in the bibliography. Few, if any, are owned by a government entity, with the exception of the mansion at Blennerhassett Island Historical State Park, which was rebuilt by the state of West Virginia. Ruby, as always, thank you so entirely much for taking the time to review this list and to provide your incredibly valued guidance! It's always a pleasure working with you on Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the speedy reply. Your changes look great, though I did make one small one and move the NRHP content to the end of the lead -- this just seems to fit better there (especially as you bring it all the way up to 2014). Also, it looked weird in the opening paragraph due to the lack of a transitioning sentence. I am happy to now support this list for promotion. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ruby2010, thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and support! Should you have any additional suggestions in the meantime, please let me know and I'll incorporate them into the article ASAP. -- Caponer (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ruby2010, thanks again! Did I address all your above concerns properly? -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you did. The list looks great! Ruby 2010/2013 02:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt (addressed) — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments by Cirt Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few comments to hopefully help improve the page's quality a bit: NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! Not sure what the standard is on using {{Dynamic list}} template at the top of Featured List pages. I'm not averse to it, whatsoever, just was curious what the current practice is on that. The lede intro sect has a total of eight (8) paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should have a maximum of four (4) total paragraphs. The paragraphs in the lede intro sect are a bit short, some are one-sentence-long-paragraphs or two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Best to merge these if possible, to help deal with too many total paragraphs in lede sect, as noted, above. Please watch out for overusage of commas in lede sect, this can cause potential for run-on sentences, or if not run-on sentences then just sentences that are a bit too long in general, for the most part, and it might be a good idea in some of those cases to split up those sentences in two, of course retaining the relevant citations at the end of the relevant parts afterwards, and I think that will help with readability as well. :) There's a bit of empty white space after the Plantations subsection header. Perhaps using {{Clear}} would help fix this issue if placed at the end of the Key subsection. Per WP:LAYOUT, the See also sect should go above the References sect. See also sect could do with perhaps three to four more entries. References - suggest changing coding in sect from {{Reflist|2}} to instead be {{Reflist|33em}}. Would be nice to see a few more relevant external links added to the External links sect, if possible. Overall, very nice work, shouldn't be too hard to address above. Ping me or message me on my user talk page if I forget to revisit, please. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Cirt, thank you for your review! I hope to have each of these addressed within a day or so. Stay tuned! -- Caponer (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, great, no rush, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Cirt, I've finished addressing your above comments and suggestions. I've removed the dynamic list template from the top of the article, as this is a very comprehensive list completed after extensive research. Should another property that formerly functioned as a plantation be identified, it will be added. I've also removed unnecessary information from the lede, and after some reformatting, I was able to whittle it down from eight to four paragraphs. I've also added a clear template at the end of the "Key" subsection. "See also" has been moved above "References." I added National Register of Historic Places listings in West Virginia to the "See also" section. The references have been reformatted to {{Reflist|33em}}. I've also added West Virginia Division of Culture and History State Historic Preservation Office to the "External links" section. Thank you again for your very thoughtful and comprehensive review of this list, and please let me know if there are any outstanding issues to be addressed. -- Caponer (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I can now most comfortably Support this list page for Featured quality. My thanks to Caponer for responding so well to my recommendations. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [17].

---

List of currencies in North America

Nominator(s): Matty.007 08:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is a complete list of North American currencies; I am attempting to create a similar page for every continent, I have done List of currencies in Europe previously. Matty.007 08:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Is it a list of currencies or a list of countries? It seems like you put countries first, and then currencies second. Would it not be better the other way since this is the focus of the page, and it would remove duplications. The way you have it, it appears like there are a lot more currencies than there actually are, "East Caribbean dollar" is repeated 6 times. Mattximus (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I based it on the original List of circulating currencies, and have done two (this and Europe), and am working on another, South America, in this format, which I think is both useful this way around, as it can be sorted by either country or currency, and it is the same as the original (List of circulating currencies), which I was using as precedent. Matty.007 13:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Doesn't that seem backwards to you? Shouldn't it be a list of currencies, and under each you could list which countries they circulate? The title of the article is list of currencies after all. Mattximus (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Well I think that it is easier to navigate, people can sort it by currency or country as they please. Matty.007 18:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there a map of the Euro in this page? No North American countries use the Euro... Mattximus (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I used the most relevant picture I could find, which shows (in quite some detail) the usage of the US Dollar. Matty.007 13:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • There must be a better map. At the very least one that shows North America, and not the whole world. Mattximus (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I will look for one. Matty.007 18:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Another I found is this. Which do you think is better? Matty.007 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you should try making your own map with something like File:North America second level political division 2 and Greenland.svg that better fits your list, since none seem to exist. What you just linked to is a world map.--haha169 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Due to a lack of a proper map. I also still believe that as a list of currencies, the list should be of currencies, not countries (with column for currencies) as this creates duplication making the reader think that there are more currencies in North America then there actually are. There are 17 currencies but this list is 23 rows. Mattximus (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the current image is not very illustrative of the N.A. topic. I'd like to raise the issue I mentioned on the Europe list again: Why do we need a list for every continent? I think this is quite redundant, and if you think the name of the central bank is important, it can be added to the main list. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • We have lists of many things per continent, but currency, a major part of life, only has one list. I will have a look for a picture. The country bank didn't seem to be an issue in the Europe review, hence it reaminsThanks, Matty.007 09:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Mattximus: I'm not good with images, so have requested here a few days ago. Moreover, I wasn't sure what kind of map was needed. If you can tell me I'll have a go. Thanks, Matty.007 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• My thoughts:
  • The map, as has been said, is not suitable for this. It needs to focus on North America.
  • The bank website is entirely unnecessary; that can be linked from the currency page.
  • This lacks territories, which sometimes use different currencies than their possessing nations. Not always the case, but sometimes; for example, Bermuda uses the Bermudian dollar, and is not mentioned at all in this article. The intro notes sovereign states, but there's no reason nor expectation to confine it solely to those. The Bermudian dollar (e.g.) is a currency in use in North America and should not be excluded.
  • "Current" in the header "Current North American currencies" is unnecessary, both because one assumes a list is current unless otherwise stated, and because the list also includes previous currencies.
  • Special mention needs to be made in the prose about the multi-currency nations (Panama being the only true one here, though Cuba is also an unusual situation).
  • I would propose that instead of the bank column, perhaps move the information on pegging to there.
  • The intro is half devoted to the East Caribbean dollar, and half devoted to the U.S. dollar. Yet there are over a dozen other currencies used by roughly two hundred million people; either these two dollars are over-represented or the rest of the currencies are under-represented.
  • Why is there a reference in the Country column for St. Vincent?
  • Not entirely sure we need the 'previous currency' column but I'll wait to pass judgment on that one.
  • Things seem a little over-referenced; in every row, the currency sign and fractional unit have the same source. If it's the same as the source that states the name of the currency, I don't think it's necessary; the reader can assume that the row is sourced to the source of the main info point (the currency) in the row.
  • While I see the argument for listing currency first, I'm open to either way. It's a list of currencies in use, and currencies are only used by countries, and (generally) each country has its own currency. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a draft of a version based on the currency rather than the country.
• Based on these major issues I am forced to oppose at this point. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think that given the amount of issues raised, I will need some time to work on them so would like to withdraw this while I work on the issues. Thanks, Matty.007 17:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [18].

---

Audie Murphy honors and awards

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the subject matter is of historical significance to both military history and the film industry. It is also one of three articles I would like to take to Featured Topic. The main article of Audie Murphy is being worked on to prepare for submission for FA, and Audie Murphy filmography is currently at FLC has been with drawn from FLC consideration but will be resubmitted at a later date. — Maile (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - the FLC instructions state that Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. As the filmography list has not gained the required level of support as yet, this list should not also have been nominated....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have put a request on the FLC for the filmography to be withdrawn. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delegate comment - The second review has now been withdrawn and removed from FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support A great list about a distinguished soldier. Took me a moment to work out which of the 3rd Infantry Division's ten campaigns and four amphibious assaults he missed out on. (For the record, his nine campaign stars were for: Tunisia, Sicily (with arrowhead), Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rome-Arno, Southern France (with arrowhead), Ardennes-Alsace, Rhineland, Central Europe) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment – About the Service ranks section: I think it would be better to name the "Notes" column as "Date of promotion". This seems to make the meaning of the date clearer. Jimknut (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree, and have renamed the column. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Extremely well done and quite thorough. I echo the comments by Hawkeye7, above. This is a most encyclopedic page about an educational topic. I think it is more standard to name the References sect "Notes" and the Bibliography sect "References". Good luck with the rest of the Featured Topic quality improvement process, I'd like to hear how that all turns out. Great job overall by Maile66, — Cirt (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick comments "most famous" would just stick to facts here, unless you can quote "most famous". Removed "most famous" altogether. That wording has always bothered me a little as unverifiable.— Maile (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC) No need for capital P in post-traumatic. Uncapped.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Would be better to link World War II than France or Belgium. Done. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Is there a link for "reserve status" so non-experts can understand that? Linked. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Croix de guerre 1940 Palm from Belgium" the previous Croix de guerre was linked to France, is this a different award since it's from Belgium? Yes, these are two different awards from two different countries. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "he gave away the originals" why would he do that? Only he knew for sure. Apparently the story had been circulating, and Hedda Hopper asked him about it on television. He confirmed that he gave them away, but never said why or to whom, just that after he had children he asked the Army to replace them so his children would have them. Documentation exists of his request to the government for the replacements. There are unconfirmed stories and about why and what - that he threw them away in a field; that he gave them to his first wife Wanda Hendrix; that he divided them among his Texas relatives; that he gave them away to little kids. There are now displays of his medals in various military-related/government organizations, each claiming they have his original set of medals. I don't think anybody knows who has the originals. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Chevalier of the Legion of Honor" or "Légion d'honneur"? Be consistent. Fixed. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) What does "Decoration-award" mean in the table heading? You probably should make a suggestion here, and I'll go with what you think is correct. All these titles have been a work in progress that started out as a blanket "decorations, awards and badges" and has evolved many times with many editors. Isn't a decoration different than an award? You tell me. Looks like the decorations are what they wear on their uniform. The award would be something like the unit citation. You tell me what is correct for the American military.— Maile (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) OK, I have taken care of this. In going through the tables I more clearly defined what each is. Thank you for pointing this out.— Maile (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Sorting makes the colspan headings move, this is highly undesirable. Actually looks best if you don't sort the table. All tables are now unsortable.— Maile (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Any chance of adding date of award to the table as a column? In theory, I don't mind doing this. In reality, I'm not sure how do-able this is. Because he was away at war, he didn't always get the awards until months or years later. He didn't get his basic training Good Conduct medal until 3 years after the fact, and then he had to request it. That Belgian award was supposedly "conferred" in 1955. I'm not sure he knew about it then, and can't really verify anything except by 1968 he was allowed to wear it after the United States Congress agreed to it. There's a lot of fuzzy timelines in his military awards, and not all of them are that traceable to a date other than the action he received them for. And I think it wasn't just Audie Murphy. I sometimes read news items of families who have petitioned the Pentagon for awards a deceased loved one never received. Comments? — Maile (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC) If you do keep the table sortable, every linked item should be linked every time. All tables are now unsortable.— Maile (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Table needs a little bit of work to comply with MOS:DTT so screen readers can determine when columns start and finish, etc, in particular row and col scopes. Would you please have a look at the Service ranks section and tell me if I got it right before I go to the other tables? — Maile (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Done. All tables have been taken care of.— Maile (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Why have tables which have a single entry sortable? All tables are now unsortable.— Maile (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Suggest that for consistency and neatness, that award tables have same col widths from table to table. The awards col widths are the same on my browser, and the style widths are set the same. Not all columns have a set width - is that what you mean? It's only the service ranks that are different.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "23,142-square-foot .." not sure that's particularly important. Removed. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Check your bullets and double bullets in the Texas (non-military) section, it's a bit "floating" Fixed. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Audie Murphy Middle School, in Killeen" what? It "opens"? Check others. Removed this listing completely. It was added by an unregistered editor, and I've never been able to find info on it.— Maile (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC) " Le 2 value, " what does that mean? I guess a link is useful here. Linked. Sierra Leonean leone (Le) is the currency of the country.— Maile (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC) " 8-stamp" etc, MOSNUM suggests numbers below 10 should be in words, so "eight-stamp" Fixed all these in the stamp section.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Is it U.S. Army or U. S. Army? Fixed. I only found one inconsistent with the others.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Note 2 is unreferenced. Fixed.— Maile (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "of France [23][6]" out of order, no punctuation. Fixed. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Ref 34 "pp. 3,7,27,102,105,137,167" spaces please. Check all the others (usually expect a space after a comma). I'll check on all these. I used to put commas in as a standard, and then someone would come along and take them all out. But I'll go through the whole list and put commas back in.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Commas are fine, but they need a space after them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) I mis-typed what I meant. I used to put spaces in after the commas in citations and changed it to no spaces after one or more editors came along in articles I'd created and removed spaces. In some cases, I seem to remember this happening on one or more of these Audie Murphy aticles. Anyway, I'll go through it all and put spaces after the commas in the citations. OK. I got the spaces after commas fixed. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC) I'll go through everything you have mentioned The Rambling Man and post here as they are taken care of. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) No worries, nice you had two supports before any real serious review had taken place. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC) The Rambling Man, I have now addressed all the issues you mentioned. As discussed above, the col widths on my browser look the same from table to table, except for the service ranks table that has more columns. I did swap out the image on the Tx Medal of Honor, because the one used was huge. And I tweaked the width on one of the Service ranks columns. Perhaps this helps. Maybe you see something I don't? I don't believe the dates of the awards is findable in some cases. As explained above, between Murphy's physical involvement in the war at the time, and the normal government bureaucracy maze over the decades, it is not possible to come up with exact dates of several of the awards. If I make it a separate column, the blanks where dates are uncertain would make it look incomplete. Comments? — Maile (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Per WP:DATE All article body text should be in a consistent date format, "..by President Harry Truman on 25 September 1950." "...by Gov Rick Perry Aug 19, 2013".

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "September, 2008 No comma between month and year.

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Notes should also have consistent formats "..Congress, 2 July 1926.."

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "[60][61]In 2012" Space between citation and text.

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• No Retrieval date for Ref 29.

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Texas Legislative Medal of Honor" Notes should have a full stop.

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Aureez (Talk) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed them all now. You have a very good eye. Thanks for catching these. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I see no issues with the list, maybe get in touch with the other reviewers and see if they have any further comments. Aureez (Talk) 12:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I was asked to revisit my comments here. I took another look through the page and it is high-quality and well-referenced throughout. I reiterate my Support. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) [19].

---

List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 episodes

Nominator(s): DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Similar to the previous season, I'm hoping this can reach FL. The plot builds from the previous season so if there are accessibility issues to the general reader, I'll try to address them. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Haha169

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Phenomenal work! I have a few nit-picky things to list, but they are all very minor, so I'm going to offer my support for this list if these issues are addressed (or, of course, explained to me why there is nothing wrong in the first place): In the intro: "The series was directed by Gorō Taniguchi who cooperated with Ichirō Ōkouchi on the script." I believe there should be a comma after Taniguchi. Reworded with "Who has also worked with..." In the intro: A few of the sentences in the middle of paragraph two are a bit choppy. See if you can combine/re-word it. For example, "Bandai Visual encapsulated the episodes into nine volumes in DVD, Blu-ray, and Universal Media Disc formats. Each volume contained a picture drama episode as a bonus." -> "...Universal Media Disc formats, with each volume containing..." Hmm yeah. I should think of ways to reduce the choppiness. In the intro: DVD releases are mentioned in both the second and third paragraphs in the lead. Any reason why they are split? Once again, good work! --haha169 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC) The second paragraph is all about the Japanese broadcast and release. The third paragraph focuses on the English localization in NA, UK, and AUS. You might want to hold on the support in case there is some glaring error I missed. Thank you for the time though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the changes you've made! Just one thing catches my eye. At the end of the first paragraph, you mention that R2 takes place after the first series, then you launch into a plot summary. As I have not watched this show, can you make it more clear as to whether the short plot summary refers to the first series or the R2 series? Otherwise, I support. --haha169 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisGualtieri

• Seems to be missing some commas in the summary of the episodes. Some more optional than others: "A year after the Black Rebellion, a brainwashed Lelouch Lamperouge and his younger brother Rolo are gambling at Babel Tower when The Black Knights<comma?> led by C.C.<comma?> launches an attack on the complex to retrieve Lelouch." and ". The Black Knights are overwhelmed by the Knightmare Frame Vincent<comma> but are able to collapse Babel Tower in time to retreat to the Chinese Federation Consulate forcing the Britannian army to retreat." Some wording issues: "Lelouch collapses the grounding and forces the Britannian military to fall into Chinese territory where they are politically restrained from attacking." Needs to be clarified for non-viewers as to what is happening. Some sentences are a bit awkward: "However, he takes a bullet meant for Rolo and plays on his insecurities about his future and sibling relationship, convincing him to join his cause." Overall, its these little prose issues that need the most work, but this is indeed a strong candidate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Added suggested comma's.
• Replaced grounding sentence with "Lelouch collapses the flooring, causing the Britannian military to fall into Chinese territory where they are politically restrained from attacking."
• Replaced insecurity sentence with "Lelouch arranges a charade to seemingly save Rolo's life; using this and their pseudo-brotherly relationship, he convinces Rolo to join the Black Knights." DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Gabriel Yuji

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Beginning episode 13, the opening theme is "World End" by Flow and "Waga Rōtashi Aku no Hana" (わが﨟たし悪の華?, lit. "My Beautifully Elegant Flower of Evil") by Ali Project." Is there something missing here? "Beginning episode 13, the opening theme is "World End" by Flow"; until here the sentence is ok. But then is stated "and "Waga Rōtashi Aku no Hana" (わが﨟たし悪の華?, lit. "My Beautifully Elegant Flower of Evil") by Ali Project." And what? Is "Waga Rōtashi Aku no Hana" also a opening theme or the second ending theme? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Missed that, thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "There, Lelouch witnesses her past, and returns to the Sword of Akasha to save C.C.; The two return to reality where Lelouch discovers C.C. has lost all her memories except those before receiving the power of Geass." After a semicolon you shouldn't capitalize. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Fixed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I support. It's excellent! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very nicely done overall by DragonZero. A minor point: I'd suggest changing subsection header from "Other English releases" to "Additional English releases". DragonZero, I wonder if you'd be interested in improving List of Cowboy Bebop episodes to a similar level of quality? — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to keep other though, since additional seems as if it is an add on to the North American release. I don't think I will take it up Cowboy Bebop as of current. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, — Cirt (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [20].

---

List of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list contains table-sorting facilities and is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Earthh (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). This list page is near ideal. It is meticulously sourced throughout and most informative. I've only got one minor quibble: the Notes sect should be renamed to Footnotes, as Notes refers to citations and Footnotes to endnotes with comments about the article main body text. Great job overall by Earthh, — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just renamed the Notes section with "Footnotes". Thanks.--Earthh (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Earthh, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Some table of contents links (eg "X") are unnecessary
• Images are all OK
• Single and promo single releases should be sourced
• Could items which were released on exclusive editions of albums (eg "Anarchy in Tokyo" was only on the Japanese edition of 30STM) be referenced with a web source? The standard album's notes (which is the current ref) will not verify this inclusion.
• kaos2000.net is down for me (could just be temporary). What makes this a reliable source?
• The Houstonian is a university student newspaper; what makes reliable? If so, link to its Wikipedia article.
• What makes Shoutweb.com reliable?

Adabow (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [21].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth

Nominator(s): Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

List about Megadeth's awards. All I managed to found since the band hasn't received much accolades through out their career. I believe I've re-arranged the sections correctly and re-builded the prose.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Serial comma. It looks like you use one here: "one box set, and numerous singles", but not here: "alongside Anthrax, Metallica and Slayer". Per WP:SERIAL, make it consistent. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Addressed that issue. Thanks for the comment.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A nice page, but I've got a few comments of things that could improve it further: (1) Remove "Grammy Award-nominated" from first sentence in lede, not sure that's encyclopedic or NPOV. (2) 3rd paragraph in lede is a two-sentence-long-paragraph, suggest merging it or expanding it. (3) Other recognitions - this sect seems oddly located and strangely named, perhaps rename it to simply Reception and change it to prose format and expand it to a couple paragraphs in length. (4) Move cites in table to new column for Notes and place them there, for uniformity with other list pages. (5) You might think about adding at least a couple free-use images. — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I copied that "Grammy-nominated band" from Metallica awards, while that paragraph about "Other recognitions" was inspired by List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I looked it over again and still stand by my above comments. Keep me posted if you wish to address them, — Cirt (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but placing the notes is separate column is unfeasible because Template:Awards table doesn't feature such an option. Anyway, I wanted to ask is it better to merge the third paragraph with the first or second? And are the images available on Wiki Commons suitable for here or should I update a new one?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no worries about the refs column. I'd say merge the 3rd para with the 2nd, but I'll leave that editorial judgment up to you. I'll defer to your judgment about which images from Wikimedia Commons you wish to use that are relevant, but then they would need an image review after being added to the page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cambalachero (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The numbers of the table do not seem right in comparison with the tables below. Have in mind that usually we only count as "nominations" the unsuccessful ones; when Megadeth wins an award it goes to "wins", not to both "wins" and "nominations". In Genesis Awards you said "Megadeth has" and in the following one you said "Megadeth have"; decide if the name of a band counts as a "he" or a "they", and use an uniform style. To say that Megadeth "have yet to win" seems to imply that they should do so, which is an opinion; just say that they have not won so far. You should also reference that they are one of the most nominated artists without a Grammy win, as that isn't something self-evident from the tables in this list (as it involves other artists and their own Grammy performances). The loudwire entry should have the song between " ", as in the other tables. You should also link Megadeth and Dave Mustaine at the last tables, overlinking does not count in table entries (specially when they are different tables). And does Guitar World have a tie between Mustaine and Friedman at the 19º, or do they have a joint entry as a guitar duo at their table? Cambalachero (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. The awards won also fall under nominations. Take a look at Metallica awards or Thirty Seconds to Mars. Mustaine and Friedman ara ranked as a guitar duo, or share the nomination. The other notes are proper and I will address them as soon as I can.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: user L1A1 FAL addressed some of your concerns, while the rest of them are explained above. Anything else that needs to be done?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There's still the use of "has"/"have", and the last sentence of the grammy is still unreferenced Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrected the first note. I couldn't find a source that says Megadeth were one of the bands with many nominations who hasn't won, so I omitted that sentence.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Cambalachero (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks to Вик Ретлхед for the helpful and polite responses to my comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from CrowzRSA (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

*Comments ...is ranked as one of the "Big Four" of thrash metal, whose commercial success led to popularization of the thrash metal sub-genre. redundant use of "thrash metal," perhaps change to "...led to popularization of the genre." Megadeth is considered as one of the most successful... → "considered to be one of the most..." Thrash metal needs to be linked only the first time it is mentioned in the lead, then once again in the body. Dave Mustaine, Megadeth's frontman has been nominated twice, reword to: "Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine has been nominated twice," What makes rockonthenet.com a reliable source? Since Blabbermouth.net is part of Roadrunner Records, Blabbermouth should be listed under "

• Support - the article has excellent structure and reads well. I see no further issues, good work! CrowzRSA 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This is an excellent addition to the project that meets the FL criteria. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [22].

---

Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I trust it conforms to FL criteria. The list passed an A-class review of the WP Military History Project, it has been copyedited since by a GOCE volunteer and received other improvements. Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). I see great improvements from the A-class review by WP:MILHIST. Minor quibbles: (1) The Footnotes sect should be just called Notes; as Footnotes are for comments at the end of the article, and Notes is for citations. (2) I actually like the breakdown by type of sources in the References sect, but in academia these would all be arranged purely alphabetically, totally fine either way, I'll leave that up to Tomobe03. (3) Image review: Three images used in article, all appropriately licensed at Wikimedia Commons, no issues there. Great job overall, — Cirt (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for having a look at the candidate. I have now retitled the section heading.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comments This is looking good and my points are fairly minor.
• "an open revolt of the Croatian Serbs in August 1990. It further developed with the increasing involvement of the Yugoslav People's Army in the conflict". I think some clarification would be helpful. Presumably the Serbs revolted against the Croatian regional government and the YPA intervened on the Serbs' side?
  • Indeed. Clarification added.
• "following the electoral defeat of the government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia". Similarly to above, revising something like "defeat of the socialists by Croat nationalists in the election of a Croatian government" (or whatever is correct) would make clear why the defeat provoked a Serb revolt.
  • Since the issue is secondary (in my opinion) to the article subject, I have added this clarification to article body only but left the lead as-is. Would you agree with this or do you think the info warrants inclusion in the opening paragraph?
• I would link Zagreb.
  • Linked.
• "special forces unit of the Ministry of the Interior that exited before the 1990s" I would add Croatian before Ministry and what did they exit from?
  • Added "Croatian" as suggested. "Exited" is a typo - fixed now, should be "existed".
• Vinkovci. "20 troops killed" would be better than "20 killed troops". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Amended as suggested. Thank you very much for taking a look at the article. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. A good list.
• One further suggestion. "following the electoral defeat of the socialist government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia by the Croatian Democratic Union representing a nationalist programme" looks rather clumsy. How about something like "following the electoral defeat of the socialist government by the nationalist Croatian Democratic Union". The link to the Socialist Republic of Croatia could then replace the one to the Government of Croatia in the lead, where it would be more accurate referring to 1990. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Trimmed one "socialist" reference through a piped link. Thanks for the tip.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95 and gave it my support. All of my concerns were addressed there. 23 editor (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I have nothing to add, it all looks good. --PresN 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [23].

---

List of The New 52 publications

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC) and Takuy (bother me)

I am nominating this to become a featured list. I have worked over the past few weeks to clean up some loose ends on an already good list (made so significantly by myself and Takuy) to make it ready for nomination. Thank you in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: I would just like to make any reviewers aware that I will be on wikibreak from 12/30 - 1/10, and will not be able to address anything during that time. Myself and Takuy have addressed all of Darkwarriorblake's initial concerns, so if any more from him or anyone else are added 12/29 I can address them. If not, please look to Takuy during my wikibreak for any concerns brought up in the review. Thank you very much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by Darkwarriorblake

Prose.

Lead.

I'm grouping these two FLCriteria together as they are the same thing. I think there are some issues with the lead and the prose therein. For instance "Forever Evil" is thrown in there assuming that everyone will know what it is. "The 2013 storyline "Forever Evil"" or some other simple alternative would help. Also I am not sure what " August 2013 was the last month that the titles were solicited by the following groups" means, it may need rewriting, as could "However, the December 2013 solicits grouped titles together resembling the previous families, for all titles that were not involved in "Forever Evil".[3]". Don't be afraid to go wordier, or use the lead of The New 52 article as inspiration, either in the lead or the opening of the "The New 52 titles" section just to clarify what it is people are about to read about.}

• I have reworked the lead. First off, I moved and rewrote the info regarding the families and Forever Evil to underneath the "The New 52 titles" heading, so please take a look at that. I also added a new last sentence to the lead. I'm not sure about it, but would like opinions. I know you said to go wordier in the lead, but didn't think it had to be too wordy. I looked at The New 52's lead, but did not see much that could be brought here to talk about the titles. Opinions on what to possibly add there, if anything, would be appreciated. and was able to add some parts from that to this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness.

It seems fully comprehensive of the specified content and could not reasonably fit in The New 52 article.

Structure.

There is an error with Ref 13

• Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The referencing seems mostly in order, I may be wrong but if the article author isn't named, i.e. "Staff", then just leave the first and last fields in the ref template empty.

• Is this in regards to all the solicits from Newsarama? They all do say "Newsarama Staff" under the "by:" area of the page. If this is not appropriate, I will remove them, so it will just give the title, publisher, date and accesses date, when viewed on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetically it looks fairly pleasing and well coded.

Style.

(a) Visual appeal.

No red links, tables and colour are well designed except for maybe Batman. I will wait for other editors to weigh in, but it seems to me at least difficult to read the Black on that particular shade of Blue, more precisely it starts to hurt my eyes looking at it too long, particularly the title on the outer blue.

• I do not personally have this issue, but I was concerned with the colors. If it is an issue, and someone can suggest another blue color code to use, I will make the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks, I've altered the colors for the Batman table. Let me know if its better or worse. || Tako (bother me) || 03:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Tako. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(b) Media files.

Article has only one image what has a suitable Fair Use rationale. I'm not sure if it's basic shape could allow it to be replaced by a fair use alternative or if such an image can be copyrighted, I'm not an expert on that so I will leave it for a more informed reviewer.

Stability.

Article is stable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments Dark. I will make any notes/comments I have based on what you said, below each item. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of my issues have been dealt with, the colour change seems to be an improvement. I am just waiting on some feedback regarding the use of "Newsarama Staff" from that template's discussion page, as I am not clear what the situation should be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, where there is no credited author, the field should use the code

|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced all mentions of Newsarama Staff with the comment <!--Staff writer(s)--> - we'd be lying if we said there was no by-line on those pages. Would this type of comment apply to all references without an author, or just those that are in journal/article format? Currently, the article uses a lot of pages from DC Comics's site, which are just single-book solicitations]. I do plan to change these out (where ever I can) in the future, but currently would all of these require a "no by-line" comment? || Tako (bother me) || 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The code is for the sake of bots, not people. I'm just going off this (fifth indent down) - "If the cited source does not credit an author, as is common with newswire reports, press releases or company websites use:

|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> This HTML comment alerts both fact-checking and citation-fixing editors and bots that the cited source specifically did not name an author and therefore an author credit wasn't accidentally omitted from the citation. Without this entry editors and bots would waste time researching cited sources in an attempt to improve existing citations only to find that there is no author to credit." Though personally I would only be using it to replace the Newsarama Staff stuff. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Changed to Support, the first/last thing doesn't seem at the moment to have a definitive answer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• Two initial points based on a quick drive-by:

• "The following is a list of..." - list articles should not start like this. We wouldn't expect to see a non-list article starting "The following is an article about.....". Check some recently promoted FLs for examples of good openings.

Would this apply to just the lead, or to each sub-section as well? I count three instances where this occurs in the article, it's easy enough to rephrase though. || Tako (bother me) || 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• IMO the tables within tables using small fonts and background colours look horrible and are almost certainly a massive WP:ACCESS failure. Do the colours actually serve any purpose other than making the article "prettier".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the table colors are essential at this point, they very much help to differentiate between the family tables; I can look into color contrasting, if that would help. The collapsible tables-in-tables was something that was a discussion on, which lead to a compromise and consensus on. Do you have any suggestions on how to style it better? || Tako (bother me) || 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the colours are needed, many existing FLs have six or seven different tables and they aren't colour coded. IMO the colours just make the article look garish. Why not just have, for example, "Justice League" as a regular level 3 heading and then start a normal table below that? As for the access issues, you also need rows and scopes in the tables. Ignore my comment about small font size, I thought that was an access issue but I was wrong..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Chris. I thought that I added rows and scopes in this edit here. Did I not do enough or it incorrectly? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The "shell" tables don't have rows and scopes. Maybe they don't need them, I'm not sure. I still don't think those tables are even needed, personally...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not worked much with rows and scopes, so if they did need them, I do not know where they would go. Also, I do think it is useful to have, say, the current, discontinued (and possibly upcoming) Justice League tables all under one collapsable table. That is instead of having the two (or three) still visible if collapsed. But if this presents and ACCESS issue, they can be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Do you have any other outstanding issues with the list? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, but I still think the coloured tables look horrible..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if they were a different shade of their color? I know you said you just thought they were there to make them "prettier" but how, in essence, are they any different then colored episode tables for a TV series List of episodes page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In a TV list like List of Moonlighting episodes, only the headings at the top of each section are coloured. The colour does not "enclose" the entire section. I just don't see why it neesd to do that, but maybe that's just me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What if it was changed to something like this? It removes some of the color from areas that don't really need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That would definitely be better IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I will ping the other nominators and commenters below just to get additional comments on this. Thank you for the feedback. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Support by TriiipleThreat

• The article is well organized, referenced and presented. The only thing I would add is better explanation of the "Waves": some over arching description of the durations and some background information would be nice. Also there are a few uses of industry jargon (i.e. solicits vs. solicitations). Overall good job by all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Triiiple. I believe I've addressed your issue with the "Wave" explanation, if you'd like to take a look. And I wasn't clear if you meant that only "solicits" was jargon (or both), so I padded the wording a bit to hopefully make it clear (and made all uses consistent). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done, thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Favre1fan93 (nominator)

Hello. Just wanted further opinions on a commenter's suggestion. ChrisTheDude has likened and suggested that some of the color from the tables be removed, to this. I am just requesting the other commenter's and nominator's opinions, to see their thoughts. If need be, we can take it to the article's talk page for more. The reason I am doing it for this requested change, is it a bit "bigger" than some of the requests by Darkwarriorblake and TriiipleThreat. I personally will support either choice made. Thanks. @TriiipleThreat:@Darkwarriorblake:@Takuy: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So what is the difference? Is it the white box inside the coloured box? I think that works well, it makes the tables seem less cramped and helps separate the "current", "upcoming", and "discontinued" sections in each one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I removed the color that existed from below the section heading and description that filled the area where the "Current", "Upcoming", and "Discontinued" sections exist. So the Justice League, for example, got less "yellow-y". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I think it looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @ChrisTheDude:! Just to be clear, that is with the color change (I'm assuming)? It appears the other editors are fine with this change, and I will be changing over the page to reflect that. Thanks once again for your comments. Now to try and get this closed.... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, sorry if my comment was a bit confusing.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Just wasn't sure because I had not made the edit yet, so I wasn't sure if you had a change of opinion. But regardless, done now. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Great quality page, but still a few small recommendations: (1) Extremely small paragraphs in the lede, these should be merged to just one paragraph. (2) Per WP:LEAD, lede intro sect should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire page's contents. Perhaps the lede intro sect could be expanded upon a bit more. (3) Nice responses, above, by Favre1fan93 and Takuy to suggestions by Darkwarriorblake, TriiipleThreat, and ChrisTheDude, I see the page has undergone significant improvement since the nomination at DIFF. (4) Could use some actual hyperlinks in the External links sect, at present the sect is almost empty. (5) Other than that, nice work, I'm just surprised at the sheer amount of new user and IP participation in the article's edit history, not sure what's bringing them all here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Done. (may change after working on #2)

2) Will work on expanding some more. Done. Added one sentence about the anniversary events. Not much else to really add that would help summarize the article.

3) Thanks.

4) What do you suggest can go here? It is kind of hard, as there is no "home page" for these titles. All DC titles can be viewed here: [24], so would that be acceptable? That covers all items on the page. Done

5) Yes. A lot of IPs come to the page. I'm not sure why either. At a time, they were mostly updating the Collected editions, but that has seemed to wan once we added citations for all the content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good idea for an external link. Thanks for being so responsive to my suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments "initiative" is used four times in the single para lead, a bit repetitive. Done. Removed two uses. No title for the image? (e.g. The New 52 logo"). Does it really need one? Would limit the table of contents to level 2 headings. Limited to level 3. Still reduced excessive white space. How accessible are these embedded tables? I'm not sure how screen readers cope with them, worth checking with an expert (e.g. User:RexxS). @RexxS: Pinging to bring their attention to this. I do not believe they are an issue, but am no expert with it. " new titles occurred from" "took place" is more "active" sounding. Done. A bit of overcapitalisation in the table headings (e.g. Publication Date -> date, Initial Creative Team -> Initial creative team etc.) Done. What does "0, 1- " mean? Title is still being published (1-) but has also released a "#0" issue (0,). This is for titles that 0 was not their first issues (such as Harley Quinn or the upcoming Justice League United). Be consistent with the italicisation of Shazam!. Done. Sortable tables should link linkable items every time. This will take a bit. Done. Consider linking "the Justice League.". Done. Figured you meant in the table subheading for "Justice League". I'm not sure you should be hiding tables by default. This was done by consensus after the nested table format was chosen, in a way to reduced the "scrolling" length of the page. Additionally, the Current and Upcoming titles are more relevant now, then the discontinued ones. Can you double check that with WP:COLLAPSE to make sure it's okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) I removed the outer table for the "Other titles" and will investigate this further for the rest. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Issues 9-11" needs en-dash. Done. Be consistent with the use of hashes when you list issue numbers. Can you give an example(s) where this is? Some issue numbers you say "issue #12" and others you say "issue 12" for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Why are some 0- and others 0, 1-? See answer above. I think, even though there's no "end", you still need an en-dash rather than a hyphen here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Is there a link for "flip issue"? Not that I can see. "Trillionnaires" one n in that. Done. Not sure I see the benefit at all of the embedded tables in the "Other titles" section. This was also done to be consistent with the other families on the page, as you could collapse all three tables. This one may not really need it. Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) What is the purpose of having the Creative Team column sortable? It sorts by first names (we normally sort by surname) and then only by the first person listed in that column (i.e. the writer). I don't think there is one, but I've always created sortable tables where all columns are. Is there formatting to have it only sort some? There is, you use class=unsortable in the column heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the tip! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Some SHOUTING in ref titles. Done. There were two correct? External link needs a bullet point. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Answers for each bullet above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

I still make no claim to be an expert, but I have some experience working with disabled visitors. Nevertheless the internal tables generally will be navigable by screen-readers; the row and column scopes are sensible and helpful. Personally, I see no point at all in enclosing tables in an outer table. The level 3 heading itself should be sufficient to demark each set, and the days of using tables just to provide layout went out 10 years ago. I should say that using collapsed/hidden tables can pose accessibility issues - for instance for users who have difficulty in fine motor control of a mouse. I'd only use them in article space if I had a very pressing need to hide content - that I don't see here.

Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem in my humble opinion is the colours. Using too many unharmonised colours leads us to what an erstwhile colleague of mine called "Skittlepedia". The actual use of colours tends to be tolerated as a personal taste, but I don't favour them because I think it makes the page look amateurish and because it leads the editor to think that they can use any combination of colours without realising the effect on the readability of the page. There are a set of guidelines produced by WCAG that help us ensure that as many people as possible can read a webpage. There are standards for brightness and colour difference as well as contrast ratio between text colour and its background. You can check whether the colours used meet these standards by using Snook's Colour Contrast Check. I checked the background colour used in "The Dark" (#747170) against black text and it fails the test for colour, brightness and contrast - although it would just about be acceptable at 18pt size - which it's not. I should add that the smaller the text, the harder it is for readers to cope with poor contrast between text and background. There's really no need for <small>...</small> text that I can see and it only makes it harder for some readers. I'd recommend that at the very least, the background colours should be checked and brought up to compliance with WCAG - I'm not prepared to fight about the text size and the presence of colours, although I think that normalising them would improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Text size Done. All colors were checked too and all passed. You had tested the wrong color for "The Dark" as that was the border color. The background color was #969392, but that was adjusted slightly to get passing on all. Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work here. I do have to correct you on one point though: the version of the list I looked at clearly had #747170 as the background colour for the level 3 heading "The Dark" (which is 17pt). That was far too dark, but you fixed that when you removed the outer tables anyway. I'm glad you've been able to check the other colours now and tweaked those that were borderline. Well done! --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes I see. I did not realize that you might have looked at a version that still had the outer tables. I hope you will formally support it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You've worked hard to resolve all of the issues that have been brought to your attention. I hope that you have found it a useful (if stressful) experience and I'm more than happy to support this nomination. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you SchroCat. Thanks to Takuy for helping get the page where it was to nominate it, and thanks to Darkwarriorblake, TriiipleThreat, ChrisTheDude, Cirt, The Rambling Man, and RexxS for taking the time to comment on the review and provide comments to make the article better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, Favre1fan93, — Cirt (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [25].

---

List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 09:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I present to your waiting eyes: a list of every head coach of the Navy Midshipmen. Under different management 39 times since beginning in 1879, Navy is my favorite college team, and this list is my first attempt at getting an important Navy football article to featured status. Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 09:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment

• This page has no categories, pretty sure that might be needed. --Lightlowemon (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I pretty much completely forgot about that. Added appropriate categories now. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Article needs to comply with WP:DASH e.g. year ranges need an en-dash, not a hyphen.

• Fixed.

• Per WP:YEAR you don't need to repeat the century if it's the same within a range.

• Fixed.

• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a period.

• Fixed.

• Check MOS:NUM, usually numbers below 10 are written as words.

• Fixed.

• MOS:DTT for screen readers needs col and row scopes to be implemented.

• Unfortunately, I don't understand what you mean.

• This is an example of adding the col scopes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• The N/As and Int need to be forced to sort in the correct order when sorting by the hash.

• Corrected.

• Avoid hash for "number" per WP:HASH.

• This is standard for these kind of lists (ex. List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents head football coaches).

• George Welsh and Paul Johnson are dab links.

• Fixed.

• ""X" indicates an interim year without play." not seeing this anywhere.

• Removed.

• Doubt you need Category:Navy Midshipmen football as Category:Navy Midshipmen football coaches is more refined.

• Removed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed all but issue #5, which I, if possible, require a better explanation for. Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is well referenced, but a few minor issues: (1) The titles of Notes and Footnotes should be swapped. Notes are for citations, and Footnotes are for general comments about things in the article. (2) I'd like to see responses by Awardgive to the recommendations by The Rambling Man, above. (3) Paragraphs two and three of the WP:LEAD sect are quite short, these should probably be merged together to just have three total paragraphs in the lede intro sect. (4) There's room in the page for a couple more free-use images. — Cirt (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have attempted to address all of your concerns (save the one complication from The Rambling Man's review). Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks for being so responsive to my suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments I know very little about football which probably contributes to my dropping in on a list which at first glance I mistakenly thought was about naval officers who later became head coaches... Anyhow, a few observations:

• The lead is well written and gives a nice overview of the list.

• Thank you.

• Citation(s) for Congressional restoration of the term “Midshipman” can be found here and here.

• I have added the references to the lead, thanks for finding those.

• The paragraph beginning with Vauix Carter, the “perfect 1.000” could probably use a citation, or a comment that he won the only game he coached. Perhaps some of the other stats presented in the paragraph could use citations.

• Added a note explaining that he only coached one game.

• The main reference for the entire coaches table appears to be another Wikipedia list which covers only the 2013 NCAA season. Some of the coaches have a reference, but the majority don't. You may want to use this reference (which you do) to cover the entire coaches table. -- Godot13 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sourced the table to the Coaching Records website. Thanks for the suggestions, I have attempted to apply all of them to the article. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I guess I still don't understand why the general note "[A 7]" for the entire Coaches table contains "Statistics correct as of the end of the 2013–14 college football season" when only #37 on that list had a game in 2013... Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand.-Godot13 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's alright. The note is standard for lists like this (example: this). It's really just there to say that the list is up-to-date and everything is correct. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comments:

• "becoming one of the first Independent schools in that division" - lowercase i, the linked article doesn't capitalize it.
• "No coach" is sorting under N; better, I think, to sort before A or after Z.
• Similarly, "—" should sort before 0, not after 0, in the bowls column.
• You have two images down below the table, but the table isn't that wide, leaving a ton of whitespace on the right side on my monitor. Why not move the images up next to the table?
• Why the heck are references 3 and 9 Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia articles are not RSs.
• If no author is specified, you should leave the author fields blank, rather than putting in "staff" or "staff writer".
• Consider archiving your online references with a site like webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that if the cited sources ever change or go down, it doesn't affect your list.
• --PresN 22:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [26].

---

How I Met Your Mother (season 1)

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review this list for its WP:FL? compatibility! haha169 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• The most important part of TV season articles (and the part that makes this a list rather than an article - there is a lot of good prose here) is the table of episodes. But naturally just the names and production info isn't all that vital: readers (including me) like to know briefly what happens in each episode without having to go to each article. Episodes 1, 7, and 14 are fairly good, but most others could hardly be called a summary, so I'd really appreciate an expansion of these. More review to come. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I googled several of these summaries after noticing they didn't seem like typical WP writing style - they're mostly copied from stuff like http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/releases/view?id=11590 and tvrage.com/How_I_Met_Your_Mother/episode_guide/1. You did a good job with the text sections, but these have been there since the article's creation, and these copyvios need to be completely rewritten, not just expanded. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! I hadn't thought that that might happen. I'll get to work on it. --haha169 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I hope my new summaries are up to standard. --haha169 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those are much better. Here are some other suggestions:

• The lead summary is a little too detailed, particularly "but when she moves to Germany for a culinary fellowship, Ted and Robin nearly have sex." if that could be rewritten.
• "Ted's self-appointed best friend and womanizer" sounds like he's Ted's womanizer.
• Award names should not have quotation marks. (Casting and Awards sections)
• "who were cast as Ted and Marshall respectively" is redundant to the first paragraph's info.
• Tense should be consistent in reception, e.g. derides -> derided.

Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Done, fixed all of these things. Looked over the tenses in the whole article and I think I caught all of the errors there. Thanks for the suggestions!! --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • A few are still a bit short (like The Limo and Return of the Shirt) and several still read too much like a teaser than a summary, but everything else looks great. Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I think I see what you mean. How does it look now? --haha169 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Excellent Support

Comments: Nice work on the list, but the references could be fixed

• Main sources such as The Hollywood Reporter and Orlando Sentinel should be listed as work instead of publisher.
• The publisher of the sources should be the owner of the publication. For example Tribune Company would be for the Orlando Sentinel, Prometheus Global Media for The Hollywood Reporter, The Walt Disney Company for ABC Television Group and so on and so forth.
• For ref 21, the article's title should not be all caps per se WP:ALLCAPS policy.
• For ref 22, the work is credited as the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences with its abbreviation ATAS as its publisher.

Otherwise, I support this list for promotion

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope I have fixed these issues to your satisfaction. --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Excellent effort overall by Haha169. I do agree with the comments by Birdienest81, above, in particular those first two comments about work and publisher modification recommendations to citations. Another minor thingy: there should not be an External links subsection, if there are no actual external links. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! I begun working on some of them. But because of time restraints, I will finish them up tomorrow. --haha169 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I made those changes that you asked for correctly. Thank you for the comments, Birdienest81 and Cirt! --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by DragonZero

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

*Ref 1 needs its link to be updated Ex (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1141640,00.html) should be the updated link, (http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1141640,00.html) Same with Ref 10 Checklinks says the link redirects to the UK subdomain, instead of the www. I'm assuming this is like IGN's website where some articles are on its UK servers or its American server. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Must be something wrong with the tool because if the url is entered with the UK subdomain, it redirects to www. --haha169 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Site's subdomain is region dependent. Issue resolved. Same with Ref 13 The ABC medianet references titles should have more detail to differentiate them. The first one would be something like "September 19(n-dash)25, 2005 weekly program rankings". You should also include the published date. Ranges use n dashs, not m dashs. Done --haha169 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC) – is the n dash. I believe the ones used right now are hyphens. Oh okay. Done. --haha169 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I suggest linking rain dance. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry, could you elaborate the first bit? What about these links needs to be updated? I did the rest. Thanks for your comments! --haha169 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC) No problem. Updated. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Gotcha, I see what you mean. I updated refs 1 and 13. 10 looks right to me though? --haha169 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I believe it would be better to have the cast section either in the parent article or the character article, as it is information that relates to the series as a whole instead of just a season. Otherwise, no further issue as far as I can see. Please revisit your review for Code Geass if possible. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your quick responses. I will check back to my review on your FLC in turn! --haha169 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:55, 18 February 2014 [27].

---

List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This list includes bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket. The list also went through a Peer Review and I think this now fulfills the FL criteria. Comments and suggestion are appreciated. Happy holidays to all! Cheers, Zia Khan 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Çomments I think that the list should be initially sorted by the no. of wickets. This list is about bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets, and this was also discussed at the PR. Zia Khan 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC) There are two BBM in the Key section. Fixed. Zia Khan 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC) There should be consistency in the date forms used in Period column. Done. Zia Khan 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC) "considered by cricket critics a significant achievement in Test cricket" ---> "considered a significant achievement in Test cricket by cricket critics" ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the review. Zia Khan

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments I would remove the citation on the image text, that piece of information is already cited in the main text. For Ref 4, Agence France-Presse (AFP) is the work (they wrote the content), Google News is the publisher (they published the content on their site). You only use the agency parameter when the source is part of a series, not if they are a news agency. Ref 5 needs the location parameter filled in (London). Check the retrieval date for Ref 4, 5 and 35. It was obtained before the article was actually published. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the review! Zia Khan 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Minor issues have been addressed. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment

• On what grounds you decided to fix the 300 mark as a significant achievement in Test cricket. Why not 200 or may be 400? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought that was answered in the lead with the references to sources quoting a 300-club etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Have a look at ref# 3, 4 and 5. —Zia Khan 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
      • May be, also have a look at [28], [29] and see what the man at top of the table feels. Although I'm aware that we shouldn't rely too much on Cricinfo, the most comprehensive cricket website, see their standards for "Most wickets in career". Fixing 300 wickets as an yardstick based on some random news sources seems arbitrary to me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Before creating the list I had asked for opinion here. Also, at the PR non of the reviewers had this kind of concern, including Harrias (talk · contribs). I'm not fixing 300 wickets, you may create lists for for 200, 400 or most wickets etc. There are only 11 and 4 bowlers with 400 wickets in Tests and ODIs respectively, and too many bowlers have taken over 200 wickets and many others are about to reach the 200 mark. Many cricket articles depend upon these "random news sources". You showed me Cricinfo's standards for the most Test wicket, so look at this for List of Test cricket triple centuries. Actually, your concern is just like this one. —Zia Khan 11:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I thought WT:CRIC is the right place. After reading the last comment it's clear that you haven't got my point. Since TRM is a co-nom, I may have to wait for others opinion and will continue with the review if they are satisfied with your benchmark. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Much better, appreciated. —Zia Khan 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with it: Only 11 bowlers have taken over 400 wickets in Test cricket, so that seems a little restrictive, while in excess of 50 bowlers have taken over 200 wickets, so that seems too inclusive. At the moment, this seems the best balance. The line has to be somewhere, and this in my opinion is the most logical point to draw it. Harrias ^talk 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Harrias. We need to have a benchmark, and 300 wickets is the most balanced one. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment

• The title of the article should be "more than" not over. I'll look at the rest of it in a bit. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I suggest it probably ought to be "300 or more", unless those who take 300 wickets are excluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll move the page! —Zia Khan 13:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Also the table is sorted by surname, should this be sorted by number of wickets taken, as this is the focus of the article? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The table is sorted by surname because this list is about the bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets rather than the list of most wickets?! Earlier this was sorted by wickets, I changed it because Harrias suggested this at the PR. —Zia Khan 13:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the deafault should be the number of wickets. Compare with (mis-titled) List of batsmen who have scored over 10000 Test cricket runs. Every single Test match/ODI I've ever watched on TV that shows a "career best" table during a slow period in the game, lists the achievement by total runs/wickets/catches/stumpings, etc. Maybe that's just me though. Any others with thoughts on this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The list you mentioned will be discussed if gets a nomination here. Referring my previous comment, I would say a list of most wickets may be created. Anyway, lets wait what say others! 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine with that, just makes sense to me to have it highest to lowest by wickets taken. Another example is List of tallest buildings in the world. No one would really want this listed A-Z, as the key fact is the height. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'm with Nutlugs here, the wickets taken is the key parameter. Should initially sort by that. Bummer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, my comment at the PR was merely intended to mean that when sorting by name, it should sort by surname alphabetically, not that it should be pre-sorted by surname. That said, I think the player's name should be the row scope. Harrias ^talk 19:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, as suggested! —Zia Khan 05:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice one. Another question - is Daniel Vettori still active in Tests? Hehe, Nutlugs. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think. —Zia Khan 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mild oppose

• While I'm convinced with the "300 figure", I don't think the prose does enough justice to this list at the moment. The first para seems okay, while the second one just reads like a list of facts. Given the amount of sources available and facts to be included, I think the lead can be re-written slightly to make the prose even more engaging. —Vensatry _(Ping) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am not sure what may be changed here. I'll leave this to The Rambling Man. —Zia Khan 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I feel the prose has improved since my previous visit. There are many other aspects which can be included apart from the ones mentioned currently in the lead. However, that isn't a problem. So I'll switch to support. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is very well sourced throughout. Good job by Vibhijain and Lemonade51 with helping to address some minor fixes, and nice response by Sahara4u to those comments, above. A few recommendations: the title for the sect Notes should actually be Footnotes, as Notes refers to actual citations and Footnotes refers to comments on article text at the end of the article; in addition, I think the article has room enough for a couple more free-use images, if possible. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the support. —Zia Khan 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you. My pleasure. Good luck with the rest of the FLC, — Cirt (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but you should change "The list is initially arranged by the most number of wickets taken by a bowler" to "The list is initially arranged in order of number of wickets taken". "Most number" is not gramatically correct English. It should be "highest number", however saying that the table is sorted by the highest number of wickets taken by a bowler implies that bowlers could have multiple numbers of wickets taken, which is obviously nonsense. My suggested version is gramatically correct and makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted. The minor concern left can be handled outside this nomination. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [30].

---

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2013

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think this list is appropriate for being a featured list. Simon (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Two issues I have are that there are no third-party sources (which I'm sure must exist for this topic) and the content fork (criteria 3b for FLs) with List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, which covers the same material. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a fork because this has much more information and highlights about number-one singles only in 2013, while the list of 2010s does not include this. Also I have added several third-party sources — Simon (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject" - the subject being Hot 100 number-one singles, so the decade and individual year lists will always be content forks of each other. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is indeed meticulously cited, nice job so far by HĐ, however as to the quality of the sources themselves, I think it likely that third-party-sources exist for this info. Are the current sources satisfactory for WP:RS and WP:V? Yes. But still it could only help to improve the page further to buttress those with additional third-party-sources, as well. As far as the existence of the list page itself in relation to List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, as mentioned above by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I think I'd like to hear from additional editors about that element, before weighing in further on that issue. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• I agree that it would be nice to more sources outside of Billboard; I see they're are some that are from other websites, but I'd like to see more.
  • I have currently provided more third party sources, and there are now four — Simon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• I would also like to see the dates written out in the citations, as opposed to the current number abbreviations in the article.
  • Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates can be formatted as YYYY-MM-DD and there's nothing wrong with that — Simon (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Please add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher for all of the Billboard sources (same with Hearst Corporation for Digital Spy.) WikiRedactor (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The publishers are not really necessary here and are repetitive. Nothing wrong with that — Simon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Not a problem (since some of my suggestions appeared to be just personal preferences), and the content is all in order, so I will support this nomination. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per 3.b. This list has essentially only 11 entries and could be easily merged into a "... singles of 2010s". Nergaal (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CFORK of List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s. Adabow (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 07:58, 23 January 2014 [31].

---

List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A list on fifers taken in world cup matches, modeled based on the centuries list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why there isn't any rowscopes on the bowlers? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Date format on ref 1, 5, 6 and 7 should be consistent with the other citations Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Location needed for Ref 1 (Glasgow) Lemonade51 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Is that mandatory. If so shouldn't we include that parameter for other refs too? —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC) See Wikipedia:REF#Newspaper_articles. Traditionally when it comes to newspaper-published articles, the location is included; that's one thing I learned at university. It isn't needed for web sources though. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC) No issues —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Lemonade51 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment

• Page is currently an orphan, no other main space pages link to it. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick comments Would prefer to see Economy given to same precision every entry. Table caption currently says "List of World Cup centuries". Probably need to say that Won means the bowler's team won etc. Caption says "Mcgrath", should be "McGrath". Barry Wood and Geoff Lawson are dab links. "County Ground, Northampton, Northampton " really don't need that first Northampton (compare it to the other County Grounds you have listed). "he managed five" prefer "he took". You could link 1979 Cricket World Cup Final etc in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed all. Thanks for commenting! —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC) You're very welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support I cannot find any problem in this list. Great work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

—Zia Khan 23:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments– "...the third match of the tournament." which tournament? If it is referred to the 1975 then put "Five bowlers—Gary Gilmour, Ashantha de Mel, Glenn McGrath, Vasbert Drakes and Shahid Afridi—have performed this feat twice in the history of the tournament." at the end of the paragraph. I would do this either way if it was 1975 or not! You have linked Bangladesh in the lead as well as in the footnotes, but not the other teams/countries? "...in the semi-finals and finals..." → final? You may link the semi-finals and final to their corresponding articles. You may also link the tournaments accordingly. Check sorting for the runs and economy columns. —Zia Khan 04:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Fixed all —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Minor ones: "semi-finals" should be "semi-final", and it would be better to specify that it was the first or second semi-final. Also, link "runs" in the lead. —Zia Khan 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC) It should be pluralized since there were two semi-finals in the tournament, and I don't think it's necessary to mention which SF as Australia appeared in only one of those. Linked runs —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Agreed. Of course there were two, but the fifer came from the one!? —Zia Khan 11:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Agreed and as I said earlier, Australia played only one of those and there is no need to mention that it was not the NZ–WI match. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support – good work! Waiting for you at my nominations. —Zia Khan 23:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• This list has been promoted. There may be a slight delay while waiting for the bot to process the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Older nominations

List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [32].

---

List of songs written by Bonnie McKee

Nominator(s): Samjohnzon (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list contains table-sorting facilities and is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Samjohnzon (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Her debut single "American Girl" was released in 2013—but the table lists "Trouble" and "Somebody" from Trouble (2004) as singles?
• You don't need the refs in the lead and the photo-captions for stuff that is referenced in the table. Remove them.
• She was named Rolling Stone's "Best Secret Weapon" in 2011—this sentence makes it seem like an official, major honour ("she won for Best Album at the Grammys), when it's likely just an off-the-cuff remark.
• McKee is perhaps best known for collaborating with fellow singer-songwriter Katy Perry—the cite at the end doesn't seem to back this up. I also think it's a bit much to call Perry a "singer-songwriter"; it makes it seem that she is in the mould of McKee.
• "Thanks For Nothing" → "Thanks for Nothing". Audit for similar throughout per the rules of MOS:CT.
• Decapitalise the all-caps titles in the references per MOS:CT. The "(Legal work)" is also unnecessary.
• I urge you to use WebCite or something to create a backup of your BMI refs, just in case they change their URLs suddenly (it's happened in the past with several industry websites).
• Some of the refs are missing publisher name; some are wrongly name "BMI | Repertoire Search". Please audit all your references for errors.
• Not a fan of the separate table for the chart toppers; mostly a redundancy. Instead I suggest two things, choose either: a) list UK and US chart positions for all the songs in the main table or b) create a hat-note or symbol for the chart-toppers (separate ones for UK and US).
• Those three notes right at the bottom need a better home, and also should be alphabetised instead of numbered to prevent confusing with the ref nos. I suggest doing what I did at List of current Indian chief ministers (see below the main table).
• In the "Contents" you should remove the alphabets with no entries; "0-9" and "N", for eg.
• The "Indicates songs written solely by McKee" symbol is unnecessary IMO. That she wrote it solely is self-evident from seeing her name alone. Also it seems to only apply to her Trouble songs.
• "Indicates promotional single release" should be replaced by a hatnote since it's a single occurrence.

Lots of niggling problems, but no biggies as far I can see. Once these are resolved I look forward to supporting.—(locked-out) User:Indopug 122.172.11.178 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Should have fixed all of these problems now, thanks for the feedback. Samjohnzon (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll take another look in detail and give my support after the weekend. Indopug 122.172.46.163 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this. One last thing: you haven't added a source that verifies the songs that topped the charts.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Support once the above comment is taken care of.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is quite well referenced throughout, and also has great tabular presentation and formatting that looks high quality to me as compared with previous Featured Lists. One small issue with this particular one: the notes at the end of the list, the four last notes at the end of the subsection Songs, should be contained in their own separate subsection called Footnotes. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• No need for that bold start in the lead, certainly no reason to have bold links.
• Image captions which are not complete sentences do not need to take a full stop.
• No need to repeat McKee three times in the first three sentences.
• "McKee is well known for co-writing" this sounds like an opinion without a reference.
• ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." is this claim referenced?
• Notes are typically referenced if they make claims which aren't referenced elsewhere.
• Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
• Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
• Check refs have publisher information, e.g. check ref 37 for instance.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken care of these with the exception of:

• ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." is this claim referenced?
• Notes are typically referenced if they make claims which aren't referenced elsewhere.
• Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
• Check refs have publisher information, e.g. check ref 37 for instance.

I'll leave these for the nominator who likely has more knowledge of the subject than I do. Gloss • talk 21:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd lead in with the 50+ credits and move the number of number ones to later one (probably just a straight switch). You want to define your scope clearly from the outset and then move on to more specific information; as is the opening sentence sets up expectations of a very brief list.
• I'm not convinced the table needs indicators for number one singles; this can easily be set up either in the lead, in referenced captions along the side (for example, the Katy Perry one could be expanded with a list of which five, followed by a ref; this would also fill up a little more white space). As we have it, it just seems odd to focus so up-front on only two markets.
• Where has this woman been all my life?
• Consider alt text for your images to better comply with WP:ACCESS.
• "Eight of these have topped either the British or the American charts" -> I'd explicitly mention and link the UK Singles Chart and Billboard Hot 100 here
• "In 2012, McKee co-wrote three songs on Adam Lambert's album Trespassing and two songs for Ke$ha's album Warrior, "C'Mon" and "Supernatural", the former of which served as the second single from the record." -> Overly long. Best bet might be to name the Lambert songs, end sentence, start a new one for the Kesha songs.
• ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." -> Big claim, needs a ref. Might also be worth clarifying what the "digital era" is (given that compact discs are digital media, is this from the mid-80s on, or is this from the advent of downloads in chart figures, or somewhere in between?)
• There are songs in the table with no artist or album, which I assume are just owned by a label until they're assigned to an artist; it might be worth clarifying this situation in the lead (it'd be more valuable as information than, say, what song was a single from which album).
• There's a few instances of refs preceded by an unnecessary space.
• I've never seen the point of alphabetical anchors in a sortable table, but that's just aesthetic on my part really.
• Not sure it's optimal to have "N/A" sort in the midst of real entries; would it combine with {{sort}} to be shunted off to the end? If not, don't worry about it.
• If "BMI" is Broadcast Music, Inc., pipe it.
• Remember that the lead and table are due to date soon; information on the new album should be incorporated as soon as it can be reliably sourced.

GRAPPLE X 05:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I also question whether it is really necessary at all to indicate which songs were number ones in the US and the UK. Why just those two nations? For example, "Let There Be Love" apparently topped the US Hot Dance Club Songs chart, and "Ooh La La" was number one in South Korea. Wouldn't that make them "number-one singles"? That's just my initial thought about this list, I'll give a fuller review when I have the time. Overall, it seems to look pretty good. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - the claim about "Dynamite" by Taio Cruz seems to be based on this source. Although it doesn't specifically say, I think these figures relate to America only, not the whole world, so that should be made clear. Also it seems to relate to "the Nielsen SoundScan era", which is probably not exactly the same thing as "the digital era", whatever that is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This nomination is pushing two months old. Please deal with the comments as soon as possible, or the nomination may be archived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [33].

---

List of municipalities in Saskatchewan

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC), and co-nominator Hwy43 (talk)

We are nominating this for featured list because it is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities within the Province of Saskatchewan in Canada. It follows the same format of successful nominations for the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba (and |Alberta, currently a Featured List Candidate). We are hoping to ultimately complete a featured topic for all municipalities in Canada. If this nomination and the nomination of Alberta below are successful 4 out of the 13 provinces and territories will be featured lists using this new and rigorous format. Thanks for your input! Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment to reviewers: A record of our collaboration can be viewed on my talk page. I'll now use this page to further collaborate with Mattximus on this article concurrent with your reviews. Hwy43 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment to Mattximus: The "Rural municipalities" and "Northern municipalities" sections both should mention the largest and smallest by population like the urban municipality subsections. Could you add this content? Also, please review the comments received on the Alberta nomination from Dudley Miles and The Rambling Man received to date and consider implementing the same suggested changes where/if applicable as I anticipate some of them may emerge here. Hwy43 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Added largest/smallest. Will see if recommendations can be used from other nomination. Mattximus (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Stumbled upon this Municipal System History page which has incorporation dates for urban, rural and northern municipalities. I've added the original incorporation dates for the 24 northern municipalities. Though the current lack of the same for the urbans and rurals should not preclude achievement of FL status (it wasn't a barrier for List of municipalities in Ontario), I think these should be added eventually. The sheer number of urbans and rurals makes this a significant undertaking that could occur after FL achievement in my opinion. That being said, I have contacted the Saskatchewan government to ask if they could provide the PDF tables in Excel format, in the spirit of open data, to help streamline the eventual additions. Hwy43 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Any reply? I could always start plugging away if there is no alternative. Mattximus (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Not yet. Given the time of year, not surprised if there is no reply until the week of January 6-10. Hwy43 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Response from Saskatchewan Municipal Relations "Sorry all I received for posting are the pdf files that are currently up on the site." Drat. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
        • What do you think? Do you see incorporation dates as integral to the list of municipalities in Canada pages? Would you like them to be eventually in all the articles? If so I certainly don't mind helping you input them, but it will take a bit longer than the scope of the featured list review. Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
          • As mentioned above, and per the successful outcome of the Ontario FLC review where inclusion wasn't a barrier to promotion, I don't think its necessary to add them before the FL review closes. However, I do think it should be an action item for this article afterwards since the data is immediately available. I'll ask some co-workers if they can convert the PDFs to Excel format to save us some time. Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Sounds good to me. Keep me posted on the conversion, if it's not possible I can do the manual inputting. Mattximus (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• The lists of urban and rural municipalities are very long with no breaks. Making the name the default field and adding Template:Compact ToC, as was done with Alberta, would make it easier for readers to find a municipality they were interested in.
  • Comment is it possible to do a compact TOC that allows links to towns a, b, c, etc, then villages a, b, c, etc? It would be nice to retain the current default sort of cities alpha, then towns alpha, then villages alpha, the resort villages alpha. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You could post a question on the ToC talk page. I am not sure how it would work. I find ToC helpful when searching long tables, but I do not think it is crucial if you want to keep the default sort.
• "A village can be created from an organized hamlet by Saskatchewan's Minister of Municipal Relations by ministerial order via section 51 of The Municipalities Act if it has: been an organized hamlet for three or more years; a population of 100 or more; 50 or more dwellings or businesses; and a taxable assessment base that meets a prescribed minimum." It is not clear from the wording whether it has to meet one of the criteria or all of them.
  • Comment they have to meet all. I can re-word. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Done Hwy43 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• I do not understand the third column under urban municipality, rural municipality. How are they related?
  • Comment third column advises which rural municipality surrounds the urban municipality. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you need a note explaining this. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Would changing the column header to read "Surrounding rural municipality" be sufficient instead? Hwy43 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I am not sure. You would need to ask someone who has not already read your explanation. I think a footnote might be better, but I will leave you to decide.
          • Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from AmericanLemming I recently left a note on the talk page of list of municipalities in Manitoba regarding the placement of the table of contents. Since my questions regard all 13 articles of this type (and particularly those which are FLs or FLCs, like this one), I thought I would bring it up here as well. I have two questions:

1. Why is the table of contents on the right for this article when almost all other articles have it on the left?

2. Why is the table of contents on the right for the lists of municipalities in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan but on the left for British Columbia (and yes, I know BC was promoted to FL status in 2007)? Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other?

I'm new to the featured list process, so it's quite possible that list articles are more likely to have the TOC on the right for some reason unknown to me. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• See replies at Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba#Why is the table of contents on the right?. Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, I've proposed adding a guideline on the position of TOCs on the MoS's talk page; the proposed addition currently states "the table of contents should be floated left unless there is a compelling reason to have it on the right." "The table of contents may be floated left or right, but general practice is to have it floated left (the default setting)" I'd appreciate any input any regulars at the featured list candidate process have on the proposed addition. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• What do you think of the TOC placement in List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories? That seems to me to be clearer. If you agree I can make that a standard for all of these lists including this one. Mattximus (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies for getting back to you so late; I delisted this discussion from my watch list because I thought my concerns had been addressed (that is, I learned that it's okay to have the TOC on the right). But about your question, I very much prefer having the TOC where it is in the Northwest Territories article. It looks better and isn't stuck between the lead and the first section of the body. Please do change all of the articles to look like that. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Mattximus and AmericanLemming, but it should not go where it is in the Northwest Territories article per #5 at Help:Section#Floating the TOC. Hwy43 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• If there was a way to force the floated-right TOC that is stacked next to images to appear precisely after the first paragraph, let's do it. I've been unsuccessful in my previous attempts. Hwy43 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Hwy43: Um, I'm a little confused. #5 states "However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text." (emphasis mine) That means in some cases you can have it be otherwise, such as here. I'm inferring that you personally prefer to have it follow at least the first paragraph of article text? Because the guideline doesn't say that it always has to follow at least the first paragraph of article text. Anyway, I'm sure you have you reasons for wanting to have the TOC right-floated and sandwiched right between the lead and the first paragraph of the body, and I am willing to respect your preferences. You've spent a lot more time working on these articles than me, anyway. :)
• We could ask around at the help desk or the village pump about your proposed solution, though. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• AmericanLemming, actually, where Mattximus put it is exactly my preference (with the dead white space resolved between the two adjacent images, which can be resolved). However, it is my interpretation that #5's "should in most cases" is the alternative to #2's "should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text". #2 goes on to say "Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing." That last bit is key here. My preference is at the top, but we are constrained by these guidelines. Trying to put it after the first paragraph seems to be the best compromise between the end of the lead and before any text. Hwy43 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuation of TOC positioning discussion from above

I have started my reply on a new line because, when you need eight colons to indent your reply, it's time to start over. Anyway, I have to agree with you, Hwy43, that putting it immediately after the first paragraph in the lead would be preferable, considering guideline #2. As such, I have asked around at the Help desk: Placing the TOC immediately after the first paragraph in the lead. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Though I have to say I agree with Hwy43 and AmericanLemming about placing the Table of Contents immediately after the first paragraph in the lede, on the left. Great job overall by Mattximus and Hwy43, — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and please change title of sect Notes to Footnotes. Notes is for citations, Footnotes is for commentary about main article body text. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. I made the change, but I'm wondering if you have those two mixed up? I thought notes were for commentary and footnotes are for references. Mattximus (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Cirt. I have reviewed WP:FOOTNOTES and it appears it is "Notes" per WP:REFGROUP as the footnotes in question here are clarifications of content. Hwy43 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, no worries. I think my idea is the case when there are three sects: Footnotes, then Notes, then References. — Cirt (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support a reasonable read through revealed no issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of AO-rated video games

Nominator(s): ViperSnake151  Talk  18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a particularly notable subject; in line with the NC-17, its interesting to see that relatively few "mainstream" games have ever dared to receive an AO rating, and I bet you most people don't even realize there's something higher than M! I did a lot of cleanup lately, adding some more backstories, filling out references, adding a lead, etc. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments by Mattximus (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not too impressed with the list itself. The note section only has a few notes, most have a dash, one is blank. Maybe a year column would benefit? What is the difference between "PC", "Windows", and "Windows PC"; all three are under that one column. You have a cancelled game, a game that was re-rated, there seems to be no real criteria for inclusion here. I'm confused.

• These are all video games that were rated AO by the ESRB; how can the criteria for inclusion be any clearer? And I fixed up those formatting issues. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd mention when the ESRB started, probably at the end of the first paragraph.
• Might also be worth mentioning its equivalents in other countries, or that it's like NC-17, if you can find sources.
• "was given the AO rating for its violent content, so much so that when its publisher" - 'so much so' what? It was rated so much? Sentence needs reworking.
• Since the platform column is sortable, every instance of each term should be linked.
• I'd add a release date (or at least release year) column, as well as a developer column.
• You seem to have notes only on the non-sexual games- any way to get notes for the others, or would they all just be "digital nudity and explicit sex"?
• The Joy of Sex should sort under J, not T.
• If you add notes to the other games, you can drop the sorting on the notes column, since the result is arbitrary.

--PresN 05:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I fixed up the Thrill Kill mention, but I can't seem to find release years for those remaining AO games that are otherwise unremarkable and lacking notes (aside from Lula 3D; which I also got a chance to add to List of video games notable for negative reception as well). This table is sourced directly from the ESRB pages, which don't distinctly list developers or release years. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...}:

• Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT and utilize column and row scopes.
• Do we have any more info about the games? Usually lists of video games include title, developer, publisher, and year. I'm not pushy about needing a developer column since we have the publisher list, but I think a column with year of release would be helpful and necessary to make this a complete list. I can see PresN noted this, but I would say it's necessary to meet criteria 3a of WP:WIAFL. You may want to try using IGN or Allgame to fill in some of the information on some of these games.
• Instead of having a ref next to the game title, it might be better to place it in a separate column since there are individual references for each title here and not one overarching reference. See List of Sega 32X games for a suggestion on how this might be accomplished, and would neaten up the title field.
• Though not necessary, you may want to place {{portal}} in the See also section to add a link to the Video games Portal, which may be helpful for readers.
• There's an extra ] next to the word Windows in the last paragraph of the lead.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Reiterating the need for release dates, or at least release years, especially for the blacklinked items. If the only source used does not contain them then it is not an adequate source for an FL, we'll need more. --Golbez (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - no response from nominator or edits to article for a month regarding adding developer or release date to table; that you would have to find another source beyond the ESRB for those is not a valid excuse. --PresN 19:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is certainly useful, but valid concerns have indeed been raised above. I think the refs from the Title column should be moved instead to the Notes column, for uniformity with other FL quality list pages I've come across. Also, I've left a helpful reminder note about this ongoing discussion page at user talk for ViperSnake151. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to agree with Red Phoenix here about 3a. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [34].

---

World Fantasy Award for Best Novella

Nominator(s): PresN 23:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You know what this place needs? If you said "more nominations of speculative fiction award lists", you're right! To that end, here's the list for the World Fantasy Award for Best Novella, the award for those stories in that awkward length where they're a bit too long to be short stories but still too short to generally get published on their own, as presented by the biggest player in the Fantasy-specific literary awards. Like always, the list is based off of the dozens of Hugo, Nebula, etc. award lists I've pushed through here in the last few years, with specific attention paid to the comments received at the Novel category nomination from a month ago. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - several of the authors have photos in their articles, could some of these not be added to make the list a bit more visually interesting........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments— Of authors who have won at least once, Hand has the most nominations,...... how many? A ref for the last para Not necessary but could you reduce these red-links? Zia Khan 19:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC) The text mentions that Hand had 8 nominations in the sentence just before it. The whole last paragraph is just counting the authors and nominations in the table below, there's no new information being given - WP:CALC The only redlinks are for novellas which have won the award but don't have articles; I've been asked in prior nominations to do so for novels/novellas, since by winning a major award they prove that they're notable enough for an article. --PresN 23:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, I mean you may create articles to reduce them. Zia Khan 23:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support – on prose. Zia Khan 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Another great article from PresN, consistent with his other award lists; have just found a few very minor issues, included below:

• the next-most nominations without winning is five by Kim Newman. -- not a fan of this wording, suggest a re-write
• Per WP:ALSO, why is World Fantasy Convention repeated in the See also section? Ruby 2010/2013 17:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reworded, and pulled the see also. --PresN 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good, am happy to support. Ruby 2010/2013 00:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492

published in English or translated into English. - aren't these both, technically, published in English?

Why are your novellas in quotes? WP:ITALICS puts "books" (novellas are often published stand-alone, so they count) in italics, whereas short stories are in quotes.

and K. J. Parker, who won both times they were nominated. - what's with the singular "they"? Is Parker's gender unknown? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to be explicit that the work doesn't have to be originally written in English, just translated and published in that language in the prior year. Remove, though.

If you notice, some of them are in quotes and some of them are italicized- this corresponds to if the novella, in its original incarnation, was published by itself or as a part of a larger work. This, in turn, matches up with the publisher/publication column- for example, Night Moves is italicized, and the publisher is listed as Axolotl Press, but "The River of Night's Dreaming" is in quotes, and the publication listed is Whispers III (Doubleday).

• That's an interesting way of approaching it. Has any consensus been formally established? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, no- the MOS doesn't get any more specific about it, and WP:NOVELS doesn't have any guidelines either. That said, as far as I can tell it's the standard way of dealing with them- stand-alone works get italics, works that are a part of a longer work get quotes. After all, if it's in an anthology a novella is just a long short story, but if it's published on its own it's just a short book. Only awards try to give it a word-count definition. --PresN 18:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

First line of K. J. Parker's wikipedia page- "K. J. Parker is an author of fantasy fiction. The name is a pseudonym and the writer's true identity has never been revealed." --PresN 15:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support on prose: solid list, and a congratulations to PresN for his work here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is impressive. The sourcing is detailed and helpful for each entry. This list page will surely become an invaluable resource in the future for researchers on the specific topic of World Fantasy Award but also hopefully as a model for participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction. — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments Should the "Awarded for" in the infobox also include the fact it should be in English, per the lead? "The judges panel" pretty sure there should be an apostrophe in there somewhere...! Picky but "with five nominations without winning" with... without reads a little odd to me. Could consider adding Category:Novella awards to this (and other similar award categories to the others in this series?) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC) All four done; will replicate to other lists. --PresN 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) [35].

---

Jared Leto filmography

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I have recently completely updated and improved the article according to WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Earthh (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment There's not a single reference outside the lead. That means that there's nothing to support any of the information in any of the lists. Have a look at List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan for an FLC on a similar topic to see how the information is supported by reliable sources. That's why there is a column provided for sources in the example at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. - SchroCat (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The list you cited is not a filmography. This article meets the criteria at WP:FILMOGRAPHY; if you read it, the Source column is an optional field that is to be used when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm. A film in which an actor starred does not need to be sourced. Take a look at other featured lists such as Clint Eastwood filmography, Christopher Walken filmography, Robert Bathurst filmography or Vittorio Storaro filmography; they do not need sources for films they starred or directed, unless it is a work obscure or difficult to confirm.--Earthh (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• See Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record, David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print and Hattie Jacques on stage, radio, screen and record, all of which are filmographies and all of which carry citations that support the information. These are all recent FLs, whereas the ones you list are between 2008 and 2010 and things have changed since those days: we now prefer that all information is supported by reliable sources. There is absolutely nothing in WP:FILMOGRAPHY that says we don't need to support information that appears in the body. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice. I've just added the filmography from the New York Times as a source. I've also added single sources for uncredited parts and other credits which the NYT does not list.--Earthh (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - article is essentially unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• See my reply above; a film in which an actor starred does not need to be sourced (see WP:FILMOGRAPHY).--Earthh (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Sourced the whole article.--Earthh (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). I see some valiant effort on improving sourcing throughout the entire article has been made by Earthh after the above comments were made by SchroCat and ChrisTheDude. See changes made by Earthh, at DIFF. Also, as a side observation, no idea why this particular page seems to be the subject of incoming vandalism from apparent odd user accounts and IPs. I think I'll hold back from commenting further here until SchroCat and ChrisTheDude have had another chance to reevaluate the page since the improvements made by Earthh. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Humblest apologies, I completely forgot that I'd commented here. I'll try and have another look over it in the next few days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, ChrisTheDude, keep us posted. And Earthh, if I myself also forget to revisit, feel free to remind me with a ping or post to my user talk page. — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - the current ref 23 (used in the TV table) does not support the specific episodes of "Camp Wilder", "My So-Called Life" or "Almost Home" that he was in. It also seems to have a couple of roles not listed here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• The specific episodes of the television series are sourced by IMDb, it's the only source available (if you don't consider tv.com, tvguide.com or tvrage.com). Those not included are not acting roles, they're appearances in variety shows.--Earthh (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Delegate note: This nomination has been archived. It may take several days for the bot to pass through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 10:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [36].

---

List of Minnesota Timberwolves head coaches

Nominator(s): --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've nominated an FLC! More than two years! It's great to finally be able to edit again. Anyways, back to the process. I am nominating this list because it first off meets the WIAFL, and is consistent with other NBA head coaches lists. I am also nominating this for FL because I need to finish what I started, and actually complete the NBA head coaches topic so that I can nominate that for FT. If there has been changes to the process or if there is anything I need to be updated on, please let me know. Thanks in advance! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Rejectwater

Resolved comments from Rejectwater

*Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this. Head coaches table are missing row scopes. Neither table has a caption (I imagine it easy to believe captions are unneccessary in this case, however the policy does not leave room for exceptions). Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Image alts. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. Alts are vastly improved, however I find it hard to believe the image of Flip Saunders was chosen due to it showing him biting his pen. Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC) None of the playoffs columns sort properly due to most cells use ndash to signify n/a. Replace ndash with {{sort dash}} to correct this. Ndash, does not apply, is not in key table. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed all the ones without replies. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kevin McHale is listed twice, once for each term. Negates the usefulness of a sortable table.
  • I used the MLB managers lists format and created a separate section just for head coaches with multiple tenures. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why you did that. It's redundant and unneccessary. Why not just list McHale in the main table on one line? Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
      • That will inhibit the readers to clearly see the chronology of the position. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• The opening paragraph of the lead reads like a list of trivia. Should focus on the topic at hand.
  • I rewrote some of the lead. Sorry to be a bummer, but there really isn't much I can add onto the lead. I made the lead look less trivial, but other than that, nothing much has changed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The size of the lead is appropriate to the article (I wouldn't object to it being longer, and believe it could be, but I think it is adequate in size). The content of much of the first paragraph, however, is outside the scope. Delete everything from "The team was one of two..." through "David Kahn is their general manager." Replace it with a description of what a Minnesota Timberwolves coach is and what they are responsible for. See WP:LEAD: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find a suitable definition of a head coach for the article. The description of the position varies across mediums. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 13:48, February 2, 2014 [37].

---

List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes

Nominator(s): Mediran (t • c) 04:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I am nominating this article for featured list. I have redeveloped this article based on current and previous featured episode lists. Any comments that will help the list more are welcome. Thanks in advance. :) Mediran (t • c) 04:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous(talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this. Done. Mediran (t • c) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC) The series overview section should have prose. Look at List of Adventure Time episodes's series overview section as an example. I have checked other FLs, like List of The Simpsons episodes,List of Regular Show episodes, List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes, and I didn't see any prose texts in their series overview section. I'm not sure if it matters but the overview table already provides it. If you think it is really needed in the section, please reply. Thanks. :) Mediran (t• c) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC) My apologies for using the word should. It isn't necessary for episodes lists in general, but for Spongebob Squarepants episodes in particular, explanations of the overview is necessary. There is no mention of why most episodes are separated into two segments, how come season 2 and 3 each took three years to complete, why some episodes air out of the production timeline, etc. These details should be explained to the readers. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Done. I have added some prose. Is it better now? Thanks! Mediran (t •c) 07:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC) It is definitely a whole lot better! Were you not able to find the reasoning of why seasons overlap? --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC) I was unable to find something on that matter. However, according to Production code number: "[The show] may air episodes in radically different order to how they are produced, because character development and continuity are not major aspects of production. The airing order may in the end be decided by the network, based on ratings, sweeps months, or other networks' competition." That quote constitutes WP:OR but I think it makes a good point. The second season extended for three years because "Gary Takes a Bath" took years to be broadcast. The third season also took years because I think of the "production hiatus" that the network decided "to cover the delay." Was that satisfying? I'm very sorry but I can't find sources on why the seasons overlapped. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Alright then. Thank you for taking the effort in looking deeper into this. Sorry for being troublesome! I just want to make sure that this list be as comprehensive as possible. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC) You should definitely mention the segments somewhere in the lead or series overview. Done? Mediran (t • c) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC) --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you so much for your comments! :) Mediran (t • c) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I'm surprised that it's been 50 days and I've been the only person to support this! I'm having trouble as well on trying to get people to comment or support my FLC, so if you have time on your hands, please, head over to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Timberwolves head coaches/archive1 and do the same for me! :D --K.Annoyomous (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

*Comments - A few comments before I can support Any reason why the tables aren't sortable? I followed how the The Simpsons, Adventure Time, Regular Show, Ed, Edd n Eddy, Family Guy were written and they don't have sortable tables. Also, sorting is not possible to "{{Episode list}}" or "{{Episode list/sublist}}". Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Given that only 2 out of 9 tables don't have viewer numbers, I wonder if you shouldn't have the column in those two as well just for consistency. You mean I should add "US viewers" column to them? This is quite confusing. BTW, some episode lists like The Simpsons don't have the viewer number column in some tables because they are unavailable. Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, I meant you should add the US viewers column to the two tables that don't have them so that all of the tables are consistent with each other. If you feel strongly against this I won't oppose over it, it just struck me as I went through the list that they didn't match. --PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Information [...] is taken from the opening credits of each episodes" - should be "each episode", or "the episodes". That's better! I omitted "regarding story development, storyboard artists and animation directors". Thanks. :) Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Remove all-caps from refs 16,69,72-77 Done. Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC) St. Petersburg Times is redirecting in ref 69 (though nowhere else) That is transcluded from "SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1)". Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC) And? You can fix it there, surely. --PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC) That is done. Sorry. Mediran (t • c) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC) The link is broken on ref 142 Done. Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC) --PresN 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! :) Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - outstanding issues are not enough for me to oppose over. --PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

*I will take a closer look later. For now, I suggest you split the airdate table and media release. It is stretching the page pretty badly on higher zooms. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Hi DragonZero! I have fixed the table by following how The X-Files, Adventure Time were written. Do you think it's better? Thanks! Mediran (t • c) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Yeah, it fixed the problem. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC) MoS caps ref titles. "THE STRETCH" -> "The Stretch" Done. Mediran (t • c) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC) There are some instances where the ref titles are referring to SpongeBob SquarePants, the series, so you should italicize those instants. Done. Mediran (t • c) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Scope=Row for season rows in the table Done. Mediran (t • c) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tentative support I don't see any glaring issues. So it's a support unless someone points out a fatal flaw. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:07, 08 May 2014 (UTC) [38]].

---

Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammys", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. References for the first ceremonies are hard to find, I even sent emails to Univision and Billboard magazine to find out about the nominees on the missing years, with no success. This was a hard investigation by Erick and yours truly. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Question: Why was the first FL nomination closed? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody commented on it. Erick (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick Comments: There are several red links in this list. If there is no article to the list, then it should not be linked.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What about Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 in the infobox? That should also be removed if there is no link to the awards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed and updated with 2014 nominees. Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that red links should not be linked? According to WP:RED, red links encourage creation of articles. Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 and Premio Lo Nuestro 2014 should be linked and created. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There's inconsistent in the Year column now of what is linked: the year or the order. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)

• Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this.
  • I am specifically talking about WP:DTAB when it comes to WP:ACCESS. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not understand what do you mean, can you give me an example? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Image alts. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Descriptions of what the award winners are wearing is not in context with the article. For example, the alt text of the Isabel Pantoja image should only be "Isabel Pantoja performing". --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• América Sierra is not sorted properly.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

--K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Surprised "Lo Nuestro Award" is not linked in the prose in the lead somewhere.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• "award" is used three times in the opening two sentences, twice in the first, a little repetitive.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The nominees and winners were originally selected by a voting poll " where are the nominees for 1989, 1990 and 1994? And what does "for the majority of the years awarded" mean? The info isn't available? There were no nominees?"

We do not have the references for the nominees, I even send emails to Univision without any response. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The good news is that we now have the complete nominations thanks John M Baker and User:Gamaliel from the Resource Exchange for providing the article with the nominations that were other wise paywalled. Erick (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• "At the present time" see WP:ASOF.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• "by the audience through an online survey" surely just "through an online survey" or are only the "audience" allowed to vote?

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Tierra de Nadie " is a dablink.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Check all non-English-language refs have a language parameter, e.g. ref 3 should have Spanish somewhere in it.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Status

Lead

• "The Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year is an honor presented annually by American network Univision." → "The Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year is an honor presented annually by American television network Univision at the Lo Nuestro Awards."

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "It was first awarded in 1989 and has been given annually since." → This is repetitive using "annually" again. Suggest removing this sentence and just adding in 1989 to this sentence "The award was first presented to Desde Andalucía by Spanish singer Isabel Pantoja.".

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "As of 2004, the winners are selected through an online survey." → "However, since 2004, the winners are selected through an online survey."

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "for the most awards, winning on three occasions each" → "for the most wins, with three each"

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Mexican singer Luis Miguel won consecutively for Aries (1994) and Segundo Romance (1995), with both earning also the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance." → "Mexican singer Luis Miguel won consecutively in 1994 for Aries and in 1995 for Segundo Romance; both albums also earned the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance."

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "In 1999, the Pop Album of the Year was shared by Mexican band Maná and Shakira with Sueños Líquidos and Dónde Están los Ladrones?, respectively, and both albums were nominated at the 41st Grammy Awards for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Performance with Maná receiving the award." → "In 1999, the Pop Album of the Year accolade was shared by Mexican band Maná and Shakira with Sueños Líquidos and Dónde Están los Ladrones?, respectively. Both albums were nominated at the 41st Grammy Awards for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Performance, with Maná receiving the award."

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Supernatural by Mexican-American band Santana also won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year." → Why exactly is this mentioned in the lead? It's the only mention of the album in the lead.

It is mentioned in the lead because the Grammy Award for Album of the Year is one of the most important music award, and Supernatural is the only "Latin" album that received the accolade along with the Lo Nuestro Award. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How about this? In the preceding sentence "Spanish band La 5ª Estación, and Mexican groups Camila, Maná, Pandora, RBD, and Sin Bandera are the only musical ensembles to receive the accolade." You can throw in Santana throw and mention the Grammy Album of the Year accolade like saying "the latter group received the Grammy Award for Album of the Year" or something like that. Erick (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

— Status (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Tables

• I'm not the biggest fan of the "Winners and nominees" table. Is there any particular reason why this style was chosen? I've seen many different ways to do these sorts of tables, and I like Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album the most.

I think this table is easier to navigate. I also took several LGA list to FL status, with another template, but for this award I tried something different. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm not personally a fan of that format, but that doesn't have anything to do with the FLC criteria. It's always nice to try things differently sometimes. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not very convinced on why the "Multiple wins/nominations" table is needed.

Most award related lists include the wins and nominations table, that's the main reason to have it here. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

— Status (talk · contribs) 01:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome! I will give my support once the one remaining issue is amended. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• Some external links that need to be corrected.
• If 2013 and 2014 don't have their own articles, I don't think that need to be redlinked in the table.
• Maybe instead of "Multiple wins/nominations", this title could be reworked as "Multiple wins and nominations"?

And that is pretty much it, since the list is already in very good shape. I trust that you will address my comments as necessary, and am happy in giving my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed the above comments. Erick (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Not the table I'd use but it works, so I won't be picky about it. Everything else looks good. → Call me Hahc21 04:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Erick (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comments Oh, there seems to be a dead link. Other than that, everything looks all right. You guys have done an excellent job finding the sources. – DivaKnockouts 12:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind review, we already replaced that link. Cheers! Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Great job! - DivaKnockouts 18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment you do realise that this currently isn't listed at FLC at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I honestly did not know. Erick (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major problem, I'm guessing one of the FL directors or delegates "failed" it a while ago, but the bot didn't do it's business. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What should we do about it, Mr. Rambling Man? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask one of the delegates or the director. Since things appear to be going rather well, despite the six-month duration (!), it would be a shame to fail it now. Looking at the log, it was failed in February, but whoever failed it didn't add a closing note, hence the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. Blasted Bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• This list has been promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [39].

---

Timeline of the 2012 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 Pacific hurricane season featured above-average activity, but minimal impact and fatalities (fortunately). I have significantly improved the status of the article and feel that it now meets the criteria to be recognized as a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dudley Miles 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley Miles Comments by Dudley Miles A good list. I have a few minor points. The second sentence is a bit long. I would suggest ending it at "both basins" and then "These dates conventionally". Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Explaining or linking the first use of UTC and PDT would be helpful. Sorry about that, I usually do. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Is there a reason that the first three tropical depressions are designated by a number and the rest by number and -E? Oops. In the Atlantic, depressions just get a number designation, while in the East Pacific, they get a number and "-E" to denote the basin. It's a mistake that I've corrected. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC) You mention seventeen tropical depressions, but with ten and thirteen you do not mention them but go straight to the storm. Is there a reason for this? No, that should say tropical cyclones instead of tropical depressions. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks but now I am even more confused. If I understand correctly, cyclone is a generic term covering various strengths such as tropical storm and hurricane, so how can a cyclone strengthen to become a tropical storm? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) That's an interesting point that hasn't been brought up in any of my FLCs before. For this season in particular, the mention of 17 depressions isn't really necessary so I've removed it. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have only one concern, which is that of referencing: in the lede, damage from Bud and Carlotta is mentioned, yet neither is referenced. Other than that, I'm satisfied with the article. Nice one as usual, TAWX. Cloudchased (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Referenced. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - seems comparable to other featured timelines. Only one point of concern- "East Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W—and on June 1 in the central Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W to the International Date Line" - so the central Pacific is located entirely inside the East Pacific? Looks good besides that. --PresN 19:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That should say west, not east. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Only one concern: what's with repeating "operationally" in the third paragraph (same sentence even)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments some minor technical details... "A few weeks later" a little loose for an encyclopedia. In the timeline you have "less than or equal to 39 mph" as TD and "equal to or more than 39mph but less than 73mph" for TS, meaning 39mph could be a TD and a TS. "1200 UTC (8:00 a.m. PDT)" four hours difference vs "0000 UTC (5:00 p.m. PDT May 14)" seven hours difference? "1,055 km" vs "1330 km" consistency with commas please. " Saffir-Simpson" needs an en-dash. Not sure, but we've been tending to move away from the use of the semi-colon to make bold text, I believe it has issues for WP:ACCESS. A lot of editors, me included, who access PDF files of multiple pages look for a page reference so they don't have to scour the whole thing to find the data they're looking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I fixed all except the comment concerning the use of semi-colons; I'm not quite sure what to do with that. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC) You could replace them with the standard triple apostrophe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC) As suggested. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is most educational and encyclopedic. It is meticulously sourced throughout to appropriate citations. My only minor quibble is the title Notes for that subsection: Notes usually refers to Harvard Citations followed by a References section with the full Citations -- this type of section should be called Footnotes. Great job overall by TropicalAnalystwx13, — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [40].

---

List of AFL debuts in 2008

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because not only do I believe it meets the criteria, but would also provide a platform to expand the ability for a greater featured content presence for Australian rules football articles (currently out of over 11,000 pages we have only four FAs and one FL). Any feedback will be greatly appreciated as I have never gone through this process before. Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Why are AFL debuts important, and why does there have to be a list about them?
• Explain to readers that are not familiar with Australian rules football what a "debut round" is.

--K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 15:19, 20 January 2014 [41].

---

List of Nippon Professional Baseball players to hit for the cycle

Nominator(s): --Torsodog^Talk 06:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When User:Killervogel5 started updating the article "Hitting for the cycle" he wanted to make it more comprehensive beyond just MLB. To help him out I put together a list of NPB cycles. The list was always in good shape but I wasn't able to find a reliable source for the cycle list so I never pursued a FL. I was finally able to find one though so I cleaned it up a bit and put finishing touches on the list. I think it looks good now. Let me know what you think! --Torsodog^Talk 06:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I just happened to come back to WT:MLB today totally by chance and I'm so happy to hear that you finally got this nominated! Please let me know if and when it passes - I'll come back for a command performance just to get the cycle to featured topic. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 22:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments – Table listing cycles by players should have table caption "Nippon Professional Baseball players who have hit for the cycle, the date of its occurrence, team, league, and opponent" (matching the MLB list) In the "Cycles by player" section, the pics at the right should be aligned thumb/right/upright (again matching the MLB one). This is to ensure that all the pics are at the same width (more aesthetically pleasing) The general refs should have {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} at the top and bottom of the section, respectively. This will shrink the text so that it'll be the same size as the inline citations text. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Done, done and done! --TorsodogTalk 02:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC) More comments – The first two entries on the list have the league as "Japanese Professional Baseball", but this redirects to the article on professional baseball in Japan. Shouldn't this link to Japanese Baseball League instead? If yes, then pipelink it. Are JPB/JBL considered to be the antecedent to the NPB (the same way the American Association is considered part of MLB)? Or are they viewed as separate major leagues? If it is the latter situation, then delete the first two entries. Ah, great catch on the Japanese Professional Baseball slip-up. Those links were definitely supposed to be Japanese Baseball League. And the JBL is definitely antecedent to NPB. The change was basically a rebranding and restructuring that occurred in the 1949-1950 off-season. NPB still counts all records and stats from the JBL days. --TorsodogTalk 23:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC) —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Final comment – Any ref that originates from a news source or newspaper should utilize the cite news template instead (just change "web" to "news" at the very beginning of the template). The "newspaper=" parameter should be used instead of "publisher=" (e.g. for The Japan Times) and replace "work=" with "agency=" (e.g. for Kyodo News) —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Fixed. Those cite templates can get confusing! --TorsodogTalk 01:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolves comments from K. Annoyomous

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) WP:ALT: For lists, the alt text for images should identify the subjects. The image of Alex Ochoa is not chosen because he is "a dark-skinned man...", but because he is Alex Ochoa. In the lead, Ochoa's full name should be used in the first sentence, and be wikilinked. "...the same feat...": Is the feat hitting a cycle or hitting a cycle in both leagues? How it is read now is that the feat is hitting a cycle in both leagues. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Fixed the second two, but I just took the alt text from the MLB equivalent of this article. It doesn't use any names for its alt text. You're saying that the alt text for all of the images here should use the names of the players? --TorsodogTalk 01:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, because the images are presenting some of the players that have hit for the cycle, not ethnicity, fashion, etc. The "Importance of context" section explains this more clearly. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Makes sense. Changed the text to include names. Alt text has always been an issue for me. --TorsodogTalk 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - If you ever have time, it would be great if you create articles for all of the players, especially the Hall of Famers. Other than that, great job on the list, and I look forward to seeing more from you! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - nicely done. Only a few comments, which isn't enough for me to oppose.

• In the key- "Player recorded a natural cycle" - this sounds awkward to my ears- "Denotes a natural cycle"?
• The italic text thing in the Cycles by franchise section seems like it would run afoul of WP:ACCESS - is it even necessary, given that you give the active dates of the franchise?
• Refs 7,8,11,12,13 are missing the "Kyodo News" publisher bit that you include in 14,15,16
• Consider archiving your online references via a service like web.archive.org or webcitation.org- online refs have a nasty tendency to move, change, or get deleted years later, leaving the list with dead references.

--PresN 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• All fixed! However refs 8, 11, 12 and 13 aren't actually from "Kyodo News" articles. It isn't the publisher of The Japan Times, they are a Japanese news agency similar to the Associated Press. The Japan Times runs articles from them time to time. Should I include the actual publisher of The Japan Times, which is The Japan Times LTD, to alleviate the confusion or is that unnecessary? --Torsodog^Talk 21:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think so. --PresN 23:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Publisher added to Japan Times refs. --Torsodog^Talk 00:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492

• Fumio Fujimura with the Osaka Tigers and Hiromi Matsunaga with the Hankyu/Orix Braves, both with two. - when?

• I specifically left those dates out as to not clog up the lead with more and more dates. I figured they are in the table so why throw 4 more long dates into the mix if I didn't have to. Thoughts?

• That season also saw the only instance of cycles occurring on the same day: on July 1, hit by Atsunori Inaba of the Yakult Swallows and Arihito Muramatsu of the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks. - same game or different game?

• Good point! Different games. I will change to specify.

• Are the Japanese names presented in Western order (Given, Family) or traditional order (Family, Given)? A note might be worth making. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Western order. I'll look into this and see what kind of template notes are available.

• Any hall of famers? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, but I omitted it for the same reason as the first point. Disagree? --Torsodog^Talk 01:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 15:19, 20 January 2014 [42].

---

List of Detroit Red Wings award winners

Nominator(s): Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, well, what do we have here but yet another Detroit Red Wings Featured List nomination. What is with these guys? This time around we have List of Detroit Red Wings award winners, easily the longest of the bunch and arguably the most impressive (in terms of what the team has accomplished). The team and it's players have taken home 158 awards so far; if a Red Wing hasn't won it, it probably isn't an active NHL award. The list has undergone peer review where all concerns were addressed. save for one regarding a tagging issue with one of the images. I am unconvinced that is a critical issue, but if others feel it is we can address it somehow. Also, I currently have an open FL nomination for List of Detroit Red Wings general managers, however I believe that given the status of that nomination I am within the standard that "[u]sers should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." As always I look forward to reading, addressing, and responding to your comments. Regards, and thank you for your time. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, having already been through it at the Peer Review. However, a note about File:Red Wings retired Banners.jpg, I did leave a note at Commons about it at commons:Commons:Village_pump#File:Red_Wings_retired_Banners.jpg, but didn't get a response. :( — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words and support, and also for trying to get something done with that image. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• You're most welcome, I only wish there was more of a response to help with it, — Cirt (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• My two cents is, if you have the time, give it another look. It's a fairly long list and if there is one thing I know about reviewing articles, it's that there is always something that can be improved upon. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• This particular image has since been fixed, so this is now Done. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help with this issue. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The article is well cited, comprehensive, and laid out fine. All the images have alt text (even if some of them are a little short, like Ted Lindsay). Good article, deserves a star. Anthony (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words and support. The alts were all recently updated per my understanding of WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. The Ted Lindsay image you mentioned is just a picture of Ted Lindsay, and so that is all the alt text says. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Not a lot left for me to complain about. I have only some small nitpicks, none of which would prevent me from casting my support now. Solid format and structure to the article, and incorporates some ideas that I really should go back and update List of Calgary Flames award winners with.

• "...and are one of the Original Six teams of the league." - This reads as if it is meant to be taken literally, as in the Red Wings were one of the NHL's first six franchises. Easily fixed by putting "Original Six" in quotes, thus changing the implication.
• The Red Wings are in an odd situation where, if they should reach the Stanley Cup Finals from the Eastern Conference, could have won the Wales Trophy for three different reasons. I think it would be useful to add and end note explaining that the Wales Trophy was first a divisional championship trophy, then a regular season championship, and now dedicated to the Eastern Conference championship. Especially since we know someone will come along and "fix" this. Also as a suggestion - and only if you (and others) think it a good idea: the Wales Trophy section could be split into two rows, the first showing when they won the American Division, and the second had the most points.
• Question: Do the Red Wings hand out team awards, similar to those awarded by the Flames? Near as I can tell from their media guide, they don't, but I would like to make sure as you are obviously an expert on the team! Resolute 00:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Calgary list - it's funny you say that because it was that page and List of New York Islanders award winners that served as the inspiration for this page.
• Original Six - fair enough. Done.
• Wales footnote - I have thought about the note explaining that also and will add it in soon. I don't think the idea of splitting the award into two rows is a good idea; the footnote should explain things sufficiently.
• Team awards - no, I am not aware of anything like that. As you say, there is no mention of any such awards in the team media guide. For a publication that includes the team's all time record in games played on Halloween, I trust that not being in that guide means there aren't any.
• Thank you for your kind words, input, support, and for taking the time. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492

• Their most recent team trophy was the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl in 2009, taken in honor of being the champions of the Western Conference. - You just mentioned they are part of the Eastern conference. How can they be champions of the Western Conference?
• their uniform number retired - what's a good link for this? Retired number, maybe?
• The section #Individual awards could do with standardising how you write numbers (numerals or words)
• The second paragraph of #All-Star Game selections needs at least one citation
• Jack Adams Player 1959 none - What's this supposed to mean, no years playing with the team? If he was a manager for the team, then you should give a footnote clarifying how he was involved with the Red Wings. Other people in a similar situation as well.
• The Red Wings have also made the number 6 of Larry Aurie and the number 16 of Vladimir Konstantinov no longer available for issue, however those numbers are not considered to be officially retired - so why are they not available?
• Look for duplicate links between sections, like Gordie Howe, First and Second Team All-Stars, Stanley Cup, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• West vs. East; have added footnote that explains this.
• Retired number - added wikilink
• How numbers are written - I believe I have standardized the entire page in this regard. Numbers are written out using words in prose sections and in numerals in tables. There is one exception: the retired numbers section. In that section uniform numbers are displayed as numerals which is the way they are used and displayed (ie, Steve Yzerman wore 19, not nineteen). More to follow. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• All-Star Game selections citations - done.
• Hall of Fame/none - added footnotes for individuals in question. Rejectwater (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Have added explanations for Aurie and Konstantinov.
• Duplicate links - the page is currently set up as one link per term per prose section with unlimited links in the sortable tables. You are saying there should be no more than one link per term for the entire article? Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Last one: Only in prose sections outside the lede. Tables should be fully wikilinked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)

• Descriptions should be unsortable
• Is it possible for you to add (#) beside the names to denote how many times the player has won the same award?
• Why fix the widths of the tables? The tables will appear just as good without the fixed widths :D

--K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Descriptions, unsortable - I disagree. Is there a policy at play here or is this your preference?

• Making the Description column sortable does not add value to the table. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Getting rid of the function certainly doesn't add value. I take it then, that this is your preference. Having no knowledge of any pertinent policy that would apply here my preference is to leave it as it is. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is no policy that states that descriptions must be unsortable, and this may be a personal preference; however, the descriptions are not data, and this may only be my opinion, but I just find sorting non-data to be redundant. I also don't recollect any other tables that sort their descriptions except for the two in this article. It would be nice if there was a third-party to comment on this matter. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• add (#) beside the names - yes, it is possible. I am unsure of the value of this and fear it would clutter the table(s).

• It won't clutter the tables, seeing that they are all wide enough. The reason why I had them on the featured lists have I have contributed to is because I, and assuming that others do as well, would like to know how many times each player has won said award. It gives readers a sense of how successful each player was during his time with the Red Wings.

• What I am thinking for this is two additional columns. One for times won by individual and one for aggregrate team wins. This would allow sorting. Readers could see which award has been won the most by individuals, won the most by the team overall, etc. Let me know what you think. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good plan to me! I can't visualize what you are describing, but I think it would be informative. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed width - featured list criteria 5a, visual appeal. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• The huge empty areas are visually unappealing. I can see that you want the table all the same width, but just look at all that extra unneeded space in the Number of selections column for NHL First and Second Team All-Stars! The Team trophies table looks squished, so a fixed width is unnecessary for that specific table. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Unfixing the width of the tables doesn't get rid of any unused area. The tables simply stretch to fill all available space. Fixing the width limits the size of the table, it doesn't expand it. I have fixed the team trophy table to be the same size as the others. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it depends on the table. If we remove all the fixed width settings, some tables would stretch to fill the whole screen while others would be tiny. The unused space you are concerned with would be empty whitespace on the page rather than empty space in the table cells. Huge, huge chunks of empty whitespace in many sections. Of course, that also depends on the screen resolution and size of the window the browser is being viewed in, which cannot be controlled for... except by fixing the width as a percentage. Rejectwater (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• The "Team trophies" table now looks out of place with the resolution that I have (1366px width). I suggest that that table alone be left unfixed so that it is visually appealing for common resolutions (~1280px and up), unless there is a better solution. Also, why is this particular table unsortable? I was assuming that it was because the table is short enough for the sorting function to not be needed, but then I saw the table for "Other awards", and that one is sortable. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• For the "Number of selections" column that I mentioned, how about shorten the column title to "Selections" and fix the width to 1%? I think that will resolve the gigantic empty space in that column, and will make the table look more even. Try that out and let me know what you think. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments (well, ignorant questions mainly)

• Lead says "awards and honors" but the title is simply "award winners", should this be moved to "award and honor winners"?
• "captured the Stanley Cup as league champion" is there another way to win the Stanley Cup other than to be league champion?

Not any more, but the Cup predates the NHL, it was originally a challenge trophy and for a time it was a championship trophy for the winner of a series between PCHA/WCHL/WHL and NHA/NHL. It was possible to be NHL champions and not win the Stanley Cup. While both of those eras predate the Wings it is part of the Cup's history.

• " team's most decorated player" should that be "individual player" or is he both?

Not sure I understand.

• " leads goaltenders with three wins of the Vezina Trophy as the league's best goaltender" repetitive use of goaltender.

Looking at the lead it appears that it is broken down by position so I'm not sure how to re-word in the current format and use the official description of the trophy. I thought about changing the first instance to netminders of goalies but I'm not sure how encyclopedic either one is.

• "uniform retired", I imagine we have a suitable link for this in the lead.

Linked

• "1954–55" etc wrap onto two lines for me, suggest use of the {{nowrap}} template to prevent this from occurring.

Added nowrap all of the dates on the team awards table.

• Also, for non-experts, is there a link to "regular season"?

Linked

• Lindstrom is missing his diacritic. So is Borje.

There is a compromise at WP:Ice Hockey that diacritic are used on all bios and pages for leagues where that are commonly used. But not used on pages based on leagues that do not use them (most North American based pages). I added pipe links to avoid redirects.

• Sorting on Description, since it's free text, is a little pointless.

Removed sorting ability

• I would have thought Plus–minus should be separated by an en-dash, not a hyphen.

These are how the pages are named. I'm not sure what the proper format would be.

• In Safari, "Number of selections" column is far wider than any other, yet it contains only two digits at most.

Shortened to Selections, which reduces the column size a bit, but I'm not sure how to make it smaller.

• If "Babe Siebert Memorial Game" is so notable, why no article?

No one has made a page for it yet. Being it's from 1939 the sources are more difficult to find (majority offline) and its less likley to be worked on due to age.

• " with the Lester Patrick Trophy. The Lester Patrick Trophy" poor prose alert.

Changed second mention to The trophy as to not repeat back to back.

• Image captions which are not complete sentences should not have a full stop.

Removed.

• Would imagine you could try 3 columns in the refs since so many point at the book and a single page ref.

Changed to 3 columns

• Ensure retrieval dates are all formatted the same.

I think that they are all now the same

• Similar applies to publication dates.

Same as the access dates, though I may have missed one.

Will do a proper review when I get time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Randomly came across the FLC and I noticed that there was no activity from the nominator. The above list seemed pretty straight forward and I didn't want all of their hard work to go to waste or the comments not to at least be addressed, so I figured I'd address them quickly. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Nominations for removal

List of World Heritage Sites in Africa

Notified: Ericleb01 Arsenikk, WikiProject Africa

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has been tagged for update (for over a year), some descriptions are empty, some are straight up copied from the unesco website with no attribution, some images need alt text and is straight up missing some world heritage sites. 48JCL public (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll remain neutral in the voting and get to work fixing/updating the article. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Tagging Tone for awareness, as they've been working on World Heritage Sites lists for quite a while now. --PresN 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove. As mentioned, I've been working on those lists for a while and somehow the continent-wide lists are out of date and of bad style, compared to what the current FLs use. Also, due to its sheer size, the list is really difficult to maintain properly, as new sites get added every year, endangered list is getting updated occasionally etc. Having coordinates in the table is rather pointless since these sites are often not limited to a single location. Area is also not very informative, and sometimes even missing. Pictures are formatted randomly, sometimes centred, sometimes not. And technically, tentative sites should be mentioned, which probably more than doubles the list. I'd suggest trimming this list down to only a list of sites per country, without descriptions or images, and links to country articles. Speaking of, lists for Peru and Madagascar are not in a good shape and the list in danger is so-so (mostly excessive info in the table, as mentioned above), although better than this one. The three I mentioned are fixable, but this one probably requires too much work to be taken care during the FLRC process. --Tone 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello! Do you have a model to recommend that I base edits to this list off of, formatting-wise? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are several FLs on WHS. For example, List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. Have a look ;) Tone 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

List of deaths at the Berlin Wall

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

There are significant citation issues here, including one section that's been tagged for citations since 2018. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The tagged "historical background" section wasn't in the original promoted FL. Nothing it says looks that controversial, but I think I'd be fine with expecting people to read the main Berlin Wall article first if they need background. I've chopped it down and added a basic ref (although not one that covers some of the minor details, but eh, it's probably in one of the longer works exclusively on the Berlin Wall). That said, as a procedural side note. Tastes differ and there will always be borderline tough calls... but... honestly this seems more like an article than a list anyway? Page size reports ~5,700 prose words ignoring the list itself, which is pretty significant and probably longer than the "main" list. This seems more like an article with an attached list than a list with some prose explanation, so possible it should be demoted on those grounds and moved to Deaths at the Berlin Wall or the like. SnowFire (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove seeing no other edits. Not convinced the prose / referencing of the larger article is up to FA snuff. Also, the URLs have moved to the memorial website (e.g. https://www.stiftung-berliner-mauer.de/de/gedenkstaette-berliner-mauer/historischer-ort/bernauer-strasse ), so it'd be cool if rather than relying on Wayback copies, they were updated, but more of a nice-to-have. (Also, some parts of the table are questionable IMO... why is the person's birthdate & age relevant? But I'm a "less is more" type.) SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Indian Premier League captains

Notified: WP Cricket, WP IPL, Vensatry & Sahara4u (both involved in FL promotion comments), Razr Nation (promoted this to FL in 2013). Note, the nominator of this to FL is indef blocked, so not notified them.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails many of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criteria 1, 2 and 3. The lead text has not been significantly updated since it became a FL in 2013, apart from the addition of mostly unsourced text that also includes random stats and trivia. In addition, the lead and table list captains by titles won, but the main stats source [43] does not have the titles mentioned. In the table, apart from the titles being unsourced, the use of unexplained blue background text, I presume to list current IPL captains as of 2024, violates MOS:COLOUR as it is the sole way of identifying these. It is also not needed, but if colour is kept, it needs to be added to the key section and also use a symbol as per the MOS. Sourcing of this article is also pretty weak in general, since most of the lead text is sourced just to the database stats table. All in all, nowhere near the current FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support for removal. I noticed that most of the information is unsourced and needed to be updated with reliable and independent sources. If It get improved in due date than at that time, I will change my comment. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)