Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Modelled off the similar list for Wayne Rooney which looks as though it will be a FL in the next few days, this does have a few minor formatting variations. Charlton is still England's leading goal scorer, though Rooney looks like taking that record soon. As always, throw whatever you've got at me! Harrias talk 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments nice piece of work, I made a tweak or two, but have the following comments:

  • I avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
  • "of international football, scoring at a rate of a-goal-a-game, culminating with his first hat-trick in international football" repetitive use of "international football" in this sentence.
  • "international hat-tricks, in addition to the one" would use a semi-colon here.
  • Tehelné Pole redirects to a neighbourhood in Bratislava rather than a stadium, perhaps pipe the section which discusses the football stadium?

Otherwise nothing to worry me unduly. Eyes down for the French equivalent, coming to an FLC near you soon! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, all done I think! Harrias talk 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of knights and dames of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Edward VIII[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This article lists those who have received the highest grades of one of the orders of knighthood in the UK at a time when Britain was a leading power in the world. Due to the number of people awarded the honour since it was founded in 1896, it seems sensible to split it into appointments by reign, and this is the third one I've brought to FLC so far, covering the appointments made by Edward VIII (reigned 1936). It is short, but one of the delegates believes it passes criterion 3, so I am giving it a shot. I believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. This article follows the same format as the list of Edward VII's appointments which was promoted to FL in March. It is complete and all items in the list are reliably sourced, as is the lead. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Please note that I will be unable to respond to queries between the 8th and 16th September.

Ian Carmichael on stage, screen and radio[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

With appearances in 30 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, Ian Carmichael was a consummate character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, including Private's Progress (1956), and I'm All Right Jack (1959). His portrayals on BBC television of with The World of Wooster—in which he played Bertie Wooster—and as Lord Peter Wimsey all added to his renown and credit. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main Ian Carmichael page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support – perhaps my favorite film of his was School for Scoundrels, so what with the rotten bounder already at FL, I'm glad to see this here too. The lead required very little, but I did notice a bit of repetion with "continued to appear throughout his career". The "throughout his career" was even a bit awkward in a few places as by the time you mentioned it, he was already into his career and paying into his pension pot. I tried to fix it, so you may want to have a look. The lists all look solid with everything linked and reliably cited. CassiantoTalk 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Washington Metro stations[edit]

Nominator(s): Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Through the efforts of myself and other editors, this list as been completely redone since the 2011 removal. Station and system ridership data is now current; line ridership data isn't available past 2010, but it's not nearly as important as the stations themselves. All citations are checked and live, unnecessary station codes removed, and {{dagger}} and {{N/A}} used for accessibility. I believe this is back up to FL quality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man, Royroydeb

Another cricket list. Well I've scrubbed this one up a bit, it was in good nick thanks to the sterling work of Royroydeb but needed some tweaks which I applied. It's in good shape, but, as ever, thanks to those of you who contribute, comment, support, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Marvan Atapattu is only 713 words long, and already includes bad versions of these tables. As things stand in that parent article, I think this list could very easily be merged into that article, rather than being a standalone list. Harrias talk 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    I agree, I was working off the template, so I suppose this nom should be closed, the work I've done should be merged, even though it's better than the bio article, and I'll live to fight another day? I would prefer the list to live, but if it doesn't, hey, whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's see what sort of state we can improve the main article to over the next few days, this list might still have a chance! Harrias talk 08:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good to me, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. Chinnaswamy Stadium[edit]

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My second cricket-related featured list. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You already have one list here that has yet to receive any support. You should only nominate a second list when your current one has enough support. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, you should've been aware of this one: "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." The other list is yet to be reviewed by a single editor. Vensatry (ping) 11:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry and NapHit: Oops! Forgot about that! Should I withdraw for now? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say so, as soon as you're other lists gets enough supports, then it shouldn't be a problem renominating it! NapHit (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, SchroCat, Giants2008, and PresN: I request withdrawal of my nomination. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for striking your withdrawal. Your other list has now a support, and that it does not need to be withdrawn. -- Frankie talk 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FrB.TG, it's good that you reviewed the other list, but one support is still a thin-line case. Vensatry (ping) 15:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. It follows the same format as three similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

87th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2015 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Jimknut[edit]

Support — I can not find anything wrong at the moment. It looks excellent to me. Jimknut (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support — Another brilliant list from Birdie. A sure-shot FL material.Krish | Talk 16:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

NWA World Welterweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as the third part of a wrestling trilogy of FLs that already has the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Middleweight Championship. This article has incorporated everything I learned from the other two FLs (and others) and is a Feature List quality article.  MPJ-US  23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • "the title was given the NWA-prefix" -> Shouldn't be hyphenated
  • Fixed
  • "The title was once again inactive after the J-Crown concept was abandoned, until just over a year later when the championship was used by Toryumon where Dragon Kid became the first Toryumon promoted champion it. from 1999 until 2007 the championship was promoted exclusively by Toryumon, mainly in Japan and occasionally in Torymon's Mexican branch." -> Something is wrong here. It seems the first sentence doesn't really end.
  • Yeah the first sentence just kinda petered out, I fixed it I believe.
  • I feel that "the first NWA Mexico promoted Welterweight Champion", "a New Japan Pro Wrestling promoted tournament", "the first Toryumon promoted champion" and "the last CMLL promoted NWA World Welterweight champion" should probably have "promoted" hyphenated with the previous word. You may want a second opinion on this though.
  • Fixed
  • Not sure it's wise having a new colour for the ongoing title reigns. It's not likely to be of much concern for now but as the belt trades hands over the next few years you may find this getting disproportionate; plus a colour like that indicates something is out of the ordinary, and the new promoter is really just the new ordinary. I think just a note on Cassandro's reign to state it's the first of the newly NWA-held lineage would suffice.
  • The La Sombra caption could do with the year he won to give a little more context. Try "La Sombra, who in 2007 became the first CMLL wrestler to hold the championship since 1996"
  • Fixed
  • Wholly optional, but there's a picture of La Sombra and Mephisto mid-match here, which might be useful. It's from 2011 so it's definitely not their title fight, however, but it's rare to get an image of two people together who did wrestle in a specific context.
  • Good choice, gets both the 55th and 56th champion in the picture.
  • I cleaned up a few errors here and there, would you double check I haven't introduced anything incorrectly?
  • Thank you, that all looks good
  • All in all, seems solid, accessible and complete (in as far as an ongoing list can be). GRAPPLE X 11:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X: - Thanks for the fast feedback. The only one I am not sure of is the coloring of the NWA Mexico reigns - they are used to indicate who promoted the championship at the time. I get that NWA Mexico is the "new normal" now, but then I say that all CMLL reigns should be colored to indicate the difference. I use the colors to indicate when it is not promoted by the original company. If there is a general consensus that this should be changed I am okay with that. Side note, while this is an active championship the list is much more static than say a WWE championship list, the championships normally do not change hands as often in Mexico - with reigns often lasting over a year. I believe I correctly addressed all the concerns?  MPJ-US  16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Millennium characters[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Another topic from a little-loved show. I took a bit of licence with this one as it's not a style of list that's been covered much, and what samples I could find seemed to focus mostly on "in-universe" material. I've defined a scope and stuck to it, but for the most part Millennium was a series devoid of any real weighty characters beyond the lead role. I am a little underwhelmed by the lead; I think maybe it needs something visual to break it up but nothing leapt out beyond possibly moving the Henriksen image up (two attempts at PR led nowhere at all). A previous FLC had a few minor comments which have been addressed, so there should be nothing outstanding from that. Thanks in advance to anyone looking over this. GRAPPLE X 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics medal table[edit]

Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've recently been working on it and have based its layout on a number of other featured medal tables. I believe it may now meet the criteria for inclusion and will be willing to fix any issues. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Azealia Banks[edit]

Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is an extensive list of songs recorded by American rapper Azealia Banks. It details her very oldest demo tracks such as "Gimme a Chance" and "Barbie Shit", to her more recent tracks like "Ice Princess" and "Wallace".

  • Support—particularly on criteria 2 and 3 which I looked at in detail when providing my review above. Great work! —JennKR | 22:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 22:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginia[edit]

Azealia911, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review of your list and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I do, however, have just a few comments and suggestions below. I didn't have much more to say in terms of suggestions, as it looks like JennKR has addressed the majority of them. Thank you again for crafting yet another phenomenal list. -- West Virginian (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • First and foremost, the image of Banks is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use in this list. It is good to go! As for the caption of the image, there should be a regular caption for view in the article, and a separate alt caption should be included. The alt caption is meant for readers who cannot see the image and summarizes the image's appearance. With an image of Banks in this green outfit, I'm sure you could craft quite a creative description of her appearance for the alt.
Umm, there already is an alt? Azealia911 talk
  • Diss track should be wiki-linked in the lede since it actually has a Wikipedia article.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • I am still new to reviewing lists of song recordings, so please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I noticed that Azealia Banks is repeatedly wiki-linked under the "Writer(s)" column. Should it be de-linked after its first wiki-link since the column is unsortable?
I'd discourage that. I deliberately didn't link her in any of the artist columns so that her name would only be wikilinked once per entry, if you sort by year, the first result is different to if you sort by album, so I'd have to link 3 or 4 random occurrences of her name, which would look odd. Azealia911 talk

Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 talk 11:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Azealia911, thank you for addressing my comments. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Chidambaram Stadium[edit]

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another cricket list. This is my first attempt at a cricket-related article. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – good work. -- Frankie talk 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Thanks again, Frankie. As always, your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support NapHit (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Ian Bell[edit]

Nominator(s): Ytfc23 (talk) and The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Another cricket-related list, Ian Bell is one of only two English cricketers since the Second World War to have won five Ashes series and this list details his 26 international centuries. The list resembles a similar style to numerous other list of centuries by international cricketers, I would like to thank The Rambling Man for the help in tidying up the list and its a pleasure to co-nominate this list, and look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve the list. Ytfc23 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


  • "making four each..." -> with four each
  • changed to "with four against each" Ytfc23 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "England have never lost a test match in which Bell has scored a century." could probably do with a citation

Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of national nature reserves in Somerset[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Following the inspiration provided by the FLC nomination of List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire. I created this list of the national nature reserves in the County of Somerset largely following the format used in previous nature reserve nominations. Each entry has appropriate pictures, details of area and location, links to maps and details and a description. As ever any comments gratefully received.— Rod talk 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

List of players who have scored 10,000 or more runs in One Day International cricket[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another cricket list. This is probably the first-of-its-kind for a batsmen list. Comments and suggestions are welcome Vensatry (ping) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, given a recent discussion, I'm concerned that this might be a 3(b) violation as a content fork of List of One Day International cricket records#Most career runs. Harrias talk 09:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm, given that we have 11 entries I feel this could well be forked out. With Gayle, Dhoni, ABD, and Kohli in the lineup, this is expected to grow in the near future. I'm not supporting WP:OSE, but we have an existing FL—List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket. Plus, you seemed to have supported the creation of these lists. Vensatry (ping) 11:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So I did. I'm not personally opposing the list on this basis, but I just mentioned it as it was fresh in my mind. Harrias talk 11:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Scotland national football team 1920–39 results[edit]

Nominator(s): Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I am working towards getting all of the Scotland results lists to FL, using the existing FL Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results as a basis to work from. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


  • "Between 1920 and 1939, when competitive football was interrupted by the First World War and the Second World War." this makes it read as if the wars occurred between 1920 and 1939 instead of before and after. Make it clearer when these events happened.
Rewritten to remove references to the wars - I don't think this is necessary.
  • "The team drew extremely large crowds..." extremely may be a tad pov (even though the figures were high!), would just use large
  • Table does not meet MOS:DTT. You need to add row and col scopes
Done with col scopes. Not done with row scopes because it seems to make the date appear in bold.
Just add plainrowheaders to the wikitable sortable bit and you'll be grand. NapHit (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the sorting right? Would sorting by result make more sense?
Not sure how this would be done.
I'm not 100% about this myself, I'll leave this up for a bit and see if others have an opinion. NapHit (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to specify the widths for the date and venue columns, its causing wrapping on my browser
Removed width specifications.
  • Perhaps pipe the goalscorers links to their surnames, seeing as this common practice in football reporting?

NapHit (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments below each point. I think I will remove the first names, but will leave that until the other points are finalized. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Square Enix franchises[edit]

Nominator(s): --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List status because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. The list consists of all notable franchsies of Square Enix, with sales figures where available. The prose was created by an Admin. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments:
    • "The prose was created by an Admin" That means nothing, admins aren't special when it comes to content.
    • What is the definition of "spinoff"? You note 11 original and 27 spinoffs in Dragon Quest, but simply "48 games" for Final Fantasy; do Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Dirge of Cerebus, etc. count as original or spinoffs, and why?
    • Furthermore, there have been several notable Final Fantasy movies; why are those not listed?
    • And again, Kingdom Hearts specifies remakes; I know that FF games have been remade many times.
    • Saying, for example, "110,000,000" is needlessly specific. The source says "110 million" and that's sufficient for here.
    • This might be just me but I think the "as of" date is not needed for the sales. The reader can assume as of current day, and in cases like Conflict, where no game has been released since 2008, people can easily and correctly assume that the number of sales has not budged much since then. The only time it's necessary is where the sourced data is older than the newest release: For example, Championship Manager.
    • "Latest release" contains some future releases, like in Deus Ex. It shouldn't.
    • Carmageddon: "as of 2011", no, they sold the rights IN 2011. :)
    • What does "most games in franchise published by Square Enix" mean? For example, Final Fantasy is not marked, but Tobal is, despite Square Enix being formed after the last Tobal game was released. Also Actraiser.
    • Is the series "Xeno" or "Xenogears"? If it's Xeno then there are 6 games, not just 1 game and 5 spiritual successors. (And also generally 'spiritual successors' aren't noted in a series. For example, Shadow of the Colossus is the spiritual successor to Ico, but no one would say they are both part of the Ico series. So maybe that designation should be removed.)
  • That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as the "admin" in question (I'm also one of the FLC delegates...) this list is nowhere near ready for FLC. I'm pretty heavily involved in the article, so I can't muck with this nomination, but I recommend a speedy close. --PresN 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List status because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. The list consists of all attractions from the Universal Orlando Resort. The first and second nominations were closed due to a lack of reviewers/activity. Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Lead could do with an image
  • "It features two theme parks,..." Is Aquatica not part of the resort?
  • "opened to the public in..." in should be on
  • "Eventually, Universal filed a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws, an attraction that was based on the film." I'd be more specific as to why they filed the lawsuit, its intrigued me, so I'm sure more readers would like to know as well. Plus manufacture is not the best word, perhaps construction?
  • Is it worth including former rides on this list, seeing as some of them have their own wiki page?
  • Consider adding a paragraph summarising the types of rides that are in the parks to provide context to the table and go with the height requirement sentence.

NapHit (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Carl Nielsen works[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a comprehensive and practical list of an important composer's. If you don't agree please tell me gently because it's my first nom for FL. The list is was created based on template {{Classical works row}} which Alakzi helped to imake work, and was filled mostly by Ipigott who knows the composer's work. Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I realize - looking at the other nominations - that it might be a good idea to move the article to a clumsy List of compositions by Carl Nielsen. Please discuss but don't move today while the article is still on the Main page as I write this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

I'm a complete layman when it comes to classical music so feel free to correct me.

  • The lead is very short and is just a description of how the table is set out which is better just before the table where a similar paragraph already exists. I wonder if it would be better to simply bring up the history section and make it the lead.
  • This new "history" lead could be expanded to highlight important compositions and perhaps show a chronological transition of how his compositions changed over time. Did he start of doing certain genres and move into others? That sort of thing would make the lead engaging.
  • I find the table hard to follow in what order is it set out?
  • Some of the table entries don't seem to be referenced.
  • Simpson 1952, Lawson don't seem to be used to cite anything in the list.
  • Translation column is not complete.

Cowlibob (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A few replies:
  • If a knowledgable person could write about his development, great, but isn't that covered in the composer's article?
  • It's set out by listing his most famous compositions first, then by genre, but you can arrange it by all other keys, - how is it hard?
  • The whole tabe - without saying it every time to avoid clutter - is referenced to the CNW site, for most rows the specific link to a work is in the last column.
  • Simpson ref covers the FS numbers, - should that be explained?
  • Translation is given only when the common name or part of it are Danish, again to avoid clutter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of The Open Championship venues[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after extensively renovating the list I now feel it is ready to be submitted to the scrutiny of the community. I already have a nomination running, but it has two supports and no unresolved comments. Thanks in advance for your comments.NapHit (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment this looks similar, but perhaps less comprehensive than the list on the The Open Championship#Host courses section, is the intention to keep both? I also like the maps in the main article... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the intention is at this point. I guess if the main article was to be expanded then the prose would remain and the table would go, as this list can provide that info. Would you recommend moving the maps into this article alongside the table @The Rambling Man:. NapHit (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

List of centuries scored on Test cricket debut[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Another cricket list, we're flooding the nominations list with them at the moment! This one is loosely based on the similar List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut. I have an open nomination, but it has two supports and no outstanding concerns. As always, all comments and suggestions welcome. Harrias talk 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm struggling to see any issues with this list. To add to Venastry's comments regarding prose, I think both sentences are fine and should remain as they are. FYI I have two lists here and here that could do with a review, if you're not too busy! NapHit (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Neat list, no great shakes but a lovely venue in Godzone with some notable bowling efforts. I've got a few open FLCs but all have at least two supports, and no outstanding comments, so here we are. Thanks, as ever, to everyone who participates. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A few comments:
  • Sidebottom's haul was in 2008, not 1998.
  • The final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead ("Overall, as of August 2015, thirteen bowlers...") is quite complex and could do with splitting into two.
  • The use of "fifer" is colloquial, not professional.
  • It's notable that the list is only linked from {{International cricket five-wicket hauls}} and pages that transclude it. It should be linked from McLean Park at the very least.
  • Is "338" the standard way of noting 8-ball overs in cricket articles? My personal opinion is that the meaning would usefully appear in the key, or, preferably, be included with <ref name=N> etc.
Relentlessly (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
All addressed, thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Good stuff: support. Relentlessly (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I see that you have noted that. Are we allowed to have three nominations open at a time? Vensatry (ping) 05:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Rather than clutter the nom, I've responded on your talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Great work as usual. FYI I have two lists here and here that could do with a review, if you're not too busy! Cheers. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "It has hosted international cricket matches since the first Test took place in 1979.." This makes it sound like the first Test match ever was in 1979!
  • "..he took 5 for 47 and and 5 for 43.." and and (it would have been easier and quicker to fix this myself, but it's a pretty good article, and I want things to moan about. Harrias talk 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Harrias, I think I've catered for your comments, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, nice work. Harrias talk 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC) miscll

List of number-one dance singles of 2014 (U.S.)[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it documents each and every US Dance Club Songs number-one single of 2014. The lead high lists artists who have achieved the most chart toppers throughout the year, as well as other chartings, records, and achievements. Illustrated with as many images as the length of the list/article will permit me to include. All references are formatted and linked to each week of the chart on the Billboard website.  — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose per 3b. While some FLs still exist on yearly lists, I don't see a reason not to merge such singles list by decade. Splitting them by year is not necessarily informative and does not attract interest from anybody asides its creators. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Really? Links to yearly lists are placed on articles which have reached number-one though in the See also section. Having a decade lists would make an article far too long, and makes it harder for people to search.  — Calvin999 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As is, does not pass WP:NOTESAL: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are no 3rd party sources at all, not to mention that the topic in general (number-one dance songs) is not typically discussed as a group in independent reliable sources. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You can't get much better than Billboard.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Billboard publishes the chart; therefore, not independent of the information. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, no one else publishes this. We use Billboard for all chart tables in articles, and it's not a problem at GAN or FAC, so I don't see how it's different here. Billboard is a reliable source and it's data collected by Nielsen BDS and Nielsen Soundscan. Billboard is the compiler. For the Billboard articles, they are writers who write for the magazine. I don't agree that this is a problem in any way. Billboard is the best and only way to reliably source U.S. charting.  — Calvin999 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
          • You're not understanding the point. The fact you state no one else publishes this is a problem. Billboard is the publisher of the chart, so of course it is going to publish the information, Is the chart mentioned in third-party news outlets? Is it notable outside of publication by Billboard? If it isn't then it fails 3b. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your evaluation of my capability of understanding, but I think you're missing the point. All music articles use Billboard for everything US chart related. Weekly charts, year end charts, chart history, news reports, etc. Billboard the most reliable source you can get when it comes to US charting info. No one else publishes it because everyone trusts Billboard, that's not to say other media outlet won't comment on something extraordinary, like number-ones or new records. Are any of you even familiar with how music articles are researched and written?? I completely reject this nonsense. Billboard is welcomed at GAN and FAC, so I don't see how this is different.  — Calvin999 14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
              • I'm not missing the point at all. The fact that Billboard is the sole publisher referenced is a massive problem. I understand music articles will use Billboard, that's not the point, the point is that they will have 3rd party sources discussing them as well. The fact that this list does not is an issue. As it infers that the content is not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. The fact that you can't offer one independent source documenting the list infers that this should not be a standalone list. It's not a question of what happens at GAN or FAC, it is simply measuring this list against the criteria, that is all. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
                • No, they don't. They use Billboard, because that's the sole provider. It's not a massive problem at all. You won't find many chart performance sections which use anything but Billboard for US charting info. It doesn't matter if you have a yearly list or a decade list as suggested above, the sources will be the same. Clearly, the criteria you speak of is useless and outdated. (You only use Masters and a few BBC out of less than 10 refs on List of Masters Tournament champions, notice it wasn't a problem there......)  — Calvin999 23:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't get it do you. The fact that the Masters has refs from more than ONE publisher is indicative that it is notable. The Masters is also discussed in multiple media outlets rendering the list notable. Is that the case with this list? That is the question, it's on you to prove that it is. Stop getting so defensive it's doing yourself any favours. NapHit (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • How do you propose I source who was number one each week? I'm open to any of your suggestions, if you can produce any. I fail to see how I can source who was number-one and any records or achievements if I can't use Billboard. Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat.  — Calvin999 10:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You've answered the question yourself here: "Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat" which suggests the chart isn't notable. I'm not saying you can't use Billboard, just that if you can't produce independent sources that mention the chart then it indicates it's not notable per our guidelines. NapHit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • This chart is the main Dance chart in the United States, it's not a component. It's been going in various form since the tracking of club plays in the 1970s. That makes it notable. Madonna has 46 number-ones on this chart, more than any other artist on any other chart in US history. Not commenting on something major goes for all US charts, not just this one. Your earlier statements implied that I couldn't use Billboard, which is why I asked how you expected me to source who is number-one each week. Billboard is the only source for that with regard to the table itself.  — Calvin999 11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Azealia911[edit]

  • Consider making the Song and Artist(s) columns sortable.
    • For this kind of table which is in date order, I don't think it's suitable.  — Calvin999
  • Ref. → {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • [[Kesha]] → [[Kesha|Ke$ha]] she changed her name subsequent to the tracks release.
  • "Never Say Never" is indicated as the best performing track of 2014, I'm confused. None of these tracks peaked at #1 for more than one week, "Never Say Never" didn't even enter the Hot 100, and with songs like "Fancy" and "Dark Horse" up there, how did this out perform them? It may also be worth noting your answer in the article, because I'm sure I'm not the only one a bit stumped.
    • Because not all songs get the same amount of plays. For example, if a song reaches number-one in five weeks, it's clearly had more plays than a song which reaches number-one in ten weeks.  — Calvin999 08:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This just requires a source which should be found in the year-end recap edition of Billboard. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't need to source why it is the best performing track. On the Hot 100, the number-one song of the year doesn't necessarily sell the most. Airplay comes into it as well.  — Calvin999 15:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I did't say you need to source why, but you need to source where it says it is the best performing track of the year. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I have, it's a link to the 2014 year-end chart.  — Calvin999 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Add " |publisher = Prometheus Global Media " to every Billboard reference.
    • Is that still needed? I didn't think we had to add publisher parameters anymore?  — Calvin999 11:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

All I got so far. Azealia911 talk 22:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Delaware[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is my fourth nomination of this list, which is well-sourced and in keeping with the format and style of numerous other featured lists of colleges and universities in U.S. states and districts, including Alabama, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin. I have updated the list's facts with the most recent available data from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education and the United States Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences College Navigator. This list is shorter compared to the states mentioned here due to Delaware's small size, but nevertheless, it is the most comprehensive list of post-secondary institutions of the state available. I welcome the comments, suggestions, and other guidance from editors in order to make this worthy of passage to Featured List status! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG
  • "enrollment, as it had 22,680 students as of the fall of 2014" – I think you can simply refer to it as "as of fall 2014".
  • Per WP:SEASONS "fall of 2014" should be avoided. Late 2014, or a specific month should be used. – SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • FrB.TG, I've changed this to "as of fall 2014," per your suggestion. SchroCat, American educational institutions use seasons in their terminology to distinguish academic terms from one another. The U.S. Department of Education source used the term "fall" for its semester enrollment data, so I've incorporated that wording here. Seasons are also used in the many other featured lists of colleges and universities to identify semester enrollments. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the number of times I've had my wrist slapped for using British wording in a British article for "local" terms, I strongly suggest you change this. "Fall" is not a universal term. It is a North American term for autumn, and isn't automatically understood by the rest of the English-speaking world. I dread to think what would happen if I went to FAC or FLC with the description of the Michaelmas term I went through at school and university. – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bloody poor defence. Next time an American reader comments to me that they don't understand that someone was sent down during the Michaelmas term I shall point them to the culturally inflexible examples above. – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, because I like you, I've changed fall to "late." Please take a look at the article and provide me with additional suggestions when you get a chance. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks WV, and sorry if I came across as grumpy! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Delaware previously had two private post-secondary institutions for men and women respectively: St. Mary's College and Wesleyan Female College" – I think respectively should go at the end of the sentence.
  • FrB.TG, thank you for the suggestion! I've incorporated this into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Usually, a key table is listed above the table which it is referring to. I think you should shift the key table above the List of colleges and universities in Delaware table.
  • FrB.TG, thank you for this suggestion as well! I've moved the key table up in the list per your recommendation. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Defunct institutions section's table, "Notes" does not need to be sortable.

Anyways, the list looks good overall. I expect the nominator to rectify these minor concerns or give an explanation, and prove me wrong. -- Frankie talk 19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • FrB.TG, thank you for taking the time to engage in this review! I really appreciate your guidance and recommendations. Please let me know if there are any outstanding issues for me to address. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I don't know why it went through four archives. Hope this is going to be the last. Great job anyway. -- Frankie talk 09:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • FrB.TG, thank you tremendously for your thorough review and for your support! The first time, I had to withdraw the nomination because I already had two on here and I was new to the process. The subsequent two just didn't receive enough consensus; here's hoping the fourth nomination is the charm! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – a good list, and I'm a bit surprised it's needed four reviews to get through, but hopefully this will be its breakthrough attempt. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, thank you for your review and your support and most especially your patience with me throughout this process! As I stated above, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the fourth nomination is the last one! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support — No problems found. Nice one.Krish | Talk 16:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rooooney. His goals and his imminent passing of Bobby Charlton's all-time scoring record for England have been the subject of many discussions over the past few months, so I thought I'd bang this into shape. I would be interested to see what the community here think could be improved/added/removed. As always, my thanks all of you who contribute, in whatever form, to the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Support on style and structure. Rooney's goalscoring record in the tournaments, particularly the World Cup is often scrutinised. Just an idea, you could rephrase "He has scored a single goal in the World Cup finals," to "...only scored once..." to reflect this? Lemonade51 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, have tweaked as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from West Virginian
  • Support: The Rambling Man, I've completed my review and re-review of this nominated list, and I find that it meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the list's lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of Rooney's international goals. The image of Rooney is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for use here. This image does need an "alt" citation, though. Also, Macedonia national football team should be wiki-linked in the lede, since England and Australia's national teams are. Lemonade51 addressed the only other issues with the list, which look to have been sufficiently answered. Thank you for writing another featured-worthy list and congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    Hi West Virginian, thanks for your support and your comments. I've added alt text, but Macedonia is already linked on its first appearance in the text. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This list needs some kind of visual tally by year and by competition. Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    Please explain why you think that's required. I can add something but your comment is unclear, by competition is clear from the table and the prose, by year, is that really needed or is it just stats? Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the scores look the wrong way around. #32, #34, #35, #36, #39, #43, #45, #46. Harrias talk 07:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    Harrias: wow, stoopid me, and sorry for taking so long to notice your comment. Fixed now I think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, yup looks good to me now! Harrias talk 07:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

As an ancestral Evertonian it goes against the grain to support anything to do with the goblinesque defector, but this FLC seems to me to meet all the criteria. Dammit. Tim riley talk 20:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - It will be the first FL for international goals unless I'm mistaken and it sets a nice template for future articles of this type. The prose flows really smoothly even though it is incredibly stat-heavy, which is a great achievement. Spiderone 11:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Katrina Kaif is one of the most popular actresses in Bollywood. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. Krish | Talk 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian
  • Support Krish!, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this list and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The image of Kaif is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here, and both captions are suitable. This list is straight forward, and is in keeping with other featured filmography lists of Indian actors and actresses. The references used are also verifiable and in keeping with Wikipedia's citation formatting guidelines. My only suggestion would be to use "box office" consistently throughout, as I noticed in some places, you've hyphenated the term and in other places, you've left a space. Thank you for your hard work in crafting this list, and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Metra stations[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (TC) 01:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criterion. It is well-written, is well-sourced, is comprehensive (includes all major details and doesn't leave anything major out), it is color coded and very accessible, has table sorting, and is stable and not affected by edit wars or content disputes. (On a side note, please be patient in terms of having me address feedback, as I leave for a week-long vacation that lacks internet, so I may not be able to respond until next Saturday). Sportsguy17 (TC) 01:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I am now back and available to respond to feedback. Sportsguy17 (TC) 18:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overall a very good list and should be an easy pass. I've just made some copyedits, but there are other issues that should be fixed by someone familiar to the system:
    • A color box for the Kenosha Streetcar would make the style consistent.
    • The planned projects section in the lede needs work. SouthEast Service is deader than dead, STARS needs an accurate factual description (endpoints have changed), and other than the one new station the expansions of the other lines aren't really relevant here. Yes check.svg Done - Actually both projects are basically dead, so I updated it as such. Sportsguy17 (TC) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Consider adding right-justified images of various stations in the main section. Not strictly necessary, but it adds visual interest and provides examples of what the list is actually discussing. Other wise, this looks very good. Yes check.svg Done - I added three images to start, albeit I can certainly add a few more as necessary, Pi.1415926535. Sportsguy17 (TC) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I know how to add right-justified images and I can fix the lede regarding the proposed strats. If someone else who knows how to use {{Rail color box}} can figure out how to get a color box for the Kenosha Streetcar service, that would be great. Sportsguy17 (TC) 16:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pi.1415926535: Do you think you would be able to make a {{Rail color box}} for Kenosha's Streetcar system? I unfortunately am not familiar with the rail color box template and therefore do not feel comfortable making it. Once it is made, however, I can add it to the list accordingly I have added it to the list, but there is one small problem at {{Kenosha Transit color}} with the column that should display a sample of the color. If you can fix that, then I think all will be good and I think all of your feedback will have been addressed as far as I'm concerned. Sportsguy17 (TC) 18:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular reason for the rail color box text to be "Kenosha Streetcar Line" with the addition of a new redirect instead of using the existing "Kenosha Streetcar" redirect? Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lost on Belmont: As far as I'm concerned, no. I sort of realized my mistake on the redirect afterward. Feel free to change it accordingly though. Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Boys Don't Cry (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. I recently created the article as a fork from the article Boys Don't Cry (film), which I am working hard at to get to FA status. Even more recently, I did some cleanup on it, mainly looking through archives to find better sources. Checking the article against other similar FLs, I definitely think it can meet the criteria. Thank you to any willing reviewers in advance and I look forward to reading and addressing your comments! :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Further comments

  • Change the date for its premiere, you still have the date when it was screened at TIFF. Also replace ref 3 with the one I provided which actually discusses Venice premiere.
  • done
  • The source used for critical acclaim is enough for saying the film was critically acclaimed but not that Swank and Sevigny were the reason for the acclaim. You can use this one (Los Angeles Times source) [[2]] which at least specifies that Swank performance was acclaimed.
  • Alright, I couldn't find a source for Sevigny, so I'll do that.
  • Instead of the line "Boys Don't Cry has received honors for its writing, directing, and acting,....". how about this as a rephrasing "Boys Don't Cry garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for Swank's performance as Teena, its screenplay and its direction."
  • done
  • You can't say that a film performed poorly. Just simply state the fact that Swank was nominated at the BAFTAs as it's a POV issue.
  • fixed
  • Sevigny is not wikilinked at every occurrence in the table.
  • According to the IMDb, the film was nominated for a Robert Award which is missing from the table. Also received awards and nominations at the Stockholm International Film Festival. Young Hollywood Awards are also missing. Please check these out as often IMDb is right about this and provide a reliable source when you add them to the table.
  • @Cowlibob: That's good but I was unable to provide a reliable source for many: I knew about the Young Hollywood Awards, but I was unable to find a reliable source for this, so I removed it. I also cannot find a source for Swank's award at the Stockholm Film Festival as well as the screenplay award. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
If there is no reliable source for the award then it's ok to not include it. I shall do my search to see if I can dig up something on these missing awards. Cowlibob (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Great! thanks. Tell me when you're done looking. I really appreciate this. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Had a look, found this ref [[3]] from Canal Plus. If you google translate it, [[4]]. You can see it supports the Young Hollywood Awards for Best Screenplay and Best Director and Stockholm Screenplay Award. Cowlibob (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Great, those have been incorporated into the article. Do you have any other comments? :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • How are 2nd place finishes counted in the infobox, are they wins or only nominations? Cowlibob (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81[edit]

  • Comments: Here is a link to an archived version of the Critics Choice Awards website that lists Hilary Swank's award for Boys Don't Cry. I'll fix the link if you want me to.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Birdienest81: Thank you! It turns out the association which runs the awards had just changed their domain. is apparently discouraged (there was a big RFC) but I found the url on Wayback Machine. Are you planning on taking a look through the list? :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace ref 7 with this link this one because when I click on the current one you have, nothing appears because the information about the 72nd Academy Awards was derived from a awards search which times out. The one I gave you at least keeps the mention of Best Actress without timing out.
  • Remove from the work paramater, and at "(AMPAS)" after Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in the publisher field.
  • done
Otherwise, this list looks promising, so I'll support it. You may want to ask others for feedback because I may not have caught other errors.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Gen. Quon[edit]

Tentative Support

  • The period should go outside the quotation marks in the phrase "critical knockout", per WP:LQUOTE
  • done
  • I would amend the following sentence so that it reads: "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 76 reviews and judged 88% of them' 'to be positive." (Or something similar, I just feel hanging 88% there is a little hard to follow)
  • done
  • What I would do for the Guldbagger Awards reference issue is just add a little note at the end of the reference that says something like: "Note: 'Award' and 'Year' must be manually entered", or something like that
  • done
  • This might just be a stylistic preference on my part, but in Ref 1, for instance, you don't have a wikilink to The New York Times, but in the very next reference, you do link The Washington Post. I would either link all of 'em, or link non of 'em.
  • done

@Gen. Quon: Thanks for the comments! Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Just a few things. This looks like a very good list!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from West Virginian

List of Central Coast Mariners FC players[edit]

Nominator(s): Macosal (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article meets the criteria for a featured list, having being reformatted based on several other similar Featured Lists of football club players such as List of Manchester United F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players. The list was previously Featured in 2007 before this status was removed in 2012. All of the issues raised then have now been fixed. Macosal (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I feel this now meets the criteria. With regards, it appears error-free, well-maintained and comprehensive, so I'm content with its use on this list. One final suggestion: would the nationalities look better left-aligned? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers. Once again I think I agree - the nationalities do look neater when aligned left (although I couldn't find any MoS guideline on this). Thanks again for your suggestions/feedback, Macosal (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps @Daniel: would be interested in commenting on this nomination, as the user who first nominated it in April 2007? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Greg Chappell[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 11:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Greg Chappell was without a doubt one of the best players of his generation. His statistics would be even more impressive if he hadn't had a spell out of official international cricket to play in the unsanctioned World Series Cricket. This list was previously nominated in 2013, but I have completely overhauled it since that nomination by the now inactive Vibhijain. I have tried a couple of new things out in this list, that differ from previous similar lists. Rather than clutter up the "score" column with symbols, I have moved them into a separate column entitled "Notes", as they don't necessarily directly relate to the score anyway. I have split the Key into two tables to try and eliminate some white space, but this might be an issue on narrower monitors, let me know, and I can change it back easily if needed. As always, all comments and thoughts are welcome! Harrias talk 11:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support meets the criteria as far as I can tell, nice lead image, albeit not of Chappell but we have to go with what we have. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Is there any reason The Gabba is piped to the Brisbane Cricket Ground? Seeing as it's commonly referred to as The Gabba and that is the article name it seems strange to pipe it

That is the only issue I can see, so I'm going to Support. Great work. NapHit (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC), and Sock

The Wolf of Wall Street is a 2013 biopic directed by Martin Scorsese. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the titular "wolf", Jordan Belfort, a New York stockbroker convicted of securities fraud and money laundering in the 1990s. This list compiles a comprehensive rundown of awards and nominations received by the film. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Vivvt[edit]

  • Support Good work. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy[edit]

Nominator: Kharkiv07 (T)

A topic that I'm interested in and have quite a bit of knowledge in, so I thought I'd give it a go. Suggestions for improvement are always welcomed, and I'll try to fix anything that comes up in a timely fashion. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - It seems some of the referencing needs polishing, for example #14 is just a bare link. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Leo Carrillo on stage and screen[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I began this list a year ago after seeing a Leo Carrillo mini-film festival on his birthday. All I previously knew was his one television series, and that his name is on parks in California in honor of his environmental and preservationist efforts. Somewhat amazed at the extent of his acting career, I also began creating stubs of his movies, if no article yet existed, to understand the diversity in his career. Leo Carrillo had a long career in starring roles and also character roles. I feel like I uncovered a gem of entertainment history, and believe the subject matter is worthy of FL. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a note for the delegates, that DoDung2001 has been indef blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Support – nothing else to quibble about. Good job. -- Frankie talk 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments – prose looks mostly solid, references check out, image is public domain, and the tables meet WP:MoS standards (per comments by FrB.TG). I made some small tweaks, one moving a wikilink earlier and another to add an abbreviation period to mentions of "Lombardi, Ltd", as "Lombardi, Ltd." is the name listed. The concern for prose I have is in regards to this statement: "Over the course of his movie career, Carrillo made over 80 feature-length films...". According to the listed sources, Carrillo was a star in these movies, but they were made (directed/written) by other people. I'm no movie buff so I could be wrong on this part, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to change "made" to "starred in"? Same concern stems to the "Feature films" section later on with "Feature films of Leo Carrillo". Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyclonebiskit, thank you for the edits. He was the star in his earlier movies, but there were many later movies where he was a character actor or otherwise in lesser roles. So, what I did was change "made" to "appeared in". And I made each section consistent by heading the tables "....credits of Leo Carrillo". Does this take care of your concerns? — Maile (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That covers my concerns, and I'm happy to support this list :) Well done, Maile. Only other outstanding concern is that horse's unyielding and terrifying stare will undoubtedly give me nightmares... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of TNA King of the Mountain Champions[edit]

Nominator(s): WillC 09:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated this list twice before. It has mostly failed because of not many reviews. Any body who reviews this I will review a list you have nominated in return. I will most likely be reviewing a couple of lists anyway. In the first nom, the main page was desired to be expanded. I have done that to the best extent possible at this time. Has alot of history and I kept it concise. The main page is a GA on its own. The second nom didn't really have any issues to solve. I've updated it and included some new references. Mostly it is still in the same shape as my last nom so it didn't take alot of expanding, just clean up to get it ready for this nomination.--WillC 09:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per my comments being addressed. Good work! Hopefully the last time it'll be nominated. Azealia911 talk 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "Reigns that occurred on TNA's television program TNA Impact!, or its later title Impact Wrestling, usually air on tape delay" - I don't like this wording at all. Firstly, the reigns don't occur on tape delay, the title changes do. I also don't like the way the two titles are shown. I would have "Title changes that occurred on TNA's television program Impact Wrestling (known as TNA Impact! until [date]), usually air on tape delay"
      • Done
    • PPV => Pay-per-view (or at the very least wikilink it for those who may not know what "PPV" stands for)
      • Done
    • "as a result of being GFW founder, the title was also featured in GFW along with TNA" - the title was not the founder of GFW - change to "as a result of being his being the founder of GFW, the title was also featured in GFW...."
      • Done
    • "The inaugural champion was Booker T, who unveiled the title belt and declared himself the first champion on the October 23, 2008 episode of Impact" - you basically just said all this in the previous paragraph, no need to state it all again
      • Removed for the most part.
    • "The title was then-known" - no need for the hyphen
      • Done
    • "The title is vacated after Jeff Jarrett becomes TNA General Manager" - this is the only note that is in the present tense, all others are in past tense, be consistent
      • Done, hadn't noticed.
    • "Each wrestler's total number of days as champion are ranked highest to lowest" => "Each wrestler's total number of days as champion is ranked highest to lowest" (the subject of the sentence is the singular word "number")
      • Done
  • That's all I spotted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • All concerns addressed, thank you for your comments.--WillC 04:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I made one tweak to the lead because it would take less time than detailing it here, and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you--WillC 11:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Tour de France finished two days ago. This is a list that shows all the teams and the riders who participated. All the riders are shown first, including their placing in the general classification, and are then grouped by team and summarised by nation below.

This is my first attempt at preparing and nominating a featured list – I've never come near this page before. I've mostly followed another FL (List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia) as a guide, but it's fairly old so I don't know how much it reflects modern practice. Your advice and criticism is very much appreciated. Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tables review - Relentlessly, the tables need "scope" formatting, as explained in MOS:DTT. Also, the table for "By nationality" has no referencing on it. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile66 and many thanks for the review. I think I've added the scope as required in that page? I've also added some references to the lead section of that paragraph, but all the data in the table replicates content and references from above. Does this address your concerns?
A question, looking at that MOS page, is whether it should be using table summaries (for the "by rider" section) and table captions (for the "by team" section). Could you comment?
Many thanks again for your comments. Relentlessly (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, first of all, let me say that I should have given you more clear instructions. There is also scope=row to be done (and more tedious to do each row). I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me about the summaries/captions. But I think FL List of Tour de France general classification winners is a good example of what you are looking for. The cycling FL I find seem to have all been done in 2011. The individual tables aren't referenced as yours are, but in passing FL or FA, consistency is noticed. Consistency is referencing, also, so I'm satisfied with the references you added to the lead paragraph of "By nationality". — Maile (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Maile66. I was going by the footnote on that page that suggests only adding scope="row" to th elements. But I have updated the page with your suggested change (and that's what regex is for!). WRT summaries, I'm wondering whether doing this would be better than what I've done so far? Relentlessly (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - I'm happy to give you the first Support on this nomination. As for your comment about that which might be better - I say, as long as you stay within the MOS and are consistent throughout, take the easiest route. Wikipedia always has several different ways of arriving at the same point. Good luck to you. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I think the "team" part of the title is superfluous since it is pretty obvious this is a list targeted towards cyclists. Also, I believe the final position entry should include the times. Nergaal (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    No, it lists teams and then cyclists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Nergaal, thanks for commenting. I didn't create the article, and its name is consistent with other Grand Tour cycling lists. I think "teams" refers to two things: the list of teams at the top (relevant because each cycling race has a different selection of teams entered) and the listings of teams (the "by teams" section). As to the times, I can add them if you think it adds significant value to the article. The trouble is that there is endless data you can add – points, mountain points, other standings. It'll take a little while, but I think it's a reasonable thing to add: I'll get on and do it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


  • #61 is lacking the time
  • should DSQ-14 be listed above DNF-14?
  • listing riders by their jersey numbers kinda makes sense, but they are already listed in that order in the by team section. would the list look better if they were listed in order of classification?
  • the teams section is missing the nationalities
  • perhaps the likely rationale for wild cards would be useful since this is a "list of teams"
  • the "by x" sections should be merged into a "Cyclists" one, then the "by" part would make sense
  • intro should mention that x nationalities were represented, with France about 20% of the riders
  • isn't this the first time Eritrea was represented?
  • perhaps mention briefly the biggest absentees?
  • Quintana won two jerseys?

Nergaal (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your additional comments, Nergaal. One by one:
  • Done, thanks.
  • Yes, that's how it appears in ProCyclingStats. He was disqualified during the stage.
  • I can see your point, though I'm not sure it makes much odds, as they are very easy to re-sort! It's a list of the riders, though, rather than a report of the general classification: it's more a start list than a finishing list.
  • The teams' nationalities? They are frequently irrelevant: teams do not represent their countries in any sense, and are often misleading. For example, BMC is registered as American but is based in Switzerland.
  • Added.
  • Agreed, done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I'm not sure who this would be or how it would be phrased without going into OR. Marcel Kittel is the most obvious absentee, perhaps along with Philippe Gilbert, but all the contenders for the overall classification were present. Very happy to think again if you think this is important.
  • Removed the duplicate.
Thanks for your thorough review. Relentlessly (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support you deleted Quintana's name though. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wolfmother discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Shaidar cuebiyar & Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as it was previously nominated in September 2008 (FLC #1) however not all issues were addressed it was subsquently renominated later that month (FLC #2) but failed as some additional issues were not addressed. Shaidar cuebiyar and I have since gone through and made extensive revisions & updates to address all previous outstanding issues and bring it up to FL standards. We have also had a review undertaken by the Guild of Copy Editors. We believe that the article now satisifies all the FL criteria and should be re-considered for promotion. Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

With my comments addressed, I can Support this. I'd appreciate any comments you could give at my FLC. Azealia911 talk 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness, I don't see that the list is missing somenthing essential that prevents it from gaining FA status.--Retrohead (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

SupportFrankie talk 11:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian biographical sports drama film Mary Kom starring Priyanka Chopra as the eponymous boxer. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note for the delegates, that DoDung2001 has been indef blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, a sockmaster. Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I can't find anything wrong with the list.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, so many supports. I must have done something right. Thank you everyone.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


  • The second sentence of the opening para needs to be rephrased for clarity.
  • Not sure if "while" and "whereas" can be used in the same sentence.
  • "the film was released on 5 September 2014." - where?
    • Is the TIFF held out of the world? Vensatry (ping) 19:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Dont see the issue here? TIFF helds in Toronto? Also release refers to worldwide? What's going on here?Daan0001 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Any suggestions @Vensatry:?—Prashant 07:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It was premiered at the TIFF on 4 Sep 2014 before having a theatrical release (worldwide if I'm right) the next day. Vensatry (ping) 11:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry: Tweaked it a bit.—Prashant 17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The film received generally positive reviews from critics and was a commercial success" - This needs multiple reliable sources
  • "Best Film and Best Actress for Chopra" Comma needed after Best Film
  • "Dialogue of the Year" - ditto
  • This source, cited in the article, states the film received seven nominations at the 21st Screen Awards whereas the article says eight. Furthermore, 'Best Actress – Popular Choice' isn't verified by any of the sources.
  • See reference number 22. —Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm still not able to find. Vensatry (ping) 12:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Source number 23 clearly verifies it. After adding another source this became 23 as previously it was 22.—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but the source doesn't say she won the award. Looks like it lists only the nominees. Vensatry (ping) 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Vensatry: The article does not claim her win for Best Actress Popular, she was only nominated and the source verifies it.—Prashant 13:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My bad. But then, two of the sources which you've used says the film got only seven nominations, excluding the popular choice award. Looks like the category doesn't having nominations. Vensatry (ping) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Vensatry: Popular Awards nominations are declared along with those Jury nominations. It's just that (you know) Indian media does not cover these things. I hope its clear now.—Prashant 11:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is two of the sources doesn't include that cat. in the nominees list. They say the film received seven nominations. Vensatry (ping) 17:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes 'Arab Indo Bollywood Awards' and 'Jagran Film Festival' notable ceremonies?
These awards are supported by secondary sources and the latter is even present in this featured list as well.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Would like to have the opinion of others. Vensatry (ping) 12:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Would you like to say something about this?—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You need to look at Cowlibob's comments here. I hope its helpful.—Prashant 11:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I was pinged here. I shall simply state what I said in the other nomination. If the award ceremony is able to be redlinked. Per WP:REDLINK, it needs be verifiable and notable (i.e. meet WP:GNG). If it was covered in depth by reliable sources i.e. not just a rundown of winners and nominees so much that you could build an article on it (which is the reason for redlinking) then it should be included in the table of accolades. I haven't looked at these particular ones but I think if sources could be provided supporting notability then they can be included. Cowlibob (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The film never won a Bronze Horse, rather was awarded at the Stockholm International Film Festival Junior. This year's ceremony of the Stockholm International Film Festival is yet to take place.
  • Link the first occurrence of all publishers in refs.

Vensatry (ping) 09:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Done and thanks for your inputs. It really means a lot.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Additional comment
  • What makes '' a RS?

Vensatry (ping) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Replaced it with a TOI source.—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to the delegates – Highly displeased with the nominator's behaviour, so not willing to continue my review. He first came up with this a week ago after I left my comments here, and now has labelled my review as silly. Vensatry (ping) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to the delegates - I didn't labelled his review silly but his one point. The film received 8 nominations at the 2015 Screen Awards, however, this user has an issue—why? 8 nomination are mentioned, and not 7 (according to him). The eighth nomination is cited by another source, and despite knowing that, he was going on and on. The list is perfectly cited by good sources. He even questioned things, which are already present in other FLs, something that is very frustrating. Plus, this user took more than 10 days to review this and was still not clear what he was doing. He could have stretched it to 21st of next month. I tried to resolve his comments politely, but this was the final straw.—Prashant 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
You cannot pester somebody to review/re-visit nominations. If you go through the history, it would be quite evident that I wasn't abandoning your nomination. So you cannot offend me for not turning up. Your behaviour towards reviewers in FACs/FLCs is a well-known thing, I'm not surprised. Vensatry (ping) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support meets the criteria. Harrias talk 07:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

List of French Open men's singles champions[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after a lot of cleaning up I believe the list is now close to meeting featured standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
  • You say twice in the first paragraph that the tournament is held in May and June.
fixed. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs 9 and 33 have harv errors. They use the sfn format which requires ref=harv added to the source.
fixed. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The history section is far too long for a list article. Readers will generally look at the article on the French Open itself when they want to know about the history. One option would be to move the whole section to become a sub-section of the main article. Of course, you would need to move the history section from the list of women's champions as well for balance.
Although not a reason in itself to keep the section, there are precedents for this. See List of Ryder Cup matches, List of Tour de France general classification winners, List of Birmingham City F.C. managers and the recently promoted List of The Boat Race results. The section may be on the long side, but I'm reluctant to do away with it altogether, I could shorten it to four paragraphs, which would probably be more manageable? NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that I raised this with FLC delegate SchroCat at User talk:SchroCat#FLC criteria. He suggested cutting it substantially.
I've had a go at condensing the information down @Dudley Miles:, seems a lot more manageable now, to me anyway. NapHit (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The article should really be "List of French Open men's singles finalists" as it lists the losers as well.
I disagree with this. I feel it is necessary to include the losers as it would be bare with just the champions listed. If there is a consensus to change the title then it should be to finals instead of finalists. I feel more input is needed on this. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well we can agree to disagree on that.
  • What does a dash mean against the score - runner-up withdrew? If so, you should explain this.
Should be explained now. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Years in italics indicate competitions before 1925, which were only open to French tennis club members and nationals." You say "and nationals" but foreigners did take part.
This should also be clearer now. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The headings General and Specific under Footnotes do not make sense and should be removed. The "General" ones could go below references as "External links"
These are quite common actually in lists. The general ref is for referencing the table and specific relates to inline citations. I think it works well the way it is. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see that as you say this is used in other similar lists. Strange.
  • Some sources such as "French Open Men's champions". SuperSport. Retrieved 15 July 2015." show Fassitt as British, others American as you have him. Is it clear which nationality he was?
It's not perfectly clear. It appears he was American, judging by a few ancestry websites, but no concrete information is available. I could add a note stating this? NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that this is necessary. I was just curious as I had put him down as British - based on sources which are now dead links - on another list..
Thanks for the comments @Dudley:, I have addressed and responded to them. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks close to FLC now to me. Just needs history section shortened and one other point. " Not considered a champion by the slam" is an odd wording. It is better expressed in the article on the Tournai de France. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - Satisfies criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


  • " with nine. Nadal also holds the record..." -> " with nine. He also holds the record..."
  • Not sure it's clear what the delineation between the Championships and the Open really is here?
  • Andrés Gimeno needs an accent.
  • I would have expected "34 years and nine months old" to be "34 years and 9 months" (comparable quantities).
  • "French players have won the most French Open titles with 38. Spanish players are second with 12 and Australian players are third with 11." reads clumsily to me, especially the second sentence, so maybe merge this and start something like "French players have won the most French Open titles, with 38 victories, followed by Spanish players (12) and Australian players (11)".? Or something different perhaps?
  • Why is it "club members" in the infobox, not "Championships"?
    • That refers to when the competition was just contested by players who were members of French tennis clubs. While internationals refers to when the tournament became an international event in 1925. This and the one below are a bit ambiguous, I personally think just Decugis should be included in the infobox. NapHit (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Similar query about "internationals" in the infobox, is that "Open"?
  • No appropriate link for Club Stade Français ?
  • There may be some cause for confusion over the alternative usage of the phrase "Grand Slam" one to refer to the tournament, the other to refer to winning all four Grand Slams in a calendar year, perhaps for the Budge fact, be expansive.
  • "became an open.[11] The tournament became an Open in 1968" repetitive, inconsistent capitalisation.
  • "would dominate" used too often, in fact the whole dominance things is a little overused I think.
  • "Robin Söderling" needs an umlaut.
  • When/why did it change from best of 3 to best of 5, 1906? Worth noting?
  • Don or Donald Budge?
  • Second link to "Score in the final" doesn't go the desired page section.
  • "Carlos Moyà" accent incorrect.

That's about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @The Rambling Man:, I've got them all hopefully. Regarding the change of sets from 3 to 5 in 1906, I can't find a source that states that they did change from 3 to 5. I can include it regardless, but I feel it needs to be cited. NapHit (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why do H. Briggs and Francky Wardan have "BRI" by the flag, but the other British players have "GBR"?
  • Rather than constructions such as "he would be" and "would dominate" can you use a more straightforward past tense, "he was" and "dominated". You've done the latter most of the time, but used the former a few times, try to remain consistent. Harrias talk 19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    I tend to find that American English is dominated by this style of "he would go on to win" rather than "he won".... it's odd to me too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the comments @Harrias:, I've addressed them both. NapHit (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Shahid Kapoor filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My 10th nomination on the filmography of an Indian celebrity. This one is about Shahid Kapoor's film, television, and music video roles. As usual, look forward to constructive comments. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The nominator seem to have retired abruptly. If anyone would like to review the list and finds any issues, please let me know. I would like to get this done for and on the behalf of the nominator. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Users may add comments, and I will try to solve them all. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vivvt: So will I. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • Done
  • Wikilink "caper thriller".
  • Done
  • "proved to be his first commercial success in three years" — Should be four years as Kaminey was released in 2009.
  • Done
@Vivvt: That's about it from me. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have resolved all your comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vivvt: Thanks for resolving them, Vivvt. I support this article's promotion to FL. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Based on what my experience, the list looks fine. I might add more comments, but for now it looks okay.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)[edit]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1930–1934. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series[edit]

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) and Adamstom.97 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This list meets all of the criteria, is similar to its "sister" article List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (which is a featured list), and is a worthy candidate to add to the ever expanding good and featured articles under the Marvel Cinematic Universe banner. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • "One-Shot", capitalised and blue-linked as part of something that doesn't explain what it means (although it can be inferred) is probably worth avoiding. Perhaps "pilot film", or a link to Marvel One-Shots would be better.
  • Yes check.svg Done. Broke up the link.
  • "because S.H.I.E.L.D. is so strong on the moment" -> If this is how the source words it, we could do with a [sic] after "on" since it really should be "at the moment".
  • Yes check.svg Done. This is how the source words it, so added sic.
  • Your descriptions of the shows should probably begin with an introduction of some sort to signify they're "in universe", since there's no heading to indicate a difference between describing plot and describing production. Something like changing "Agent Phil Coulson puts together a small team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents to handle strange new cases" to "Agents of SHIELD sees agent Phil Coulson putting together a small team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents to handle strange new cases" would suffice.
  • This is following a similar format from the sister films list, and I don't believe there has been an issue distinguishing the in-universe from the real world info. I'll ping the other creator to see what they feel. @Adamstom.97:
  • That's fair enough. It's not of vital importance either way. GRAPPLE X 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Similarly, there's a fair bit of assumption that the reader knows plot information already--a quick aside at the first in-universe mention of things like SHIELD, Hydra, etc to explain what they are would be useful.
  • These uses are meant to be quick overviews of each series and appearances in them. It is meant to push the reader to the actual articles for the show to gain more info on things read here.
  • I get that it's not wise to be bogged down in too much detail but it helps to be self-contained to a degree, or you do end up with the impression of jargon. It could be worth seeing if a reviewer unfamiliar with the concepts would struggle or be happy enough with it. GRAPPLE X 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • They seem manageable for now but I can see the recurring cast tables growing quite unwieldy with the addition of even one or two more series/seasons; while it is a good idea to show the cast/character crossovers, it might be worth considering how to handle this as it evolves.
  • That bridge will be crossed when we get there, but yes, it is something we have our eye on.
  • DVR could use a pipe link to explain it, as it's not a universal or international term.
  • Yes check.svg Done.
  • The "critical response" table is presented without any context. Throw in a quick sentence or two under the header, before the table, explaining the role of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
  • I added a hat note under "reception". I don't feel Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes need a sentence explaining them, when they are wikilinked, and readers can follow that to see what each site is.
  • There's no alt text for any images, this is needed.
  • Yes check.svg Done.
  • On the subject of images, we have several free files used throughout the article, which lessens the justification for a non-free files in the lead (especially when the Marvel logo is apparently PD).
  • How so?
  • WP:NFCC #1 requires that there is "no free equivalent"; the file as it stands is just window dressing, it doesn't actually serve the purpose of demonstration, explanation or commentary--and in that role we do have free equivalents, as the logo of the company responsible, or portraits of several of the cast members, would serve the same purpose.GRAPPLE X 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that no free alternative exists to represent these series. The Marvel logo is too generic, and cast members are not good images to use for this article. They are used at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors, where it is more applicable. The current image is not the best overall encompassing image (as it excludes the Netflix series), but it is the best alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm just in the office for now so I haven't been able to do a source review or anything, but I can come back to this again at home to look into it further. GRAPPLE X 08:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added responses to your queries above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


  • "While the broadcast series have not seen exemplary ratings, all MCU series have received strong critical reception." seems like a POV thing to say, as if we'd somehow expect them to be brilliant, but some just don't quite make it.
  • "began considering expanding" grim English.
  • "Marvel was once again developing" again, a little tabloidy for me, perhaps rephrase?
  • Bobbi Morse pipes to a dab.
  • "ABC series" table is selectively inline referenced, why?
  • Netflix series has "2015" as a streaming date, can we not get that more specific considering we're now nearly 3/4 of the way through 2015?
  • Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, such as you have with each of the Netflix series synopses.
  • I don't understand what "3.0/9 (20)" means.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles, e.g. ref 84.
  • Zap2it doesn't have a capital I.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive history and list of the tallest high-rise buildings in Brooklyn. The introduction is a bit shorter than that of the list for New York City, but this can be forgiven as this merely deals with the sole borough of Brooklyn. Any comments, guidance, and assistance to make this a Featured List is appreciated and welcomed! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Note to reviewers (because it was the first question I had when I saw this nomination): You'd think that this list would be a subset of List of tallest buildings in New York City and thus a content fork, but as that list only has buildings higher than 600 feet, and the tallest building in Brooklyn is 590 feet, there is 0% overlap. --PresN 03:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments Looks like a good list. Here are my few suggestions:

  • I would remove "proposed" buildings, as this is a list of tallest buildings, not potential tallest buildings that might be built (running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL).
  • The second last paragraph is a bit hard to follow, maybe you could make clear the present ranking of the building in terms of height to help the reader keep track? Otherwise the last sentence "The borough's fourth-tallest" comes out of nowhere (why 4th, what about the other 3?).
  • Mattximus, I've clarified that The Brooklyner and the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower are the second and third-tallest buildings in the borough per your suggestion. Please let me know if this current configuration works! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A thumbnail image of 388 Bridge Street would look good to the right of the lead, as it is the tallest building in Brooklyn.
  • Mattximus, I concur with this idea, however, a decent free image of 388 Bridge Street is not yet available on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not in New York at the moment to take a photo. I'm currently working on acquiring one as we speak, but this change may not happen within the timeline of this review. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "This list ranks completed and topped out Brooklyn skyscrapers" is an old way of writing that is no longer considered good form for featured lists. It could be changed to "There are 32 completed or topped out skyscrapers in Brooklyn..."
  • Mattximus, this has been changed per your suggestion. Let me know if it works in its new form. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." could be deleted and your column could be changed to "year completed".
  • City Point Tower II is indicated to be under construction, but is not in the under construction table. This should be made clear.
  • Mattximus, thank you for the catch! I've entered City Point Tower II in the under construction section, as it is still under construction. It was also remain in the main list, since it has been topped out. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For this one, I don't think it's necessary to have it in both tables. I would just keep it where it was in the big table and just have a footnote stating "topped out but still under construction" or something like that. Will continue my review later, but it overall looks good.
  • Mattximus, it is commonplace in other Featured Lists of tall buildings to twice-mention a building that is under construction and topped out: once in the list of completed buildings so that the reader can see the building has successfully reached its planned height, and once in the under construction list since the building is still technically eligible for listing there due to its incomplete status. Again, I am flexible with this and if need be, could include a footnote instead. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I still think having it once in the main list is fine, however I won't oppose the nomination on this little point. Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings" I think this is redundant and not needed.
  • Please do not remove equal sign, they are very important! You just don't need to say equal signs mean equal in the paragraph, it's tautological.
  • "An asterisk (*) indicates that the building is still under construction, but has been topped out." This could be done as a footnote as is done in many tables.
  • Mattximus, I've added a footnote and have included this statement under an "Explanatory notes" subsection. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very good article. Mattximus (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Made a few changes myself, let me know if they are acceptable.
Close to support but a few little points:
  • You mention that there are 32 buildings over 300 feet, but I count 29? You will need a citation for that number, but one of the pages already cited probably has that number in it, just need to add the citation where I put the tags.

Support if these little changes are made. Great work! Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Mattximus, I've recounted and there are 32 buildings. That two pairs of buildings that are the same height, and are therefore, tied. I had removed the equal signs per your request. I've added an inline citation to the Emporis website that lists all the completed buildings. I've also taken City Point Tower II out of the under construction list per your request. It is now listed in the main list only, with an asterisk illustrating that it has been topped out. Thank you for all your guidance and support throughout this process, and please let me know if you have any further suggestions to improve the overall quality of this list! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, just one thing, please return the equal signs as per my explanation above. I guess you counted buildings that are 297 feet as being "over 300", that's where my number discrepancy came from. But it's close enough so I won't quibble over that one. Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Mattximus, I sincerely apologize for my oversight, the list covers buildings at a height of or over 295 feet (90 m). 90 meters was the benchmark here, to be more inclusive since some buildings hover just under 300 ft. I've re-added the equal signs. Take another look and let me know what you think! Also, thank you for your edits and additions, they are greatly appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks very good. Just caught a little one: "This measurement includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts", the citation doesn't include this information, can it be found somewhere on that site (specifically, where did you get this definition for height)? Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Mattximus, the specific height for each building was pulled from the individual pages. The heights used here use the architectural heights, and not the heights of antenna masts, but this information can only be gleaned from the individual pages. Any suggestions as how to best illustrate this point? -- West Virginian (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This kind of refutes one of Mattximus's points above, but the articles "List of tallest buildings in New York City" and "List of tallest buildings in Bellevue, Washington", both featured lists, does indeed have a "Tallest proposed buildings" section. Provided that these buildings are definitely in the final planning stages and not just one developer's vision for a supertall skyscraper (which would then be violating this policy), a table of proposed builginds can be added to the article.

Also, a consistent reference format is needed; you should use either almost all {{sfn}} (or a variant like {{harvnb}}) or almost all expanded citations like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. Epic Genius (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Epic Genius, per your point, I have reinstated the list of proposed buildings. None of the buildings mentioned are considered visions, and all are slated to begin construction within the next two years. If any of the buildings should become stale proposals, or be cancelled, they will of course be removed. Regarding the sources, it is a common practice to use harvnb format for sources from published books with multiple pages referenced, and to use cite web and cite newspaper for websites and newspaper articles without page numbers. I admit that it does look a bit strange with the two being used side by side. I could repeat the cite book each time with the new page number, but it could become quite cluttered in the citations section. Cogitate on that and let me know what you think. Thank you for your comments and suggestions and for your guidance on the list provided thus far! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with this statement from Epic Genius. A while back I went through many of the featured tallest buildings list, and in nearly every case the "proposed buildings" were almost all never built, with old links from many years ago proclaiming how great this building is going to be. Based on these experiences, I don't believe any of these lists should have speculative proposed buildings. It is not encyclopedic to report on non-buildings. No other (largest/longest lists etc.) have speculative potential entries in their lists. I've tried to remove them from all previous featured lists and met with no resistance (since almost all those proposed buildings were cancelled many years ago when these articles were promoted anyway). The only exception is if the building is actually under construction then we have at least a physical thing to put on this list. Speculative potential ones could end up in an architect's dusty cabinet even if "approved". Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Mattximus, I've removed the proposed list pending consensus on the subject. The list can stand alone without the list of proposed buildings. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is best, thanks for making the change, when the buildings are built then they can be added to the list without problem, there is no need to predict the future. Mattximus (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is fine as well. Epic Genius (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Epicgenius, did you have any further guidance or comments regarding my responses above? I wanted to ensure that I addressed all your concerns. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Epicgenius I've modified the references per your recommendation. Please take a look and let me know if you see any other impediments. Thank you again for taking the time to review this list for FL! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @West Virginian: Thank you for your hard work on this article. I am happy to support this nomination. Epic Genius (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Support – good work. Any chance you could look at this? -- Frankie talk 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Frankie: Forbidding MOS, I don't see why else "New York City" shouldn't be linked. It's a pretty relevant link, and one doesn't need to click through the "Brooklyn" wikilink to get to the NYC page. Might be my personal preference, but I'm just stating that this would be a pretty obvious choice of wikilinks. Epic Genius (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks for your concern. However, I had based my query on WP:OVERLINK, which states "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions [should not be linked]", but seeing this article, which is related to NYC, I think there shouldn't be any problem of overlinking (if it's wiki-linked). -- Frankie talk 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Epicgenius and FrB.TG, thank you both for your support first and foremost! My personal reading of Wikipedia's "overlinking" guidelines is this: linking a place name of a major geographical location is only "overlinking" if you link say New York City for a birthplace mention, place of business mention, or some other secondary or tertiary mention. This is a list of high-rises in a borough of New York City, so it wouldn't hurt if it was linked in this context as these buildings are in New York City. However, I am in agreement with both sides. I would like a solution to be agreed upon by both of you so that this list is free of controversy and can be promoted. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I suppose in this scenario, "New York City" can be linked once, but not "New York" or "United States", as these two linkages go against WP:OVERLINK. Epic Genius (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Seconded. -- Frankie talk 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Epicgenius and FrB.TG: Alright, then it is settled! I've re-wiki-linked New York City in the lists's lede. Thank you all for your guidance and support for this list! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Azealia911[edit]

  • I'm not seeing an image until I use the page down button, consider an image (maybe the tallest building in Brooklyn) for the main image to situate next to the right of the lead.
  • Brooklyn /ˈbrʊklɪn/Brooklyn (pronounced /ˈbrʊklɪn/)
  • Per WP:LEAD#Citations, you can remove citations for things later repeated in the article. EG, you can remove ref #2 from which rises 590 feet (180 m) and was opened in 2014.[2] as it's repeated in the table lower down the page. Do the same for any other applicable lead citations.
  • Consider moving references in tables to a Ref column.
  • Any refs which publisher ends in .com → |website= as opposed to |publisher=

Alls I spotted, a good list! Azealia911 talk 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Azealia911, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this review. I appreciate your guidance and feedback. As there are no decent images of Brooklyn's tallest and second-tallest high-rise buildings, Epicgenius has added an image of the third-tallest high-rise taken from Atlantic Terminal. Under the history section, I added an image of what is considered Brooklyn's "first skyscraper" as it is mentioned in the prose. I also incorporated Brooklyn (pronounced /ˈbrʊklɪn/) into the lede. I also removed the original reference two and three other references similar to it that are mentioned below in the list. As for the reference column, I had originally had one but a previous user recommended I remove it, so I've done so. I've also changed all the instances of "|publisher=" for the sources to "|website=." Please take another look and let me know if I've missed anything. Once again, thank you so much for the review and thoughtful comments and suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Azealia911: Let me know if you have any outstanding questions or concerns regarding this article. Once again, thank you for your review and feedback! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support All comments have been addressed! Azealia911 talk 20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose sorry to be so late....

  • Why is "295 feet (90 m)" considered the cut-off point for inclusion here? Is that a height that's usually considered by other reliable sources as a significant height for buildings? If not, why are we using it here?
  • There feels like a little bit of citekill going on here, e.g. "By 1901, the 13-story Temple Bar Building was completed and was the borough's first steel-beam high-rise, its largest office building, and its tallest at 164 feet (50 m).[5][8][9][10]" does that really need four separate sources?
  • A mildly repetitive phrase "high-rise" appears ten times in the three paragraphs of the History section.
  • For a building to have a "Year completed" as "—" without notes, seems a little odd.
  • Conversion issues: "301 (95)" and "310 (95)" then "315 (96)", just not consistent, the difference between the former and the latter in feet is 14, but in metres is 1, that's just incorrect.
  • Timeline of tallest building, check out WP:DATERANGE, I thought 1901–1918 should be 1901–18.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2010 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2010 Pacific hurricane season featured the fewest number of named storms on record in the eastern portion of the basin. Despite its inactivity, two storms were particularly devastating in Central America and Mexico: Tropical Storm Agatha and Tropical Depression Eleven-E. This list covers the status changes (such as formation, dissipation, category upgrade/downgrade, etc.) of the season's 13 tropical cyclones based on the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center's post-storm reports. The format is based on previous featured hurricane timelines and this particular article should match FLC standards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • This timeline includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that data from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. - did this happen? Afiak, no new storms were added. Otherwise, I love the format, and with clarification, I'm happy to support. Definitely one of the better hurricane season timelines on Wikipedia. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed the generic line to mention the subtropical phase of Omeka, which wasn't warned on operationally. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Dudley
  • Support. A first rate list. One minor comment.
  • "These dates typically limit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the eastern Pacific basin." "limit" does not sound right in this context. Should it be "cover"?
  • Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from West Virginian
  • Cyclonebiskit, this list's lede meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and the list meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The first image is released into the public domain, the second image is licensed CC BY 2.0, and the third through eighth images are released into the public domain, so all are acceptable for use here. I only have one suggestion, and that is all eight images will require "alt" captions explaining the contents of the images, in addition to the standard caption. (See: Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season). I have no other comments, questions, or suggestions, and find that this article is in keeping with other featured lists of hurricane season timelines. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - West Virginian, I added the alt text to the images, which now number 10, to help move this along. I'm adding my support, as I feel this is a well-done list. Would appreciate if anyone has time and can comment on my nomination here. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for covering that! I honestly forgot this was still up at FLC, and my apologies to West Virginian for missing your comments. Thank you both for the supports :) Fair enough for me to return the favor, Maile. I'll take a look at your nomination shortly. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Chart needs en-dashes for speed ranges per MOS.
  • What happened to 118km/h?
  • En-dash needed for Saffir–Simpson in the chart as well.
  • And it's now called "Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale".
  • Image captions, things like "(left)" should be "(left)".
  • There seems no real reason to include either of those external links, neither are directly related to this article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

Michael Jackson videography[edit]

Nominating this list per it's lack of sourcing throughout. Specifically:

Music videos
  • In the Director(s) column, several listings contain "N/A", which is not only untemplated, but also unexplained.
  • In the Director(s) column, several listings contain no director at all for unexplained reasons.
  • A total of 19 entries are unreferenced.
  • A total of 3 entries are unreferenced.
Video albums
  • The listing Making of Michael Jackson's Thriller is unreferenced.
  • The listing HIStory World Tour: Live in Seoul is unreferenced.
  • The listing Michael Jackson's This Is It is unreferenced.
  • The listing Bad 25 is unreferenced.
  • Fifteen dead references: #2, #55, #64, #66, #80, #74, #71, #73, #83, #76, #79, #82, #75, #84, #72.
  • Several references (#11, #12, #16) are other Wikipedia articles.
  • Ref #50 is a bare url.

Been nearly six years since this list was promoted, and its quality has unfortunately not been upheld. Azealia911 talk 19:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist – I am very sad to say it, but this list currently does not meet the criteria as expected. Also, Azealia, you're supposed to notify the main editor, but Pyrrhus16, I believe, is inactive. -- Frankie talk 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did take notifications into account, and probably should have noted, but both the article creator and it's main editors have been inactive for a great length of time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Michael Jackson is also inactive. Azealia911 talk 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Birdman discography[edit]

Notified: Sufur222, WikiProject Discographies

Nominating for removal due to many issues I've found (some which were worryingly present when the list was promoted). More specifically:

  • Article is plagued with dead links, specifically, 7 dead links.
  • His first Studio album I Need A Bag of Dope isn't referenced.
  • His sixth Studio album Rich Life isn't referenced.
  • Between As lead artist and As featured artist, a grand toal of seventeen singles without independent articles are not referenced to prove they are singles, as opposed to songs that had strong downloads and charted. twenty-three singles listings that have independent article are also not referenced. However, it shouldn't be ok for listings with articles to be without reference, for example, Stuntin' Like My Daddy's article doesn't give reference that it's a single either.
  • This is probably the biggest one for me, there's a lot of three figure numbers in singles tables. There's only 100 spaces on the Billboard Hot 100 (if you couldn't guess from the name) yet I see "118" and "109", there's a note that explains the songs charted on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, however the 25 places on the bubbling under are not a direct extension, and the placing should have a "—" with the note next to it, as opposed to having the note next to the songs title, for some reason.
  • Similar to above, a lot of songs listed as above 50 in regards to the "US R&B" collumn. The name references the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, which as 50 places, yet I'm seeing "73", "65", "71". Some of these are explained in notes next to the songs titles, others are not. The main reference in the column does not cover the +50 places, thus needing additional citation.
  • 3 references in the Notes section are dead, but for some reason don't appear in the checklinks analysis.

At this point I'd probably give it the old "Article has come a long way since its promotion in 2012", but most of these issues were present when it was promoted. Azealia911 talk 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about this. As the original submitter of the page to FL status, it concerns me that no one stopped to tell me these things during the original submission, although admittedly I've neglected it somewhat in recent times. I'll get everything fixed ASAP. I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Azealia911 talk 15:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

List of birds of Massachusetts[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Massachusetts

Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.

With absolutely no inline citations, it is assumed that the content of this list is all backed up the information provided in five references provided at the bottom of the article, but this is unclear. Harrias talk 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

List of birds of Kansas[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Kansas

Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.

This article has precisely one inline citation, which is in the "fictional" section at the bottom of the list. The rest of the article, and the lead, is presumably sourced to the three general references provided, though it is unclear, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point there. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, and less reader annoying to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of birds of Florida[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Florida

Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.

This list has a decent lead, but all the inline citations provided in the article are within that lead. A bibliography is provided, but there is no indication which, if any, sources back up the main body of the list, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

List of birds of Egypt[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Egypt, WikiProject Africa

Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.

This list has an extremely short lead, which can not possibly summarise the content of the article, and all four inline citations provided are in that lead. The bulk of the article is presumably all covered by "General" references. Harrias talk 14:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing about FL process, honestly. Two questions: 1) Wouldn't it be way more efficient to just fix the lead wording than to launch a removal process? It probably took more time to describe the problem in the lead than to reword it. What is the wording problem? (Well, that's question 1A). 2) How is a lead supposed to summarize a list, more than introducing it? Is there a checklist of some sort? Understand the citation problem of course. What's the timeframe?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Hello? Anyone?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't notice the reply here. In response to your questions:
  1. Maybe it would, but to be honest I'm not particularly bothered about the lists, and that issue is very much the tip of the iceberg. I could fix that, but the list would still be far from featured quality.
  2. Although still not an ideal article, List of birds of Thailand gives an idea of how the lead can provide more useful information, and something of a summary of the content, rather than simply a dry, rather meaningless introduction which is more akin to a key. Harrias talk 13:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I've notified WT:BIRDS about what's expected from the lead.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: To centralize discussion, I'm excerpting something you'd written on another of these (and which is consistent with what you wrote on several more): The [bulk] of the article, and the lead, is presumably sourced to the three general references provided, though it is unclear, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)'
Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article was used to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point in including inline citations in those cases. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, less reader-annoying, and much less wasted productivity to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2. Surely the featured list process accounts for such things?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your argument, and it is a reasonably fair one. My issue at the moment is that it simply isn't immediately apparent what comes from where; you might know, but the article gives little indication of it. Look at the bottom part of WP:MINREF for an idea of what I mean. Harrias talk 15:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)