Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2012

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 NapHit 05:49, 30 December 2012 [1].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra

Nominator(s): Pks1142 (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating the list for featured list candidate because Priyanka Chopra has won Several awards for her universally applauded performances. Chopra is one of the Best actresses of Indian cinema and a superstar too. There are very rare stars who can really act and she is undoubtedly one of them. Chopra's Awards and nominations list meets Wikipedia:Featured list candidates criteria and after the peer review, It only got Better. I had worked hard on the list and It deserves to be a FLC.Pks1142 (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment: Names of awards ceremonies with the name of the magazines in them should have the magazine title italicized. For example, "Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Awards" should be "Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Awards" and "GQ Men of The Year Awards" should be "GQ Men of The Year Awards". —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

And in the section headers. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Done.Pks1142 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on lead alone.

• Don't link common terms like "India" or "United States".

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "film debut with The Hero " -> "in The Hero"

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Andaaz" what's this? Mentioned in the lead but not linked or explained.

Linked. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "several awards for" repeated, boring prose I'm afraid.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "a Filmfare Award in "Best Villain" category. She also became second and last woman to win Filmfare Best Villain Award. " you link the award the second time, which is odd.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• And you say "last" so you mean the category is now defunct? Or do you mean "most recent"?
• "Chopra starred in commercially successful films like" -> Chopras has featured in commercially successful films such as...

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Try to avoid things like "several" and "a few" as this is an encyclopaedia.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "she won every "Best Actress" award in India" some claim, are you sure you can reference this?

refrenced. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "From 2010-2012" see WP:YEAR and WP:DASH.

Fixed. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "for her blazing trails in " not encyclopedic writing.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• " 56 awards from 65 nominations." does not match the infobox.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "recognize" vs "organisation" please select a consistent WP:ENGVAR and stick with it throughout.

Adopted. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• IMDB is not considered a reliable source.

Removed. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you mention publications like The Telegraph, you should have location and/or publisher information so we don't confuse it with The Daily Telegraph for example.

Given. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Check all references have publisher information.

Checked. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Miss World and Stardust Awards linked twice in the lead.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• July 18, 1982->18 July 1982 to maintain consistency.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Infobox image requires "alt text".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Awards won" in the infobox and listed ones doesn't match.

Corrected—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "which made her second and last woman to win in this category (the category has been retired since 2008)" needs a source.

Refrenced.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "commercially successful films such as Mujhse Shaadi Karogi (2004), Krrish (2006) and Don (2006)" ditto.

Refrenced.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• India[3]: refs should come after a punctuation.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "BIG Star Entertainment Awards" should come before "Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• The infobox listing also needs to be sorted alphabetically.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Nominated work" -> Priyanka Chopra wrong.

Corrected.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• No source for Fashion Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 12:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• What makes sources like "Indiaglitz", "desihits.com", "indya.com", "pinkvilla.com", etc., reliable?

Explanation: DesiHits is a very reliable source, indya.com is an archive of Screen award nomination, Indiaglitz source is presented by a very well known author Subhash K. Jha and Pinkvilla is just showing the exact nominations list.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Five refs missing publisher information in Screen Awards.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Explanations for "World Music Awards" is unsourced.

Explanation is taken from its wikipedia article.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why is "The Times of India" linked in ref #13 and not in others or ref #3. EIther link all or the first occurrence alone.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why are "bollywood hungama", "bbc.uk." "rediff.com" italicised in refs.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)v

• Overlinking in the prose part of certain awards.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Superstar of Tomorrow – Female" for Mujhse Shaadi Karogi is not verified by the BBC source. It shows only a picture of chopra receiving the award.

replaced.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• First two refs in "Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Awards" are improperly formatted.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Honours section is completely unsourced.

refrenced.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why no tables for "Recognitions"? This being a list everything should be presented in tabular form.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Any reason for emboldening text inside "Recognitions"?

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Other Awards" count in the infobox and table doesn't tally.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• First Indian Actress to cast her foot impression in Salvatore Ferragamo Museum. This neither looks like an award nor a recognition to me.

removed.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• My biggest concern with this article is the quality of sources being used; a few sources doesn't seem like verifying the facts. Besides this there are a lot of formatting errors in refs and MOS issues. I did not go fully through the prose, table and check all the references. Given the number of concerns, I may have to oppose the list at the moment. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat Disagree with you regarding Its reliability, as I have used the most reliable sources found on the web. Yes, some sources are not that reliable But they are reliable enough to prove everything correctly.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments from Baffle gab1978 (talk):

I'm not a reviewer but have been asked to comment upon this list. It's looking a lot better since I first saw it, but could benefit from further improvement. These are my suggestions for changes to improve/expand the prose, which do not represent an endorsement for or against its listing as a featured list:

• Header prose
  • General
• Numbers smaller than ten should be written out in words, so use 'four' instead of '4' per WP:MOSNUM (but see 'exceptions'). I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier!

• done by me Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• • 1st para

• "Born in Jamshedpur India," - needs a comma between city and country; doesn't need a comma after 'India'.

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "After spending years in United States" - how many years? --> "After spending x years in the United States..."

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Chopra returned to India, she participated in" --> "Chopra returned to India where she participated in...".

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Chopra received a number of nominations for her part in Andaaz," - how many nominations? What was her role in it?

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In 2004, Chopra won many awards for her performance in Aitraaz" - needs a comma after Aitraaz. How many nominations? What was her role in it?

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "(the category has been retired since 2008)" --> "..., which was retired in 2008" or "which has not been awarded since 2008" - avoid using bracketted statements where possible.

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Chopra has featured in commercially successful films such as Mujhse Shaadi Karogi (2004), Krrish (2006) and Don (2006) which won her a number of awards and nominations." - needs a comma between the film and "which". Why isn't "Don (2006)" listed in the tables?

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• • 2nd para

• "From 2010-12, Chopra received many nominations and won a few including a consecutive Apsara Award for Best Actress for Kaminey (2009) and another Filmfare Award in Best Actress (Critics' Choice) category for 7 Khoon Maaf (2012)." --> "From 2010-2012, Chopra received x nominations and won several, including two consecutive Apsara Awards for Best Actress for Fashion (2008) and Kaminey (2009), and another Filmfare Award for Best Actress (Critics' Choice) category for 7 Khoon Maaf (2012)."

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In 2012, Chopra's first single In My City..." - needs quotemarks around "In My City" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• • 3rd para

• "...for the inauguration function of Atlantis, The Palm." --> "for the inauguration function of Atlantis, The Palm, a luxury holiday resort in Dubai." or "for the inauguration function of a luxury holiday resort in Dubai called Atlantis, The Palm."

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Eastern Eye ranked her at the top of their list of "World's Sexiest Asian Women" twice." --> "Eastern Eye twice ranked her at the top of their list of "World's Sexiest Asian Women."

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• List

• • Bhaskar Bollywood Awards

• "The Bhaskar Bollywood Awards are presented by Dainik Bhaskarfor excellence in Hindi Film Industry." --> "The Bhaskar Bollywood Awards are presented by Dainik Bhaskar for excellence in the Hindi film industry."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards

• "Chopra has won two awards, both in Best Actress Category in two consecutive years.year." --> "Chopra has won the award in the Best Actress Category in two consecutive years."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Filmfare Awards

• • "They are presented annually by The Times Group to honour both artistic and technical excellence of professionals in the Hindi language film industry of India." --> "They are presented annually by The Times Group to honour both artistic and technical excellence of professionals in the Indian Hindi language film industry."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Indian Telly Awards

• • "The Indian Telly Awards are presented annually to honour excellence of professionals in Television Industry." --> "The Indian Telly Awards are presented annually to honour excellence of professionals in the television Industry."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lions Gold Awards

• • "The Lions Gold Awards is an annual accolade presented to Indian Film Industry." --> "The Lions Gold Awards is an annual accolade presented to the Indian film industry."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• National Film Awards

• • "The awards are presented by President of India." --> "The awards are presented by the President of India."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• People's Choice Awards India

• • "recognising Indian Film, Television, Music and Sports." --> "recognising Indian film, television, music and sports."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Global Indian Film and TV Honours

• • "Hindi film & Television industry." --> "Hindi film and television industries."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Recognitions

• • "In addition to achieving merit honours, Chopra has been recognised for her contributions and is the recipient of several achievement honours by various organisations." --> "In addition to the industry awards, Chopra has been recognised for her contributions to Indian cinema and is the recipient of several achievement honours by various organisations."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• General comments - I think this list has improved a lot since I first reviewed it, and I'm glad to see that the suggested changes from reviewing editors have been implemented. Cheers, and good luck with the nomination, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for your suggestions.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pks, you missed a few points in my checklist, which I've now fixed; please don't mark points as done when you haven't done them. I've also taken care of the WP:MOSNUM error in the header ('4' and '8' instead of 'four' and 'eight') which I added late, so please accept my apology for not noticing it earlier. Anyway my checklist is resolved. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a general comment about the article as I'm not generally a FLC reviewer...I don't see any issues currently as far as with MOS or prose. List has adequate lead and details in tabular format. I'll watchlist this page and see if any other outstanding issues are mentioned by more seasoned reviewers, but I currently Support this for Featured List.--MONGO 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the support.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted that I have retracted the support until further improvements are made.--MONGO 05:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

General comment: this level of comment on a list usually indicates that the list is not ready for nomination, so we should consider a withdrawal until the list is ready for review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, your queries has been resolved. So, pls don't point fingers towards its nomination. I know it was a bit unready but know, its completely ready for passing FL.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe what The Rambling Man is indicating is that there were numerous issues (meaning more than usual) that they and others had with the list...but I concur that those issues seemed to have been addressed. If The Rambling Man has further issues it is probably because he is a well seasoned reviewer (which he is). So, is the suggestion to withdraw based on other things that need correction, or just that there were so many to begin with?--MONGO 19:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect nor want candidates here which attract ten times as many comments as I see at a peer review. That's what WP:PR is all about. Before lists are nominated here, they are supposed to be of a minimum quality such that we're not picking up silly things like poor English, poor punctuation, poor MOS compliance. If I can spend the time, I'll give the list one more look, but if I find too many more issues, I'll archive this nomination and recommend you take it for some peer review, and quality control elsewhere, before returning to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The numerous issues haven't all been addressed, as is evidenced below. The award counts in the lead and infobox aren't even correct, and aren't that close to being correct. How two supporters can miss that, I will never know. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that we will have discount a number of supports from reviewers who clearly are not even capable of seeing the basic failings. This extends beyond just this nomination. For some time I've been worried about "friendly supports" going on here at FLC. I think we need to go back to the drawing board. Clearly a number of our reviewers are not able to review lists against the criteria adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I stated above that I was watching this, but based my support on the then current issues that had apparently been addressed. But I've retracted that support since it is now more apparent to me that more issues need to be addressed. I am actually a well seasoned FAC reviewer and have been the primary author of 8 FAs, but far less well versed in examining FLCs. In the past month I have been involved in 3 FAC's reviews, one other FLC review and am assisting another get an article through GAN and one more ready for PR. It would be nice if I could contribute to FLC's in the future but if I'm going to be insulted by more seasoned FLC reviewers, then there isn't any reason to bother with it. I had no qualms about changing my support to an oppose if there was further explanations.--MONGO 05:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Support This list meets the criteria for FL. It is Well-crafted and I don't see any issues with its prose or lead . Good work.Green Parakeet (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Sorry, but I do see issues with the prose in the lead. To respond to one of TRM's points above, the list did have a peer review that was closed awfully early, before I had an opportunity to respond to a talk page request. Had I been able to review earlier, some of the basic glitches that prevent this article from meeting FL standards could have been weeded out before this FLC.

• The following part is awkwardly written: "with the nominations categories mainly ranging from Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress for her critically acclaimed performances." I've never been a fan of the "with + -ing" type of sentence structure, and the "ranging from Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress" doesn't make much sense. This could use a re-write.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Chopra won four awards from eight nominations for her performance in Aitraaz including the Filmfare Best Villain Award which made her second and last woman to win in this category". Needs more punctuation (at least one more comma) and a "the" before "second".
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "which won her a number of awards and nominations." A more precise number would be welcome here.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "by the trade journal, The Hollywood Reporter". Remove the comma and italicize the journal name.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "at Shanghai International Film Festival for her contribution to cinema." Needs "the" before the festival's name.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• En dash needed in "From 2009-2012".
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "including two consecutive Apsara Award for Best Actress...". The award needs to be made plural here.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "and another Filmfare Award for Best Actress (Critics' Choice) category for 7 Khoon Maaf (2012)." The word "category" doesn't need to be here and should be taken out.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "As of December 2012, Chopra has received 56 awards from 61 nominations." I count 50 awards and 73 nominations from the individual listings in the infobox. We can't be promoting lists that are giving an incorrect award count, in the lead and infobox.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Second word of the Other Awards heading should be decapitalized in the article body and infobox. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree to your allegations over no. of nominations and awards. 73?? Are you, counting the CRITIC'S or JURY award as nominations. They are not nominations. They were directly given. I had not included the pending nominations. Pls, don't confuse with those at all. I do confess that this has many comments which is unusual for this kind of page. Sorry for that but I don't see further problems with prose and lead.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I tend to agree with Giants2008. The PR was closed too early and I too didn't got any chance to review the list. Numerous issues have been pointed out and most of them are addressed. But I feel that other issues do exist and a second PR is what I advise to start. For now, I don't see this FLC passing so I'd suggest withdrawal. Go for another PR and ask for more input and then go for the second nom. Since many editors above have not changed their stand in oppose and the feel that I get about issues with the prose and list, I'd oppose this. It is also tagged for being an "incomplete list" which is enough to strongly oppose but I believe that it isn't that far away from FL status like most of incomplete lists. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawal Thank you and sorry. I withdraw the list from FLC. A PR would be conducted as soon as I can. Please, Help me on the PR and thanks to all you amazing people.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:52, 30 December 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 18:29, 27 December 2012 [2].

---

Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Musical

Nominator(s): HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I am interested in making lists better on Wikipedia and would like feedback on this one. I feel this list is clear, concise, and gives potential readers what they are looking for.

Thanks! HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose list is nowhere near featured standard, suggest you withdraw and look at other featured lists, specifically those based n the Tony Awards to get an idea of what we ask for. Some problems are:

• Lead is far too short, would expect at least two decent sized paragraphs
• no references, so information is completely unsourced
• table does not meet MOS:DTT and is not accessible

NapHit (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Albacore/Tony should be of note here. Albacore (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Especially this much better version — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of this, the nominator appears to have ownership issues with these pages. Also I think it is reprehensible to blank a page that is in an editors own page. Suggest this is withdrawn immediately and the user takes on board the fact that Albacore's version meets our criteria, whereas this does not. NapHit (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I like that you mentioned this is a better version , when it doesn't even have a lead, and has less information (no character names/no win/nomination totals. I can add more of a lead to it, because I know about theatre, unlike Albacore, who has explained they have no interest in the material beyond adding it to their many FL lists. Compared to how it was before this I started editing the list, which took several days. I have asked Albacore to leave this list alone as there are many others that are worse that need to be re-done. HesioneHushabye (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have no right to tell anyone not to edit a page. Albacore is free to edit whatever page he likes, this is also another example of ownership issues on your part. This is not the place to discuss this, take it to the talk page. The list is nowhere near featured standard, a lot of work needs to be done and I'm not sure you comprehend just how much. NapHit (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose

The list is nowhere near FL standards. To start off there are two tags at the top of the page which needs addressing. There are multiple issues with the table as pointed out by other reviewers. I'd suggest the nominator to withdraw the nom as a lot of work is required to bring this list to FL standards. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:33, 27 December 2012 (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 NapHit 02:39, 25 December 2012 [3].

---

List of Deccan Chargers cricketers

Nominator(s): TheSpecialUser ^TSU and Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria. Previously, it was not promoted as the team got defunct and the article wasn't updated. However, the issues raised previously are now addressed (sorry if I missed anything). TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

;Comments Significantly improved since the last time, but there are still some issues. The biggest issue - I thought a lot about this, and I really think that this is an issue - the list is about the players, but the whole second paragraph is about the team. Such stats can be useful for something like List of Deccan Chargers seasons, but certainly not for this list. Done Another update required - the Hyderabad franchise was sold to Sun TV, and it retained 20 of DC's players The franchise >> The Hyderabad franchise ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Done Done The first ref itself is unreliable. Done Its not ESPN cricinfo or ESPN Cricinfo. Its ESPNcricinfo Done Link ESPNcricinfo at first usage Done Link The Guardian Done It not Cricket archive. Its CricketArchive. Done Link CricketArchive Done Not sure if this is an issue, but how does the list comes under WP Delhi?? Done Find a better place to add the note. Done WP Cricket suggests to use Wet Indies, and not Barbados. Done Kumar Sangakkar??? Done The DC was a part of the 20122009 CLT20. Add something about that. Done

• Align the countries column to the left.

Not sure how to do that.

Refer to List of Rajasthan Royals cricketers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, although I think it makes the article look much worse. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That all for now. and..... Happy Diwali! :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and same to you TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – A look at the lead reveals numerous grammar and prose issues that keep the list from meeting criterion 1 of WP:WIAFL. I urge that a copy-edit be performed by an independent party.

• In the hatnote on top, "the" before Deccan Chargers should be removed, and I don't see why the category title as a whole couldn't be presented. Also, why are we linking to the current squad here when the team is now defunct?
• In "for the first season of IPL", add "the" before IPL, perhaps?
• "in the second season, where the team won the league." "where" should be "when" here.
• Also add "the" before 2009 CLT20, and spell out the competition's name.
• "Their last coach, of the team...". "The last coach of the team". In particular, the comma is undesirable.
• "as the organisers of the league were concerned about player payments; overdue player payments had not been paid." The repetitive use of "player payments" is not effective prose; how about "were concerned about overdue player payments that had not been paid."
• "in a bid who retained 20 players; they bought is by paying 85.05 crores per year." Poorly written and needs revamping.
• "Adam Gilchrist was the team's leading run scorer with 1289 runs throughout 48 matches, who now plays for Kings XI Punjab as their captain." The part after the comma should be moved to directly after Gilchrist's name, since it has no relation to the rest of the sentence as it is written now.
• "by scoring 117 runs of 53 balls." "of" → "on"?
• "who had played the most number of matches as a player of the team". Would be easier to read as "who had played the most matches for the team".
• I see another "most number of" that could be written better as just "most" near the end of this paragraph.
• Why does the third paragraph have multiple instances of "have played"/"have captained" when the team is no longer operating? I'd get rid of "have" in both cases for past tense. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's been two weeks now, and the issues I pointed out remain in the article. If there's no work in the next couple days, I recommend that one of my fellow directors archive this nom. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm extremely sorry for the delay. I was on a vacation but I'm back now. The issues will be fixed by today evening. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Done all TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you for coming back and taking care of these comments, but I won't feel comfortable enough to drop my oppose until Harrias' comments are looked at. He seems to share my opinion that more copy-editing is needed. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• The link to "squad and administration" links to a section that doesn't exist within the article.
• The hatnote is pretty confusing: "and for the retained Deccan Chargers first-team players, see squad and administration." Would make little sense to people not intricately knowledgeable about the IPL. I think it might be worth removing it altogether.
• Given that "Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited" is a company name, and not specifically a reference to the newspaper, I don't think "Deccan Chronicle" should be in italics, but I could be corrected on this point.
• Does million really need to be linked? Seems like overlinking to me.
• "..they got disqualified at the group stage." The source doesn't support that they were disqualified: eliminated yes, but not disqualified.
• "Their last coach of the team.." This doesn't sound right: I think "of the team" is redundant.
• "..about overdue player payments that had not been paid." Again, this seems to use more words than it needs.
• What is a crore? In contrast to earlier, I think this does need linking.
• The second paragraph just reads as a series of bullet points strung together, I think it needs significant work to improve the language to a professional standard, as should be expected in featured material.
• I don't understand the need for the KXIP abbreviation in the lead: it isn't used again (legitimately) in the article.
• However, it is incorrectly used in the key: this list has been nominated for a second time without the nominator paying due attention to the article. A heavy copy-edit is still required in my opinion. The key states "Member of the current squad", but there isn't really a current squad as the team has been terminated. On my screen the images are not beside the table, but above because of the widths, creating undue whitespace, the table uses hyphens where it should use endashes, high score is for some reason not sortable, the batting and bowling averages appear under the wrong headings. All in all, this is a long way from being a featured list.
• Oppose based on the points raised above, and the likelihood that there is more beyond that. Harrias ^talk 16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. Most of the issues are fixed by my friend. I'll fix the remaining 2 issues ASAP. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment where are we with all this? Have the nominators asked the reviewers to come back to check their concerns have been addressed? I'll review the list once I get a response here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

From my own perspective my comments stand. Some issues have been resolved, but far too many are left outstanding, including some specifically mentioned. Harrias ^talk 23:47, 15 December 2012 (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 NapHit 08:32, 25 December 2012 [4].

---

List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Eastern Europe

Nominator(s): xanchester (t) 12:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for FL because I believe the list is detailed, comprehensive and meets the featured list criteria. xanchester (t) 12:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Add alt text to images per MOS:IMAGES Done.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) "is defined" change "is" to "are" Heritage is singular in this sentence, so the "is" is appropriate. I've placed a "the" before "intangible" to reduce the ambiguity. The cited UNESCO text refers to it as such: "The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains."--xanchester (t) 17:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC) "all of five criteria" the is missing after "of" and before "five" Done, see below, removed entirely.--xanchester (t) 18:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Speaking of that, what is the "criteria" anyway, it is not explained. Done, removed entirely. It's a minute detail that should belong in the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists article instead.--xanchester (t) 18:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC) "an organisation established by the convention," was there going to be more writing there, or not, it should be a period probably Done. Inserted the period.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) "This list" don't use words like that per WP:MOS, remove and rearranging the sentence would be good. Done.--xanchester (t) 17:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Unlink countries per WP:OVERLINK The countries in the lead or the table? The countries in the lead are only linked once, and the countries in the table are linked via the flag icon template.--xanchester (t) 17:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC) In the image, "Mohács" should be linked, per WP:MOS, see WP:REPEATLINK Done.--xanchester (t) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC) "The table lists information about each International Cultural Heritage element:", personally, I don't think any of that or below text there is needed, it is very redundant and unnecessary A table legend is needed to explain the terms and how they are applied by UNESCO. It's also a convention for World Heritage Sites lists, including those that have already been featured.--xanchester (t) 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does Done. Scope col headers have been applied. Scope rows is unwieldy because of the length of the official titles in the first column.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) And, the text size may be a bit too small, per WP:ACCESS also Done. I've increased the size to 100%.--xanchester (t) 17:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does Done.--xanchester (t) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Just a suggestion, but I would align references in the tables to the center Done.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) "Ref" missing a dot period at end in every it is occurring Done, but looks visually distracting. Might be better without the period. That gallery should be under a separate section, entitled perhaps "Gallery", but I don't even feel there should be a gallery, per WP:IUP Done. Changed from gallery to captioned imaged.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) "COM" should be "com" per MOS:CAPS 4.COM is the official abbreviation of Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee. Should be capitalised per WP:CAPSACRS. Why is "UNESCO" listed as a work in some references, and as a publisher in others? Done. Has been fixed, some of the {{cite news}} templates should have been {{cite web}}.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) "UNESCO" should be spelled out fully in references for MOS:ACRO UNESCO is one of the exceptions listed on MOS:ACRO.--xanchester (t) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Why are some reference publishers or works linked and others (that could be) aren't? Be consistent. Done, no longer linked.--xanchester (t) 19:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC) A number of references violate WP:DASH, hypten should be en-dash Done, replaced with en-dash.--xanchester (t) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Any external links? Done. Two more external links.--xanchester (t) 18:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Any further categories? Done. Three more categories.--xanchester (t) 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 14:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the review. I have addressed most of your concerns, although I have questions about a few of the remaining ones.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support TBrandley 22:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick early comments Lead image should not have a full stop in the caption. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Same for other captions which aren't complete sentences. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC) "cultural" is mentioned three times in the opening sentence, "cultural heritage" twice... dull prose. Done. Good point, but the article lead needs to link to the following three articles: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, intangible cultural heritage and cultural heritage. To address the issue, I've moved the cultural heritage link into the second sentence.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) "drafted in 2003[2] and taking effect in 2006.[3] " maybe "which was drafted in 2003, and took effect in 2006". Done.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) "Inscription of new heritage elements on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists are determined.." Inscription is singular so shouldn't that be "is determined"? Done. Nice catch, has been fixed.--xanchester (t) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Organization and organisation in the same article... pick the most appropriate and stick with it. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Put USND in parentheses after the expanded version. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't bother listing the countries in "Eastern Europe" only to list pretty much all of them again. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Note on the UNESCO session doesn't go on to include the numbers after COM. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) A LOT of images of the masks in Hungary, try to vary the images. Done. Replaced the mask images with an image of a recruit dance, or Verbuňk.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Don't think there's any need for the "Total heritage elements by country" table at all. Done. I've removed it.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry to be so late with this, but I've just noticed that the table appears very odd because the description column is so narrow. On my set up, each row fills around half my (high-res) screen, with most of it blank, and the description strung out at one to four words per line. Can this be improved?

• Image placement at the top is very busy. Could the column of smaller images start lower down?
• I also have some issues with the lead. The 'elements' phrasing it uses is hard to understand. Does this originate in this list, or is it a technical term used in the treaty?
• In general I felt the lead seems very full of long boilerplate sentences and lacking much insight. Can you at least give more context on how the Eastern European items compare with other areas, at least in proportion of the total? I found myself going straight to the complete list for information. Also can you make generalisations about what kinds of things are listed for Eastern Europe? Does this differ from other areas?
• 'The "intangible cultural heritage" is defined by the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, drafted in 2003 and took effect in 2006.' seems to have grammatical problems.
• I'd suggest splitting the final sentence to make it clearer which countries lack these items. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (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 NapHit 02:39, 25 December 2012 [5].

---

List of Presidents of Vietnam

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam... --TIAYN (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments Done Don't overlink Vietnamese, as seen in the lede, after its first mention, it shouldn't be linked again, other than little exceptions, per WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK Done Unlink Socialist Republic of Vietnam as it is just a redirect to the main country article, which has already been linked, another WP:OVERLINK issue Done "the regular and coordinated operation and stability" to main "and"'s in there, which leads to me not understanding that sentence due to this, so perhaps "and" could be replaced with "as well as", or something Done Don't use words like "current", as per WP:RELTIME, it should be replaced with with "As of ..., the president is", or something more, or different Done "only been" remove only, as it doesn't represent a neutral point of view Done "been 14 presidents of Vietnam if the presidents of South Vietnam are counted" to "been 14 presidents if the ones of South Vietnam are counted", or something Done "-" should be a period as "." Done Add alt text to the portrait images per MOS:IMAGES TBrandley 23:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for now on images and referencing

• File:Picture of Nguyen Huu Tho.jpeg is Fair Use and fails the NFCC
• File:Picture of Vo Chi Cong.jpeg is fair use and fails the NFCC.
• Done File:Ho Chi Minh 1946 cropped.jpg - Needs proof of publication in or before 1947, otherwise it would have fallen afoul of the URAA (per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights)
• Done File:TonDucThang1948.jpg - No proof of 1948 publication, and this would have fallen afoul of the URAA
• File:Truong Chinh.png - If its an official portrait, it's not copyrighted by the Romanian National Archives. The Vietnamese photographer or publisher would hold the rights.
• File:Nguyen Minh Triet.jpg needs a date.
• The Van and Cooper short footnote goes nowhere. The other ones are not used for footnotes (if they are general resources, I think six books is a bit of overkill for this list) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of the Van & Cooper note and the point with the fair use images, you are completely wrong with everything you just wrote here... All of these pictures have a date (with the exception of one, which I fixed), and all of these pictures are in the public domain in Vietnam.. Stupid.... --TIAYN (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• A date they were taken, not when they were published. The copyright in Vietnam is based on publication date. They may be (probably are) PD in Vietnam, but not in the US as they would have been extended by the URAA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments. If I am satisfied, I will strike them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Also, please redact your personal attack. Calling me stupid will not change the fact that several of these images are possibly not PD in the US.

Regarding the bibliography, what is the reason for having six books listed? You say its not overkill, why? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I wrote Done for a reason, I've fixed it (the books and ther eferences that is). --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• You can write underneath if need be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Vietnam/archive1, an active FLC by the same nominator, has not received substantial support yet (I'd hardly consider one support substantial). With that in mind, I think this should be withdrawn until that FLC closes. On a separate note, there's no justification for calling a reviewer stupid for telling you something you don't like, especially somebody like Crisco who is a dedicated reviewer at FAC and FLC. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a tendency to use aggressive wording, doesn't really mean anything... Me calling someone stupid is, well, a very common occurrence. --TIAYN (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

General comment I would advocate merging all these minimalist tables into one larger one, with an additional column for the title of the "president". Right now it's a bit messy. Once that's done, I'm happy to review the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I was told that such structuring was breach of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. --TIAYN (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Done Well it depends entirely on how you restructure it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "supervises the work as well as preserving the stability of the national governmental system" - perhaps "as well as preserving"→'and preserves'?
• "Officially there have been 9 presidents of Vietnam, but there have, in total, been 14 presidents if the ones of South Vietnam are counted." - per WP:ORDINAL write these numbers out in full
• The rank is confusing. Upon navigating to the linked article, I now assume that it means rank in the party (it seems odd that the president isn't always top dog). The note to the table is long and confusing to me. Can this idea be clarified in the text or table better please?
• File:Ho Chi Minh 1946 cropped.jpg and File:TonDucThang1948.jpg are up for deletion. I siggest finding alternative images
• File:Picture of Nguyen Huu Tho.jpeg and File:Picture of Vo Chi Cong.jpeg are non-free have no FUR for this list; I removed them

—Andrew_stalk 09:51, 22 December 2012 (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 NapHit 08:32, 25 December 2012 [6].

---

List of female Fellows of the Royal Society

Nominator(s): KTC (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this newly created list for featured list because I believe it fulfils all of the featured list criteria. The entries are complete in that all female fellows and members are listed, and as far as I can tell all Royal Society prizes & awards have also been listed in the Notes & Awards column. KTC (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is a useful follow on from the recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon and similar initiatives to create and expand articles about women in science, and I'd support featuring this list. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Any reason why this is split from the gender-neutral article, List of Fellows of the Royal Society? Possible gender-POV? Also table does not meet the accessiblity criteria, lead is too short, among other issues. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that having a separate sublist is valid - as long as we don't arbitrarily break it into a male list and a female list, having one comprehensive list plus one for definable subsets is fine. Compare, for example, the (featured) list of female Nobel laureates. The RS themselves treat the distinction as meaningful enough to provide a female-only list (although not a very helpful one, as it's current-only) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note There's also a newly augmented Category:Female Fellows of the Royal Society and female entries have been removed from Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. There are plenty of uncontested examples of categories like Women biologists; etc. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• The category's been around some time, FWIW; created in 2008. It was only partially populated until a few weeks ago, though; my understanding is that articles should be in one only? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• List of Fellows of the Royal Society is a subjective list of notable fellows. The comprehensive list of all fellows are the sublists List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C, D,E,F etc. Gender sublist like this one and List of female Nobel laureates are notable precisely because of the great difference in number between male and female fellows. Out of ~8,000 fellows in history, only 120 have been women. See all the recent news coverage related to the Ada Lovelace Day events, and women in science and technology in general. With regards to the accessibility criteria, can you be more specific on what you mean so I can see about possibly fixing it? The current format is based on the existing featured List of female Nobel laureates among others. Lastly, what other issues? I can't go about improving the article if I don't know what's wrong with it. Regards. KTC (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tom. TBrandley 17:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - the lead have been expanded. KTC (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 13:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments I do not think that this is a 3(b) violation ("could not reasonably be included as part of a related article") because the suggested target, List of Fellows of the Royal Society, would be unwieldly if all the notable names (by which I mean all the names with articles) were included - just compare how many blue-linked names are in List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C compared to the "List of Fellows" that cherry-picks a few on an apparently arbitrary basis. I think that having a distinct list of women is justifiable given the history of women in science and the numbers for this list compared to the numbers of men in the RS's history. I think that the list needs some polishing, but I would not boot it out at this stage for being an unjustified split. In terms of things to improve, I would suggest the following: Changes "Notes & Awards" to "Notes" Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Remove ampersands from headings Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Notes that aren't full sentences shouldn't have a full stop e.g. "Princess Royal." I've removed all the full stops in the tables. I'm not sure whether I should have left a couple of them in like after Lubchenco's note. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Do we have the year for Victoria becoming Patron? I've clarified in the note that Victoria was never elected as a Royal Fellow, so the year 1838 was when she became Patron. KTC (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Because the tables are sortable, we need to relink each occurrence of a term because the tables won't always be in the same order. I would also relink the Nobel Prizes in the foreign fellows section. Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Some lectures are redlinked, others not - any particular reason for the distinction? All of the awards, prize lectures and medals were wikilinked (once) except the Wellcome Foundation's which I left out by mistake. What's left that's not linked are Officers position within the Royal Society. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Chemical Engineering, Computer Science - lower case for second word for consistency Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I see the point of linking scientific disciplines, but don't see the point of linking common terms like "politics" and "philosophy" for the honorary fellows, or "United States" (in the foreign fellows) or "United Kingdom" (in the lead) For politics and philosophy, I believe linking it would be more consistent given all the other fields entries are linked, but I don't mind either way. I have unlinked United States, but unsure about United Kingdom in the first sentence. What about Commonwealth of Nations? Is that consider a common enough term? KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Actually, what is the difference between an honorary fellow and a section 12 fellow? The lead could be clarified on this. I've added an explanation to the relevant section rather than the lead. It should clear it up. KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Is the 117 figure sourced directly (if so, cite it), or just a count-up of the total below? If the latter, how do we know this is a complete list? Honestly? Because I asked for and received a list from the Royal Society which I worked off. However, a list is provided in ref 2 up to 1994 inclusive, and numerical count of each year is available in ref 4 up to 2009 inclusive, though it appears to have missed one from 1948 in its figure. Royal Society's website have a list of new Fellows for 2010, 2011 and 2012. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) As for accessibility issues, you need things like scope="col" and scope="row" in the tables - see Wikipedia:ACCESS#Tables or, probably easier, see how it's been done at one of the newest FLs like Grade I listed buildings in Coventry I think that's all of it, so done. KTC (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC) That's all for now. BencherliteTalk 11:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Quick note I see no violation of 3b here at all. As long as this list is comprehensive (i.e. it contains all female fellows) then it's a perfectly legitimate standalone list, the objections above have no merit. I will review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note As well as encouraging the creation and expansion of articles about women, this is also associated with efforts to bring in women editors and engage them in Wikipedia. So the subject is very 'current'. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 17:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that the list being gender-specific does not violate the criteria, 3b in particular, as it does not violate any of the four points. The only issue would be if we saw that it could clearly be deleted at an AfD. As the matter of female membership in the society has been the subject of significant coverage, that is highly unlikely. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, agree with assessment in the above comment by Arsenikk (talk · contribs). This list is incredibly well sourced, it's surely very encyclopedic and educational, and has high value for readers, students, and academics alike. Great job! — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments firstly, my apologies for taking so long to getting back to this review, I've had a number of troubling RL issues, but hopefully back on track now. Secondly, I'd like to reiterate if this list is complete, then there's no issue with our 3b criterion. So, to the detail... "While there were no formal prohibition of..." my ignorance perhaps, but why isn't that "While there was no prohibition..."? That's merely my choice of wording. I chose "formal prohibition" rather than "prohibition" because women were prevented from joining despite nothing explicitly saying so, as explained in that and the following paragraph. Maybe "explicit prohibition" would be better? I also wouldn't object if someone were to change it to just "prohibition". KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Second para, first sentence has "Society" three times, rather repetitive and a little dull. Modified sentence. How's that? KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Would consider merging opening paras of lead, the first para is a single sentence. Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) "starting in the 19th century, with the founding of the Zoological Society of London in 1829 and Royal Entomological Society" could you explain that just a touch more? Did those two societies openly admit/encourage female membership? Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) "when Marian Farquharson sent " could qualify who Farquharson was? Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Is Year the Year of inclusion as a fellow? You have one of those floaty-over things for the Ref. col, why not one here? I have expanded the column header instead. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) "1991–1996" see WP:YEAR. Done. KTC (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Are the names per the Royal Society or something else? Only our article on Sylvia Tait calls her Sylvia Agnes Sophia Tait while our article on Eleanor Margaret Burbidge simply refers to her as Eleanor Burbidge... "First Last" unless the person is known better by her middle name then "First Better-Known-Middle Last". Our article on Burbidge is actually titled at Margaret Burbidge as she's better known by her middle name. KTC (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC) "Foreign Secretary and Vice-President 2001–2006;" of what? Expanded. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) "UK-Canada Rutherford Lecture 2010" shouldn't that be an en-dash between UK and Canada per WP:DASH? Linguistically, probably. However Royal Society's own website uses hypen throughout. I assuming we should do the same because of that? KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Fields should be Field(s) since most winners have only one field of interest. Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would be seriously tempted to merge all the tables into one, and add the extra info where required in the notes column.
  • Personally, I think separate tables in this case convey the information better, but if other interested editors were to argue for one big table, then I wouldn't put up a fight. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments. I really like this list; it's an atypical subject matter for FLC and it goes some way towards addressing issues with unbalanced coverage of female subjects. It would make a nice TFL for the closest Monday to Ada Lovelace Day next year. Is there a reason you're forcing the table width at 95%? Other than because I copied the format from an existing list? No. I think for one of the table at least, 95% looks better, but I've forced all of them to 100% now. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't table captions redundant when the table is directly under a section heading? I agree with TRM on the "year" col Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) An the "fields" col Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) The notes would be better as sentences or at least sentence fragments (eg awarded the Davy Medal in 1957) Done. KTC (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC) I'd really like a brief bit of prose that explains why being an FRS is so highly coveted and what role the fellows play within the society, and how that differs (if it does) for foreign/royal/honorary fellows What proportion of all FRSs are female? I'm afraid I can't find any citable information on that. The closest I've come is List of Fellows of the Royal Society where it state there have be approximately 8,000 Fellows in history. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Do we know why they amended the rules to explicitly allow female fellows? Or why they decided to admit female FRSs at all (was it because they were legally obliged to or did they decide they wanted to)? First question, no. Second question, they were legally obliged to due to the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. I have expanded a little to make it clear (I hope). KTC (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Revisiting this. I'm happy with all the responses to my comments so far. It would be unreasonable to oppose over the non-inclusion of information that's simply not available. The one thing that doesn't seem to have been addressed (Katie, please correct me if I've missed it) is my request for a sentence or two on the prestige of being an FRS. If that could be added, I'll gladly support (but I won't oppose, and may support anyway, if it isn't added). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Added. Also added a sentence detailing percentage of women Fellows out of all living Fellows. -- KTC (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I'm happy that all my comments have been addressed and I see no significant issues that would bar promotion to FL. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note - While I'm working on the above points, I just want to highlight that this is the intended appearance of the tables with rowspan on years with multiple Fellows elected. The current explosion of all rows are due to bugzilla:41886. KTC (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Make that bugzilla:41889. KTC (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose until at least the red-linked entries get a blurb in the notes section. It is not clear to me why don't all entries have a small sentence about the fellow's achievements. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Fellows and Foreign Members were all elected on the basis of excellence in their respective fields, which is already one of the columns. Further blurb is, in my opinion, unlikely to add much that wouldn't be better served with a reader clicking through to the individual articles if they want more information. As to the red links, they shouldn't be treated differently to the blue ones so it should be either or for all of them. While I definitely intends to create all the missing articles if other don't beat me to it, I'm not incline to write a bunch of stubs just so this list doesn't have any red links. -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that a few redlinks is not a valid criterion for opposition at FLC. Therefore this opposition can and should be legitimately disregarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. An interesting list, well presented. Much debate has surrounded the issue of the low numbers of women who have been elected FRS, and I see no reason why this should not be a separate list. As others have pointed out, the complete list of fellows would be extremely unwieldy. My only comment is that the royal fellows/patrons do not have references, and the living ones do not seem to appear in the external list of "Living female Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society". Espresso Addict (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Royal Fellows and Patrons doesn't have inline references mainly because they're not elected the usual way, so there's no election citation and any material talking about them will generally covers other aspect of their life rather than the fact they were Royal Fellows of the Royal Society. All four are covered in the general reference "List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660–2007" (pp. 12, 110 & 365). Which of the living ones did you test? That particular list covers those elected up to and including 2011, so anyone that were elected this year wouldn't be on there. -- KTC (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

    The list I checked (for royal fellows/patrons), as I wrote, is the one you link to as "Living female Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society" [7]. If they are covered under "List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660–2007", then I suggest that you place citations to specific page numbers in a reference column for ease of reference, and also clarify for each whether they are royal fellows and/or patrons, which appears unclear in 3 of the 4 cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Done re. references. Re. Royal Fellows vs. Patrons, I thought it was fairly clear that only Queen Vic & QE2 were patrons and hence Queen Mum & Anne has only ever been Royal Fellows, but obviously not. I have added a few sentences before the table that should hopefully help explain things? -- KTC (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you! I fear you might now need a reference for the introductory text in this section. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Section rewrote with added references. KTC (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've done some copy edits, but the last sentence of this section is rather jumbled; suggest simplifying. Otherwise happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have made some minor tweaks as follows: (1) prizes are awarded to someone, lectures are delivered/presented by someone, so I've changed the formula to "Delivered the X Lecture in YYYY". I know that it might be prestigious to be asked to deliver the X lecture, but that's implicit. (2) Notes that are not full sentences should not end with a "." I have explained above in my now-hatted comments why this is not a 3(b) violation. I am also not worried that some of the lectures don't have articles yet, although it would be good if they did or if they could be redirected to a mention of them in another Royal Society article. However, I'd like this bit tidied up:

Throughout its history, the Royal Society has elected a number of individuals to its Fellowship by virtue of their royal blood or marriage. By the time women were admitted to its Fellowships, eligibility of such elections has been limited to members of the British Royal Family. The reigning monarch of England, and since the Act of Union 1707, that of Great Britain has always served as patron of the Society.

• "eligibility of such elections" doesn't make sense to me
• Great Britain became the United Kingdom in 1801
• Source for these three sentences?

Fix these and I'll be supporting. Bencherlite^Talk 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rewrote that bit with added references. -- KTC (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the gender, race, religion, disability, or nationality of the fellow is felt to be of interest to readers, can this not be achieved through adding an additional field to the main list? I question the value of this list as a standalone list, so would not be comfortable in supporting as a featured list. Perhaps merge back into the main list? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think merging it back would be political. This is a complete list of female members; being a female member is a notable occurrence in its own right due to the very late acceptance of members, and the currently low number of fellows. I hope that in 20 years such a list would be so long as to make it useless, but until then I feel it holds notability. It seems a shame to put such pointless criticism onto such a lot of determined effort. I do have a suggestion though; get the male fellows in the other list up to featured status (indeed, it probably needs expansion) and then a merge would certainly be worth considering. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • A complete list of List of male Fellows would have around 8,000 entries... KTC (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry SilkTork, but with sadness on my part, your logic, following many of our other lists, is deeply flawed. As KTC notes, the main list would have 8,000+ entries, so creating sublists seems perfectly acceptable to me. We often split per gender (e.g. South Africa women Test cricketers) or by religion (e.g. List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients) etc. I'm not keen on this oppose being mixed in with the ongoing WP:RFA nonsense. I would hope we could take these perceived editorial problems separately from any kind of administrative issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I don't mind red links at all. But I do think a small blurb would help, for all of them. Clicking to the article is ok, but some info should be on the list as well. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a fair point, that all entries perhaps should have some explanatory notes, to make this list standalone from the rest of Wikipedia, regardless of whether the subject is redlinked or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I just checked some other related featured lists and they all seem to have some more info. See List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford and List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. That makes them, to me, better lists. Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agreed with your original comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
        • That last comment was not really meant for you :) Just for nominator so she can see some examples. Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Cool, indentation can sometimes confuse me... :) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 11:58, 24 December 2012 [8].

---

Danuta Gleed Literary Award

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A short article about a short story prize. Regards. Tomcat (7) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The prose in the lead was a concern at the last FLC and there are still issues. Here are a few examples:

• "It recognizes the debut short fiction collection by a Canadian author in English language" doesn't really explain what constitutes winning the award

• Please clarify--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the Canadian writer Danuta Gleed, whose favourite literary genre was short fiction" that needs referencing

• It is--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because you say it is doesn't mean it's a widely known fact. You've been on wikipedia long enough to know these kind of statements need referencing. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The incomes of his wife" incomes should be income, but even then its still not a professional standard of writing

• Done--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "A similar award is the Journey Prize, which is given to a short story collection generally and is independent to any publisher." This sentence has no relevance to this list, we are talking about the Danuta Gleed Literary award, no need to mention any others

• It has since both are similar.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't its irrelevant to this article

• "The year's shortlist is chosen in May by the Union and is presented by the press,[3] while the prize is awarded in the early June." reads poorly

• Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Its the wording. You see this is the issue, because you're not a native English speaker you're struggling to see what is wrong. That's why it needs copyediting by a native speaker. I'm not going to provide you with a solution, when it was suggested last time you get the article copyedited, yet you either couldn't be bothered or ignored the advice. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The varying jury"

• Not done, since it should be stated that the jury frequently changes--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The first winning work" again poor prose

• Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "From 1999 to 2002, there were additionally two runners-up until the following years, when five people were nominated for the award, while the remaining three were not included as runners-up." again reads poorly and a little explanation about why some are runners-up and some are not would be helpful

• Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "only five were qualified for the prize with two being the runners-up"

• Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "From 2009 to 2011, there were no runners-up but the winner was directly picked up from the five nominees." comma needed after runners-up

• I think it is not needed--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It is the comma after 2011 sohuld be removed and placed after runners-up another example of why it needs a copyedit.

• "The Danuta Gleed Award revived their traditional format, selecting two runners-up among five short-listed works." when? useless statement without a date

• In the following years of course, and I know that this paragraph is pretty useless since it repeates what is already clarified in the table, but this process is not unusual.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Entire last paragraph is unreferenced and there is a lot of info that could be challenged in that para

• What exactly, since it repeats what is already noted in the table.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• You would be better off using green to indicate runners-up instead of th other writers as there is it will be clear that they were neither runners-up or winners anyway

• Not done, your opinion.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Avoid using semi-colon for bolding, as done in the key, use a table caption instead

• Ok done.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Unclear what is referencing the table

• Not needed if there is a general reference. Totally redundant.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the general reference? There is isn't one. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this list is nowhere near featured standard. There are too many issues with the prose, which was the main sticking point at the last FLC. Since the closure of the FLC, there have been four edits to the article, so evidently the issues from that FLC have not been fixed. This begs the question, why are you nominating this list when it is clearly not at featured standard? It really should be withdrawn and receive a copyedit from a native English speaker, something which was suggested at the last FLC! NapHit (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add to this that this list really should be removed. At the last FLC, theditor was requested to get a copyedit he has not done so and the issues still remain. This is wasting reviewer time and affecting other nominations as efforts should be directed their instead of here. FLC is not a peer review process, which is something, the issues here are too many too fix in the time frame of the nom. It should be withdrawn copyedited and then resubmitted. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, since the list is pretty small and seems to be copyedited thanks to TRM comments below. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

TRM's comments are not a copy edit, they are identifying errors in the prose. This list needs to be copy edited by an uninvolved native Engkish speaker. That was made clear at the last FLC, so why you didn't follow up on this I don't know. He also mentioned issues about sourcing which have still not been addressed. I stand by my view this list should be withdrawn and copy edited. I'm also concerned that you continually puts lists like this up for nomination. You've been around the process long enough to know what our standards are, the lists you've no mimed recently have been short of that, mainly to prose issues. This should be indication in itself, you need to get these lists copy edited before you bring them here. This is not a peer review process, lists should come here close to featured standard not riddled with prose and source issues. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose too many flaws right now...

• "It recognizes the debut short fiction collection by a Canadian author in English language." missing word here, the "best" debut short fiction collection perhaps?

• Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The incomes... funds..." (a) not sure why incomes is plural, but (b) if you insist, then it should be fund.

• Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Journey prize is irrelevant and not referenced by [1] in any case.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Besides, "is independent to any " you are normally independent of not independent to.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where is the prize money referenced in [2]?

• Added--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "is presented by the press" do you just mean the shortlist is published in newspapers? Ref [3] says the nominations "were announced by the Writers’ Union of Canada".

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 2 says award is going to be presented late May/early June. There's nothing to say when the previous prizes were awarded.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "is awarded in the early June" no need for "the".

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 1 does not cite the jury figures you've presented.

• Added--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "there were additionally two runners-up until the following years" -> "there were two runners-up. From 2003..."

• Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "only five were qualified for the prize" do you mean "five writers were nominated for the prize"?

• Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• " there were no runners-up but the winner was directly picked up from the five nominees" I think the second half of this is obvious if there were no runners-up.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The Danuta Gleed Award revived their traditional format" the award is not a group of people, so you can't say "[an inanimate object] revived their traditional format"...

• Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is it short list or shortlist?
• "That year, only two books were put in the short list, the lowest result since the first ceremony." -> That year, only two books were shortlisted, the fewest in the history of the award.

• Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Publisher or publication" I don't see any publications in this list. If so, I would expect them to be italicised.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Was Overqualified disqualified, withdrawn or removed? Be consistent.

• Made consistent.--Tomcat (7) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• It would be logical to identify runners up in green with the cross symbol, rather than the "other shortlisters", as the runners up are more notable.

• On the other side, shortlisted works appear non-notable if not marked by color or symbol. However, will do as three people have suggested this.--Tomcat (7) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where are the winners referenced? Ref 1 doesn't mention them, you need to link directly to the relevant winners page. Also ref 1 links to pages that go back to 2003, what about the previous winners? Oh and we don't use "external links" for this purpose...

• Done--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

you need to add publishers and access dates to those general refs. Also what makes Canadian authors.net a reliable source? You also to add a col scope to the publisher and after telling you not to use semi colons for bolding, you've done just that for the general and specific refs . They need to be removed. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where are the 2012 nominees listed? I see no reference with Skibsrud mentioned for example...

• Done--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that just re-using ref 1 dozens of times is not acceptable. Link the relevant year to the relevant page please. E.g. show me where in your URL for ref 1 I can find Skibsrud mentioned please? You also still have a number of rows which have blank ref cells..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note that I am working on this list. Also note that you don't need to repeat the same arguments. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Then I suggest you withdraw this until you're ready to renominate once you've addressed all the changes required. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• You don't need to force me into doing something.--Tomcat (7) 12:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• No but I can fail premature nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find Skibsrud listed either, it does not go to 2012. According to the page the latest is 2011. This matter of references containing the material is a repeated problem with these submissions. Tomcat7 added false citations to Friedrich Eckenfelder and has admitted to not have the material for the GA he nominated. More recently, I pointed it out to be corrected at Abel Prize. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, it seems like you have difficulties comparing what the source states and what the article claims. Reference 21, for example, clearly mentions his name and the date. And what happened on other pages is irrelevant. I suggest you eradicate the false accusations.--Tomcat (7) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your above disagreements aside, why then are you using reference 1 to cite Skibsrud, if his nomination is referenced in ref 21? Therein lies confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please archive this? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:33, 24 December 2012 (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 03:26, 15 December 2012 [9].

---

List of churches in Moscow

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have hidden the pictures which hindered its promotion. Regards. Tomcat (7) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Please don't take offense when I say, I don't think you fully understand the problem. I don't either. I just spent several hours of my Sunday trying to find a conclusive answer to whether media files such as this one with its File: page in its current state satisfy relevant policies. I'm not a lawyer. I'm frustrated and my head is starting to hurt. If your solution to reviewers finding possible copyright problems is going to be to simply hide the files in the article (presumably for somebody else to solve the problem), then I suggest hiding them all and hiding them now, because the lack of freedom of panorama in Russia may be a problem for all of them. Alternatively, you could do something to convince my fellow reviewers and me that there are no copyright problems, either by pointing us to a relevant policy, guideline or discussion, or by tagging the files with Template:3-D in PD. Regards, Goodraise 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• See User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_46#Freedom_of_panorama. They are all fine except the hidden one. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to follow your reasoning. But I can't. Goodraise 12:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I have asked here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Commons and copyright. Goodraise 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, will do what Aslepias recommened, though it is not really needed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." is that true? If so, that's not a good sign, as the actual featured list criteria calls for completeness, so it doesn't meet featured list criteria right now then

• According to WP:FL?. "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." There are several lists that are actually incomplete, but still FLs.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see what you are saying, these are the "notable" churches, OK. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are no "notable" churches. The lead states which buildings are excluded from the list.--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unlink "church" per WP:OVERLINK

• No, since there are two different types of churches. Also this guideline can be ignored, actually.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• We all know what a "church" is, and that is WP:OVERLINK. It can't be ignored because it is part of the featured list criteria. "It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.

• No, we don't know what "a" church is. It is either the congregation or the building, so it should be linked.--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• "tallest Orthodox church" link all of that, not just "tallest" so readers understand

• Can you explain how does it improve anything? Surely if the reader sees the link, he will click on it.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but maybe there's the possible that someone may believe that the link is actually to "tallest", not the tallest buildings in this case.

• What?--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry lol. See above now. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Avoid bold links per WP:ACCESS in table, you need to add plainrowheaders to the table's coding

• Please read the lead. Bolding is useful to highlight the patron saint or the feast day.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nope, avoid all bold links, as per WP:BADEMPHASIS and WP:ACCESS, and replace with a symbol, like a {{dagger}}. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• What do you want exactly? It highlights the patron saint or the feast, as stated. What symbols? Dagger for what?--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• It should not be in bold per the above guidelines. Your required to replace with something else in the tables. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not done, since it is not a requirement. See Wikipedia:Five pillars. I should not stick to rules and don't always need to follow them. The page does not explain why boldface should not be used in this case. I would reconsider if it would benefit, but it seems like it doesn't.--Tomcat (7) 16:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is a requirement per the featured list criteria. If this isn't replace, then I'll have to oppose the list for not meeting the criteria of Manual of Style. I'm aware of the five pillars, and that doesn't apply in this case. TBrandley 19:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Goodraise about image concerns

• Yes? Then explain it to me, do not just agree.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• "I agree" with his input, and thus that should be addressed before I'm willing to support. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Would suggest adding an "—" em-dash to those churches that have no images
• Would remove "List of" from section headers and table captions because we already know this is a list

TBrandley 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment suggest you withdraw the list until the serious issue of misuse of images under the lack of freedom of panorama in Russia is resolved. Also, debating whether you can be bothered to meet the MOS or not is a non-starter, it's one of the criteria. By all means, IAR and quote five pillars, but that won't lead to a promotion at FLC in this case I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Note if Tomcat7 is not going to be able to address these issues or worse, not be able to spend time on Wikipedia, suggest this is closed as unsuccessful until such a time its re-nomination may be more fruitful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2012 (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 03:26, 15 December 2012 [10].

---

Herbie Hancock discography

Nominator(s): Simone Jackson (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i think that it meets the FL criteria. I worked many months on this page and i think that is ready for the star. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Add alt text to the images as per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT "discography" shouldn't be bold per MOS:BOLD Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK "#" should not be used per WP:POUND, use "No." instead "Billboard 200" 200 shouldn't be in italics "Thanks" isn't a good word My biggest concern, the paragraphs are very chunky, and contain many sentences that need work and copy-editing. When I say "very chunky", I mean there are too many details and words per plot guidelines, and WP:LEDE, etc. Section headers and everything should be changed, and modeled to the headers/section stuff used in Train discography, an FL, which can be modeled for lots of my concerns Add table captions per MOS:DTT, as in the above list shown "For every year (here reported chronologically) the albums are listed alphabetically by the last name of the artist." should be the table caption. It should be a note outside of the caption Ref. 1 and 3 as well as one in ref. 6's both contain WP:DASH issues, hpythen should be an en-dash Allmusic should be AllMovie Avoid capitals in ref. text, which is in ref. 37 There are way too many external links as per WP:ELNO, there should only be three, I'd remove all "partial discography" Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order TBrandley 02:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I followed all your advice, except #6 because i don't know how to substitute the word "thanks" (i'm Italian and my English vocabulary is limited) and #7 because it is very hard summarize 50 years of successful carrer. Do you have any idea? Also Mariah Carey discograpy (both albums and singles) and Madonna discography (both albums and singles) have got a very long introduction, quite similar to Herbie Hancock discography. Simone Jackson (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments I share TBrandley's concern with the lead size. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs; this article has 7 lead paragraphs, which is almost double what it's allowed to be. *Also, per MOS:ACRO, acronyms should be written out in full on first mention. Example: American Broadcasting Company (ABC). I understood that the lead is too long, but have you got any idea to how to summarize 50 years of successful career? A proposal would be appreciated. It's very hard to summarize long successful careers, in fact in my previous post i done the examples of Mariah Carey and Madonna discographies, that have got a very long lead (quite similar to Herbie Hancock discography) and are Featured Lists. Ok for the acronym, i will correct now. About the references for releases i used AllMusic, Discogs.com and the official website. In fact, they are listed in External Links. Simone Jackson (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Cut out unnecessary information. Mariah Carey's and Madonna's discographies are fairly long, but nowhere near as long as this. MC's is 4 paragraphs, and Madonna's is 3; both within the limits of WP:LEAD. Fairly obviously, Madonna and MC have had a higher level of fame and success in their careers, and they don't need 7 paragraphs to summarize. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I cut some unnecessary info in the 1960s paragraph and i unified some paragraphs. Now we have got a lead with four paragraphs divided in introduction, Blue Note/Warner era, Columbia era and Modern era. According to Web World Index the characters are 6,222 now. Mariah Carey singles discography has got 6,214 characters. Only 8 characters of difference. It should be in the Wikipedia standard, no? I hope there are no other errors. If there are let me know. I would like to correct them before the deadline. Simone Jackson (talk) 3:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC) The lead looks much better. However, is there any way you can add more of the third paragraph into the fourth, because the hugeness of paragraph three detracts from the readability. Also, there is no deadline. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I could move the 1980s part into the fourth paragraph although I don't know whether it is correct to put together the peak of his career with the comeback after a long break. About the deadline, i was referring to this: "After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed." Having few commitments now, I would use this time. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Whatever splitting you can do would be great. As for the deadline, that's not what the sentence means. It is saying the list can only be promoted at a minimum of ten days later. If the review is ongoing, the FLC can stay open much longer. Take a look at this FLC; it's almost two months old and the review is still ongoing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Done. Simone Jackson (talk) 0:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Pending the addressing of The Rambling Man's concern. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Quick comment - lead is too long per the above commentators, but I also have issues over references for release dates, release territories and references for those releases which didn't chart anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Repeat where are the release dates referenced, what territories are the release dates relevant to, and for those releases that didn't chart, where are they referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Briefly, you ask refs for every release date (charted and not charted) and an explain if that release date is refered to a certain country. Right? No one FL discography shows this format. According to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, it's enough to post a brief list of General references. You can find an example in Ashley Tisdale discography. References are divided in General and Specific. If you agree, I will follow this example. I hope that i didn't misread your affirmations. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC) All currently running discographies have been asked to provide release dates and relevant territory information for that release date for all albums. I'm not that worried about DISCOGSTYLE, it's just a style guide, I'm more concerned with WP:V. On a number of occasions, I've asked for a reference for release dates and it turns out the dates are incorrect. That's why I'd like to see them referenced. As for releases which didn't chart anywhere, you'll find numerous FLs which reference those non-charting releases explicitly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) It's true, it's a good idea, but having used only AllMusic, the official website and discogs.com, shouldn't be enough include only these three links? To post every album page from AllMusic would lead to having over 150 references (remember that this discography is very big. Only with studio albums and compilations, we arrive to 104 references) and i don't know if it is a good thing for a discography page. At the limit, i will post a note near the source that invites to click on the album name to have the release date, label, etc. However, on the three sources that i used there isn't nothing about the release date for a country. I presume they refer to the United States (except some albums released only in Japan and released internationally in the following years), but i'm not sure. After all, we are talking about albums from the last century and it's not very easy to find these informations, at least for the albums released prior mid-1990s. Simone Jackson (talk) 0:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid I find the lack of inline referencing a serious drawback to the list. Readers shouldn't have to go searching through external links to try to find evidence that proves the existence of these releases, nor information about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I agree with you, but the only thing holding me back is the fact that the page will have over 220 references and will be a chaos. Remember that the page shows 121 albums, 47 singles, 4 other songs, a very long list of albums where he appears as Sideman and a list of songs in Various Artists Compilations. One source for each of these releases is too much for a discography page. For this reason the WP:DISCOGSTYLE claims that is enough to post general references, such as Ashley Tisdale discography and Madonna albums discography. Repeat, i agree with you, but it will be a chaos. Are you really sure that you want this? Simone Jackson (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Well I have seen pages with over 300 references, it's not that uncommon... However, you raise a good point, you could easily split this into two discographies, something which is commonplace for an artist with so many albums and so many singles (e.g. Mariah Carey, Madonna etc). Then you'd have fewer references and two featured list candidates! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Singles are not so numerous. Compilations and sideman releases make the difference......I want to take a little time to think. One or two days. Simone Jackson (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Okay, take your time. Two lists are better than one!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I've been thinking. I think that the best choice is a split in Herbie Hancock discography (only albums and singles/songs) and Herbie Hancock other appearances. I think this for two reasons: 1) Singles/songs are not numerous and they need only of one or two sources because in the table is requested only the year and not month, day, label, etc. 2) Splitting the other appearances i can extend the list of his appearances in various artists compilations and his appearances as sideman. Simone Jackson (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) I'm okay with that, would you like to withdraw this FLC until you're ready to renominate one of the two new lists? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC) It's not needed. In one or two days the current list will be ready. The new list will require more time. Simone Jackson (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I'm adding references for the albums, but i have some doubts about the readability. Do you think that will be good to add the small tag in the Albums details column? I did a test and it is more readable than current version. Simone Jackson (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Using "small" fonts may be a problem for WP:ACCESS. I suggest you check there. I seem to remember that as long as it doesn't go below 85% it's not a major issue, and perhaps the "small" tag takes that into account? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I decided to let it go the small tag. However, now the page should be complete and i have already cut the other appearances paragraph in a new page. In the current page, to avoid the problem of non-readability, i posted general references on the top of the table (Albums detailes for the albums and Year for the singles) for all the releases that had date, label and format published in one only page. For the others, i used the inline citation. Check it out. Simone Jackson (talk) 4:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose needs a thorough copyedit. A few quick points... "to digital download" -> downloads. "This page does..." it's an article/list, not a "page". "furthermore because of the enormous amount of material published, this discography omits less notable appearances in compilations and live albums" what is the definition of "less notable"? "of 8 selected countries" eight. "Included are also" -> "Also included are ..." "from Recording " -> "from the Recording" You don't link R&B the first time round. Why are charts shown in italics? I understand parts of the names which relate to things like Billboard should be in italics, but why anything else? "This part of his career reached its highest level" this is really not "elegant prose". "He continued to experiment..." "Hancock continued..." "commercial results, gaining immediate commercial success" repetitive use of "commercial". "mainstream" is used four times in quick succession. "of the 1980s.[20][15] It" order refs numerically. Be consistent with slash spacing, either used spaced slashes (i.e. a / b) or unspaced slashes (i.e. a/b) but not both. Check compliance in refs with WP:DASH e.g. ref 2, ref 29 year range should use an en-dash, not a hyphen. Several refs have spare full stops, e.g. ref 6, 18, 31, 36 .... Ref 58 appears to have a format issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC) For "less notable" i mean the albums that in the sources are without year, label, etc. However, Check it out now. I think that it is complete now. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from DavidCane (talk)

• I made a number of copy edit corrections that you reverted citing advice on this page as the reason. The edits were to correct missing words and poor sentence structure:
  • "United States also includes R&B / hip-hop, dance / club, jazz and bubbling under charts." is bad grammar. I suggest "Positions are also listed on United States..." The slashes would be better unspaced as well.
  • "Also included also certifications" is wrong. The second "also" should be "are".
  • "Blue Note Records noted" reads a bit awkwardly. I suggest you change "noted" to "noticed".
• Introduction
  • This is very long and becomes rather heavy going with all the numerous charts mentioned.
  • I think the definition of what is a Herbie Hancock album needs to be explained more. Jazz is a difficult area, as musicians often come together to play on a specific recording and then separate. You have excluded "less notable appearances in compilations and live albums", but you haven't mentioned or explicitly excluded recordings from this list that he made when he was not the "main name" on the cover. e.g. when part of Miles Davis's group.
  • "This article does not include re-issues, unless they are counted separately from the original works in the charts". Please explain. Are there any listed that are counted separately from the original works in the charts?
  • Is there evidence that Watermelon Man is one of the most performed jazz standards? Provide one of the refs from the jazz standards article.
  • "Autodrive" is said to have been a mainstream hit, but its best performance was 33 in the UK. That would not really be considered much of a hit here. In the 1980s, anything outside of the top 30 was pretty much ignored.
• Tables
  • A large amount of the studio albums table is filled with dashes, indicating, according to the note, "a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory". So that we can judge his popularity, I think it would be useful to know which territories albums were released in and did not chart. At the moment, I can't tell if the reason that his first and fifth albums only charted in Japan was because that is the only place they were released, or if it was because they were not bought in large numbers elsewhere.
  • I think it would be useful to have a definition of what "charting" means in each case. How big was the range of each chart? An album that did not chart because it was outside the top 30 is different from one that was outside the top 100 or top 300 (I'm guessing that was the range of the Japanese chart).
  • Is the formats section of the album details column intended to list current formats that an album is available on or formats it has once been available on? As 8-Track is given for some, I assume it is the latter. Can we be certain then that not one of his albums before Secrets has been available on tape? Some of them seem to have been available on 8-Track but are not listed as such.
  • Many of the albums only have a year or a month and year for the release date. Can we not have the full date? Given Future Shock appears to have been his biggest hit, not knowing when its was released seems to be a bit of a shortcoming.
  • Live albums - Releases that did not chart table. There are eight albums here, but nine of the entries on the studio albums table and two of the entries on the soundtrack albums table have no chart position either, so also appear not to have charted. Why are non-charting studio and soundtrack albums handled differently from non-charting live and compilation albums?
  • The singles tables really should have full release dates.
  • Again, there is the separation of charting and non-charting singles.

--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Introduction
  • For the grammar, i don't say nothing. I'm Italian and I only follow advices.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, my advice is that they need to be corrected.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Is it good now? About the slashes, i can't post them unspaced or i should edit all the slashes in the page and it's not good for the readability for box set such as Sextant / Secrets and Head Hunters / Future Shock / Man-Child.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The lead is ok. It follows the Wikipedia standards. You can look the FL discographies pages of other big artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Length was not the only reason for my comment.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • What were the other reasons? I written all the essential basing the content on the other FL discographies.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sideman works are included in another page called Herbie Hancock other appearances (that is work in progress).--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Then you need to state that in this list. Just including the other list in the see also section does not do that.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • There is a paragraph in the page titled “Other appearances”. In that paragraph there is another redirect on the other page. So, at the moment there are two redirects on the Other appearances page. I think that they are enough. Also the other FL discographies splitted in two pages don't go beyond the redirect. What do you suggest?--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "This article does not include re-issues, unless they are counted separately from the original works in the charts" Some countries (such as France and Canada) separate re-issues and original works on the charts. If one re-issue will be charted separately from the original work, it will be included in the table.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • My point was a question. Are there any albums on the lists that are reissues that charted separately from the original work? If so which ones? It would be useful to identify these in some way on the table - with a note for example.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • No, in this page there aren't re-issues.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A single become a hit when enter in the top 40. http://www.everyhit.com/faqs.html--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That is one unofficial website's definition. It might be true for the UK, although, as the note states, others think a hit is something in the top 75. It does not necessarily apply to other charts in other countries.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That website was quoted by the BBC in its old website. BBC is one of the official diffuser of the OCC charts. One of the official diffuser that quoted the “top 75 theory” was The Guinness Book of Biritsh Hit Singles, now replaced by The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles. This new book reports the top 75 singles, but in the total weeks column reports only the chart appearances in the top 40. However, top 40 or top 75, we are talking about a song that peaked at No. 33. The discussion is dead at birth.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tables
  • It's impossible to know where the albums were published (today, are available worldwide), except for someone released initially only in Japan. However, the first albums charted in Japan in 2004 and 2009, not at the time. You can see it when you click on the ref.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Is it impossible to know where albums were published?--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Today they are available everywhere. If you want to know at the time of the releases, sorry, but it's impossible (except for some albums released initially only in Japan such as Herbie Hancock Trio and The Piano).--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If the basis of the chart position is the maximum that an album reached at any time since release, then I think that it is important to make it clear that the chart positions are not necessarily the position an album reached when it was first released. I think, that is what most people will expect the table to be showing.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Done--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your second point. An album is charted when enters on the charts. It does not matter the position. Read here: WP:DISCOGSTYLE--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • My point was that we do not know from the tables what "charting" means for each chart. For example, if one country's chart lists the top 100 albums and another lists the top 300 albums, to chart on the first is essentially harder to do than on the second. I think a note would be useful giving an indication of the number of places each chart has.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • This reasoning works up to a certain point. I'll explain....every country has a its perception about the foreign music. In Japan, the most of western artists find many difficulties to enter on the Oricon main charts, especially on the singles chart. For this reason Oricon established western charts and added many other positions to the main charts. So, in theory, it's easy up to a certain point.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • By the way, WP:GOODCHARTS says that the recommended source for UK charts is the Official Charts Company, not the one you have used. The one you have used, http://chartarchive.org, has posted a note saying they have been told to remove their listing by OCC, so it is probably best not to use it.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • OCC has forced Chart Archive (formely known as Chart Stats) to remove chart-run and weekly charts from its database, not the peak chart positions and the total weeks. OCC done it because their charts are very expensive and don't want to leave these informations free. However, in WP:GOODCHARTS is written that the use of this source has been challenged IN THE PAST, because it is an anonymous archive. It's not written that it is a bad source. In fact it's not appear in WP:Depreacated Charts--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I haven't checked the other sources against that list.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The formats section refers to all formats in which the album was released and all is supported by sources. If i haven't sources to affirm that the albums published before Secrets were published on Tape, i can't add nothing.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you need to do some more research in that case. I was able to find some cassette and 8-track versions of albums you haven't shown in those formats in a couple of minutes of googling.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I will do it.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If you find reliable sources that confirm years, months, etc. we can add them without problems.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That's not my job.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I tried until last Thursday, but nothing, sorry.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Because Live albums and compilations albums that did not charted are very numerous compared to the total.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • But that does not mean that they should be treated differently than non-charting studio albums. This also goes back to my point that a reader cannot tell if a release is marked with a dash in the table because it was not released in a country or because it did not chart.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • And i already said you that it is impossible to find those informations, expecially for the albums released before the internet era.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, singles are ok. They follow the Wikipedia standards. You can look WP:DISCOGSTYLE or the other FL discographies of other artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • OK.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The separation is needed when the number of the uncharted material is too big compared to the total. If i unifie the tables, we will have many empty spaces and it's not good for the readability.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • But we already have a studio albums table that is mostly empty spaces, so I don't see what difference it makes.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • To split the studio albums in charted and not charted don't change nothing. We will have always the most of the albums charted in US and empty spaces for the other countries. The only difference will be that 9 albums (low number compared to the total of 41) not charted will be splitted in another table. It's not the same thing of split compilation albums because we have 3 charted albums on a total of 62. The split must be made if needed.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Also:
      • The "live albums/Releases that charted album" table has two countries' charts, not the eight we have for the studio albums table. The US Contemporary Jazz album is missing. Is this because he did not chart on the others?
      • The "Compilations/Releases that charted album" table has three countries charts. Same question.
      • The Soundtrack albums table does not have the same set of charts as the studio albums table.
    • --DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • They miss because they didn't chart in those charts.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think it's very tempting to restart this nomination as it's been bogged down in various format/inclusion issues. Suggest nominator restarts the nomination, or else withdraws it as it's clearly stalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that restart the nomination is a good solution. It won't solve the DavidCane's concerns. It will postepone them only. In a new nomination, he can always expose the same concerns and the situation will be the same. I hope to get to a point of meeting with him. Furthermore, i think that it's a shame to restart a nomination where the most of the users' comments were resolved.--SJ (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's your call. This nomination has stalled, it's been live for over two months, I think it should now be archived unless any further comment/progress is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2012 (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 NapHit 03:23, 7 December 2012 [11].

---

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 23:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A second visit for this list. It was featured between 2006 and 2009, but in that format it fell significantly short of our current guidelines. I've tidied it up, completely rewritten the lead and brought it back for another shot. Certainly a noteworthy topic, and if only those centuries at Taunton had been scored for Somerset...

In the featured list removal discussion, it was primarily taken down as being a 3b violation, but I think in this format it certainly stands-alone as a list. The information presented here would not be suitable in a more encompassing article on cricket records, and serves to create a more engaging article. In my opinion anyway! Harrias ^talk 23:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

;Comments I think 4 paras are too much for such a list with only 10 entries. Looks like an article. Perhaps, but it is an interesting subject with plenty to talk about. Without falling foul of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, List of Manchester City F.C. managers is plenty longer, and that is a featured list. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) "...and struck one six and 64 fours during his innings, ..." → "..and struck 1 six and 64 fours during his innings,.." or "...and struck one six and sixty-four fours during his innings,..." Done. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) "not out" is overlinked. Removed one link: I think a link at the start of the prose, and one in the key is appropriate. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) "Their opposition, Kathiawar,..." → Whose opposition? Maharashtra. It says so five words earlier. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) A link to "deliveries". Done. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) "Ten years later, Lara became..." → From when? You didn't mention the year Lara scored 501 runs. Added the year in. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Baluchistan → Balochistan Our Wikipedia article, although location at Balochistan acknowledges in the lead that it can be spelt either way, and my source spells it "Baluchistan", so I would prefer to follow that. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) It would be better if you provide a refs to the matches in which 400s were scored. Why? Ref #1 covers all the information provided in the table: I don't see why another ten superfluous references are needed? Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) OK, this was just a suggestion. Zia Khan 19:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Zia Khan 16:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC) You may mention that players are sorted by their last name I don't think that is necessary: I would always expect a list to sort by last name. The only contention is whether it is sorting by the appropriate name for the Pakistani players, but I'm not sure on that myself. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Hanif Mohammad is commonly known by his first name, I think. Zia Khan 19:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Support– Good work. Zia Khan 19:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

[dusting myself off] It has been a while, but I saw this this list was recently "expanded" by -1,382 bytes.  No doubt it needed some work, and it is good to have a longer prose introduction, but quite a lot of material that was in the old version before the "expansion" has been lost.  Perhaps some of it should be reinstated?  Most of that information can be gleaned directly from the scorecards (what the match position was, who won, who batted with whom), and no doubt sources can be found for the information that is "citation needed".  For example, for MacLaren, "This was the first quadruple century in first-class cricket, and remains the highest first-class innings by an English player.[citation needed]"   These are obvious from Cricinfo's list of highest first-class scores.

As a general point, I think we should be aiming for consistency of content and presentation between the various lists, including in particular List of Test cricket triple centuries, but also List of Test cricket hat-tricks and List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks (all featured).  The {{cricket records}} template also links to List of Test cricket centuries scored on debut which is not featured but is also similar in format to these lists.

For example:

• Would it not be helpful for the article to include a link to a scorecard for each match, like the old version did and all of those other lists mentioned above do?  External links in tables may be deprecated - although all but one of the lists mentioned above do it that way - but I would assert that it is much more useful for a reader to have the links where they can be picked out easily and followed, rather than buried down in the footnotes.
• Might it be helpful to mention which innings in the match the batsman was batting in when he scored the quadruple century?  For the record, that is four in the first innings of the match, five in the second, but only Bradman in the third (that is, his team's second innings, and NSW still won the match!).
• What competition was each match a part of? (Obviously this is a factor that is not relevant for the Test and ODI lists, but most of these matches are part of domestic championships.)
• Seven of the entries in the "balls faced" column are apparently unknown (I have not checked, but CricketArchive gives a figure of 465 balls for Bradman[12]).  Is it useful to give the three that are recorded to the reader, in preference to the other facts mentioned above?
• Why is the start date of the match relevant?  The old version of the list noted the days when the batsman was actually on the pitch, scoring the runs.  For example, Lara's 501 is all the more remarkable for starting on the second day of a four-day match (Friday 3 June 1994), missing the third day due to bad weather, then a rest day on the Sunday, and completing his innings towards the end of the last day (Monday 6 June).[13]
• The list includes the highest first-class scores by batsmen from the West Indies (Lara), Pakistan (Mohammad), Australia (Bradman), India (Nimbalkar), and England (MacLaren).  What are the highest scores for the other Test nations?
• Perhaps it might be worth mentioning that Naved Latif scored 394 in 2000, and Stephen Cook scored 390 in 2009 (I think that is the South African record).  I think the records for a batsman from New Zealand and Sri Lanka are Bert Sutcliffe's 284 in 1952, and Mahela Jayawardene's 374 in 2006.  Zimbabwe's might be David Houghton's 266 in 1994?  Bangladesh?

Hope some of this helps. -- Testing times (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Sorry, but I'm going to need a little more convincing that this is not a 3b issue. I took a look at List of first-class cricket records, which came up when this was demoted at FLRC, and that article has a list of the top seven entries. Is having a 10-item list there really a stretch? And could the content here reasonably be included in a potential List of first-class cricket triple centuries? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will respond in more depth later, but as a quick comment: there are currently over 175 triple centuries in first-class cricket, so I don't foresee that such an article would be a feasible creation. My rationale for the continued existence of this list is that to include the level of detailed information presented in the lead of this article for each record on List of first-class cricket records would very quickly make that page unwieldy and extremely difficult to utilise. Harrias ^talk 07:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the issues raised by User:Testing times and User:Giants2008, I'd like to withdraw this list as a featured list candidate for the time being to give myself some time to analyse the comments made and improve it through a peer review, and possibly return. Any changes I make now are going to be "fixes" rather than solutions, so I think this is the best way of resolving the potential issues. Harrias ^talk 22:31, 4 December 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 21:06, 2 December 2012 [14].

---

List of current members of the Iowa Senate

Nominator(s): Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a good list and I may make some more like it (I've got the House one waiting in the wings). And because I've been around for a while without making any featured content. Figured it was just about time I tried. As an FYI, there's a companion gallery at Commons. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• The article's name may even violate WP:RELTIME. It says that words like "current" shouldn't be used, I see this used lots of places in the list, including the name even
  • WP:RELTIME doesn't apply to titles; I've removed it elsewhere and added appropriate {{as of}} templates to make the date clear.
• "U.S. State" State shouldn't be in capitals, per MOS:CAPS
  • Fixed I've removed a wikilink and shifted another. The full name of Iowa is "State of Iowa" so caps are appropriate here. (Alternatively, I could just remove "the U.S. State of".)
    • Sounds like the best idea. Please remove "the U.S. state of", as you alternatively suggested already. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "2011 – 2013" should be changed to "2011–13", without that space, per WP:YEAR
  • Fixed
• "84th General Assembly" should be in bold per MOS:BOLD
  • You mean "shouldn't"? Fixed
    • Yep. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• "four-year" no hypten needed
  • Notdone It is needed, as a compound modifier, see MOS:HYPHEN and http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/hyphen on "lengths of time".
• "vacant" in image captions should be capitals
  • Fixed
• Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does
  • Notsure I tried to do this, but wasn't sure how to add scop cols and rows to a sortable table. Can you point me to an example?
    • Take a peak throughout the whole WP:ACCESS, it explains fully there. But, here's what I can tell you. To the main headers, you add ! scope="col" through all of them, then for the main parameter of the inside table, add ! scope="row". It is then showed in gray for that. It is actually used for screen readers and some text-only browsers. If you would like to know an example, please see ‎School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen's table for an example, it correctly use the scope cols and rows. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Done. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• The tables formatting and use of color, doesn't also meet WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOR, as well, these colors, particularity
  • Notsure I wonder if you are unfamiliar with the best practices for color in political articles and lists?
    • Notdone If you're referring to coloring the template rows, this schema has been used on other FLs, is widely used on political lists in general, and there is no information being conveyed by the color that isn't also conveyed by text.
    • Wontfix With regard to the particular colors, these are the standard {{Party shading}} colors; as such they 1) have been reviewed (and changed) for ACCESS concerns in the past and 2) can't be further changed without developing consensus, as {{Party shading/Democratic}} alone has 8,311 transclusions.
      • I don't need to be familiar with political articles and lists, I need to be familar with the Manual of Style (MoS), and I am. The colors are very bright, don't pass WP:ACCESS or WP:COLOR for blind peoples, screen readers and such. Also, it doesn't matter if the schema has been used on other FLs, there were most likely promoted before this new guideline rule when into effect. It is very new. As said further below, you can replace the colors with template such as {{dagger}} and see WP:BADEMPTHASIS. Colors shouldn't even be used, but replaced. The MoS is very clear on this for access. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
        • See reply to Albacore below. The remaining points about color, daggers, etc. are not well taken, as they ignore the fact that there is no information offered by the color that isn't also offered by the text (the use of such colors is explicitly allowed by the MoS.) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• The first table shouldn't use unneeded bolding, see WP:BADEMPHASIS, remove or replace, though I don't even think needed
  • Notsure I don't know what you're getting at - the three headers: "affiliation", "members", and "total" are the only bolded words in the table.
    • Yes, exactly. It shouldn't be in bold, per WP:BADEMPHASIS also. What's the reasoning for the bolding? Even if there is reasoning, it needs to be replaced by {{dagger}} or something, as already said for other concerns also. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The reasoning is compliance with WP:MOSBOLD, which says that headers should be in bold. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does
  • Done
• The alt text of the images are not correct. "Alt text is meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser. It should summarize an image's purpose, and should not duplicate its caption, if it were to have one, or does." All images do duciplate a possible caption, or actual caption used.
  • I've Fixed the map, per WP:ALT#Maps and diagrams. Notsure For the official photos, I couldn't think what else to put - should I just blank the alt text?
    • No, not a good idea; it is part of the featured list criteria, "It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." If you don't know, see WP:ALT or request help at the help desk even. For example, just an example, instead of "David Beckham" say "a football player", that's just an example, but it would be something like that, just for different pictures. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • My text was properly descriptive, noting that the images were official images (the reason the images were chosen). Text such as "a football player" (here "a politician") would be inappropriate as such is blatantly obvious from the context of the page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• There should be an actual legend section, explaining what the colors are for, rather than it being in a caption. A caption should say "This is the stuff that is in stuff" like that. Colors shouldn't even be used per WP:BADEMPHASIS, replace with dagger using {{dagger}} template or something also for WP:ACCESS
  • Notsure I don't follow. The instuctions for {{legend}} indicate that it is supposed to be used in a caption. This is, in fact, an extremely common use of the template - and some images actually have the legend built into the image itself. I can't hardly remove the colors from the map and the widespread acceptance of colors in the rows has been described above. I don't see how a dagger would meet any of these purposes in any case.
    • As said above, colors don't meet WP:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, all said above. See List of Grey's Anatomy cast members, a recently promoted featured list, its legend is fine, how about something like that for this? Cheers, TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I could add a second legend, reflecting the colors used in the table, above the table if absolutely necessary - having two legends for essentially similar colors seems like overkill, though. As for the map's legend, its usage is correct per {{legend}}. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• After the colors are removed and replaced, "N/A" should now use the {{n/a}} template
  • Notsure I didn't put the other fields in a templated box, so why would I put "N/A" in a templated box? It's inconsistent.
    • No, not really. It says "N/A", so it is okay. It is used in plenty of recently promoted featured lists, as well as others. There is a point for this one, but not for the others. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• In see also, why is the first link in italics?
  • Because it's the sister list. I can remove the italics if it bothers you.
    • It's not needed, so please do, if that's okay. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Don't use ; semi-colons as it is an WP:ACCESS concern. Replace with actual headers, like === General ===
  • Fixed
• Per WP:DASH, as seen in many reference titles, hyptens should be en-dashes
  • Fixed
• Can you add portals related to this subject using {{portal box}} or {{portal bar}}
  • Done

TBrandley 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done several of your suggestions. I'll admit to being perplexed about several others, though, as they seem to fly in the face of political style consensus. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• What benefit does the list gain from the presence of colors? Since you have the party affiliation, I would be in favor of removing the colors to use !scope row tags per WP:ACCESS. I am not aware of any preexisting consensus, however.

• The purpose is to provide a visual/graphical representation of the legislative chamber, providing an at-a-glance feel for how the partisan divisions work out. This works especially well in sortable tables, since you can re-arrange the organization of the legislators. This is not an ACCESS violation, because the "Party" column provides that information in the text.
• That the colors are less than perfect is because there are a great many current and historic parties (see Category:Political party colour templates and its subpages). In order that there be a clear distinction where any two colors which may be placed next to each other are placed to each other, while being encyclopedically accurate as to color-affiliation of the parties, some unfortunate colors have had to be used (see, for example, Template:United States political party shading). As noted above, they have been reviewed for compliance with WP:ACCESS in the past and attempts to change/remove them since then have not gained consensus (a recent attempt, Template talk:United States political party shading#Accessibility, was actually advertised at the accessibility talk page and still didn't result in a change). Additionally, the fact that the colors are so widely used (transclusion example above) and that they are fully protected indicates their widespread community acceptance. Frankly, it is beyond FL's purview (and a violation of WP:CONSENSUS) to attempt to change that consensus here.
• Finally, you can use both scope=row and the color templates, so no issue there. (Scopes added now.)
• TLDR: No ACCESS violation, consensus including input from the folks at the accessability page, and scope=row is compatible with them. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Refs 1, 5, and 6 need the format parameter indicative of a PDF file, like reference 2 has. Albacore (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note "Graphics are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." Per the instruction above. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Non-graphically done. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:14, 15 November 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 21:06, 2 December 2012 [15].

---

List of universities in Venezuela

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Venezuela holds a wide array of universities around its national territory, covering studies on a broad variety of scientific and humanistic careers, spread between a total 23 public and 24 private universities located across several states. As a result of a Royal Decree signed by Philip V of Spain, the Central University of Venezuela—the oldest in the country—was founded in 1721 under the name "Universidad Real y Pontificia de Caracas". The campus was originally located at the now-known "Palacio de las Academias" but, in 1944, president Isaías Medina Angarita relocated the university to its actual headquarters at the University City of Caracas. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments Add alt text to the images per MOS:IMAGES Why hasn't this concern been addressed? TBrandley 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC) I have been having difficulties writing the alts :S I don't know how to write them :( I am good writing alts for pictures where people appear but for thins like those, it's hard for me (i am not native english speaker). — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Well, as they most seem to be "purely decorative images", you many do |alt=|link= instead. See WP:ALT#Links and attribution, and more. TBrandley 04:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I'll give it a try, thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Done. Thanks again. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does Fixed. Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does Fixed. TBrandley 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Early comments, currently oppose (sorry, have other things to do) Not keen on a country which "holds" universities. Rephrase. "on a broad variety of scientific and humanistic careers" why not just "offering courses in a broad variety of subjects"? "As a result of a Royal Decree signed by Philip V of Spain," could link Philip as a minimum here. Why isn't the Central University linked in the lead? "under the name "Universidad" just "as "Universidad..."" "origins remount back" remove "remount" and replace with "date". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Comment I'm not sure you need "(pictured)" in each image caption, I think that's pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Done. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose until enrollment figures are added. Nergaal (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, enrollment figures are not available; if so, I would have added them a long time ago. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable estimates? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that i have found, but I will make another scan to see what I can read from news and stuff. I am pretty sure that only 5 to 6 universities may have such info out there (outdated, ofc) but not all :( — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made a search and only found a accurate enrollment for the Simón Bolívar University for 2008. I have found other three enrollment estimates from scarce news by the venezuelan government and other news sources, but not very accurate [some of them contradict themselves]. I don't know what should I do. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadness. Sounds like you'll just have to leave them out, then. I don't know what the norm at FL is, but I wouldn't consider the legitimate unavailability of enrollment figures to be enough to sink the list's nomination, though. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Out fo the first five entries I saw references for numbers in two of them. Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Look. I searched for the vast majority of them and only found the ones there plus a couple of others. I am venezuelan and I know how difficult is to find accurate statistics of such things here. There is no easy way to find accurate of realistic numbers when it is handled privately by private universities and oftemtimes publicly by the rest. This is frustrating [not finding references] and I understand that you may ask for them but, sadly, 50% of the universities there just doesn't show their enrollment figures. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is fine if you put a N/A where there is no reference, but those that do have should have it in the list. As an outsider I have no idea which university is more notable, and enrollment figures are one of the simplest ways to convey this. Nergaal (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well; I will keep searching as thoroughly as possible to add as much as possible. I will do some off-line search to see what I can find XD — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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