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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift[edit]

Nominator(s): FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what else to say other than Taylor Swift is one of the most popular singer-songwriters of the world, and has received many many awards. I have excluded the non-notable awards. I believe it satisfies the Featured list criteria. I will try to address reviewers' comments with the best of my ability.

Note: In the list, I have considered some awards had nominations (although they didn't), such as 4 Guinness awards out of 4 nominations, to avoid confusing the readers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tabu filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tabu is perhaps the one Bollywood actress whose filmography is diverse to the extent of being strange. On one hand, she played the Lady Macbeth character in the brilliant Maqbool and on the other, she played a woman who is raped by a ghost in Hawa. She played the seductive bar dancer in the gritty Chandni Bar and also the coy wife in the regressive melodrama Hum Saath-Saath Hain. Superstar or not, she is the bravest Hindi film heroine from the 1990s. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

List of The Last of Us characters[edit]

Nominator(s): -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the characters featured in The Last of Us and providing insight to their importance within the game and in a real context. The article provides a detailed overview of the characters roles within the game, as well as the development process that was undertaken for the characters. Along with the high quality of content within the article, this proves to me that the article is good to go all the way. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments:

  • WP:ALT needed for the lead image.
  • "deals with the relationship between a man named Joel and a young girl named Ellie" – those two "named" are redundant. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

NWA World Middleweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ -US  01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it hits all the marks for featured lists including an engaging lead, it is encompassing the subject, it is fully sourced with reliable sources, well written, it adheres to the list format for professional wrestling championships and the subject matter is definitely Feature List worthy as a number of professional wrestling championship lists are Featured Lists, including 12 articles I have previous led through the FL process.  MPJ -US  01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Julianne Moore filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Julianne Moore is one of the great modern Hollywood actresses. Known for her dual role on the television soap As the World Turns, and her variety of roles in films ranging from a veteran adult film star in Boogie Nights (1997), a troubled 1950s housewife in The Hours (2002) to her Academy Award winning role as a sufferer of early onset Alzheimer's in Still Alice (2014). This list provides a summary of her film and television career. As always look forward to all the helpful comments to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from jimknut


  • "Julianne Moore is an American actress who made her acting debut on television in the television mystery series The Edge of Night in 1984." — "Julianne Moore is an American actress who made her acting debut in 1984 in the television mystery series The Edge of Night." (no need to have "television" in the sentence twice, especially so close together)
  • "before her breakthrough role in Robert Altman's drama Short Cuts in 1993." — "before her breakthrough role in Robert Altman's drama Short Cuts (1993)." (in addition to this change can you explain what makes this her "breakthrough"?)
  • "The following year, she starred in the Coen brothers-directed crime comedy The Big Lebowski (1998), and Gus Van Sant's Hitchcock remake Psycho (1998)." — "The following year, she starred in the Coen brothers' crime comedy The Big Lebowski and Gus Van Sant's remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho." ("-directed" after Coen brothers not needed, just a '; comma not needed after Lebowski; the year of release is not needed for either film since your preceding sentence states 1997, hence most people can figure out that 1998 would be "the following year"; Psycho is not a "Hitchcock remake", it is a remake of an Alfred Hitchcock film)
  • "In 2001, Moore reunited with Hopkins on crime thriller sequel Hannibal, appeared in science fiction comedy Evolution, and the drama The Shipping News." — "In 2001 Moore reunited with Anthony Hopkins in the crime thriller Hannibal and also appeared in the science fiction comedy Evolution and the drama The Shipping News." ("in" insead of "on"; add in "the" as needed; commas not needed; spell out Anthony Hopkins' full name since it was several sentences back since you first mentioned him; drop "sequel" since you are not telling us what the film is a sequel to)
  • "The following year, she reteamed with Haynes on the drama Far from Heaven (2002), and starred in the Stephen Daldry-directed drama The Hours (2002)." — "The following year she re-teamed with Todd Haynes for the drama Far from Heaven and starred in the Stephen Daldry-directed The Hours." (As before: commas not needed; spell out Todd Haynes' full name since it's been several sentences since you first mentioned him; year of release not needed since your previous sentence says "in 2001" while this one says "the following year")
  • "She also received Academy Award nominations for both Best Actress (Far From Heaven), and Best Supporting Actress (The Hours) in the same year." — "She also received Academy Award nominations for both Best Actress (Far From Heaven) and Best Supporting Actress (The Hours)." (comma not needed; "in the same year" not needed)
  • "Two years later, she starred in the satirical drama Maps to the Stars (2014), and drama Still Alice (2014)." — "Two years later she starred in the satirical drama Maps to the Stars and the drama Still Alice." (commas not needed; years not needed as as your previous sentence states "in 2012" and this one says "two years later"; add "the" before drama Still Alice)


  • Moore is an American and her television appearances have all been in the United States. Hence the column heading "Channel" should be retitled "Network" as this is more appropriate for American television ("channel", I believe, is more appropriate for British television).

That's all for now. Jimknut (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jimknut: Thanks for the thorough review. I've sorted your points and explained why it was her breakthrough role. Cowlibob (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

List of amphibians of Bulgaria[edit]

Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I hope that a successful promotion would encourage other users to create or improve lists of amphibians (and other animals) by country. While the lists of mammals and birds generally cover most countries, the lists of amphibians and reptiles still cover only a limited number of countries. In my opinion it is surprising how little lists there are in that field despite the available information. Regards, Gligan (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • A few minor comments. I could not find the full citation for Biserkov 2007, and the introduction sentence "This is a complete list of the amphibians of Bulgaria" can be deleted, as it's no longer accepted form for featured lists (as it is rather redundant). Mattximus (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I have changed the introduction of the list. However, I don't understand what exactly is missing in order to have full citation for Biserkov 2007. I hope you can help me with that issue. Here is a link to the book of Biserkov in PDF, if that could be helpful. Best, --Gligan (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

List of cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on ODI debut[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) , Joseph2302

Another fifers list. Joseph2302 created the basic article, I developed the lead and tidied up the table. I have another candidate which has got two supports with no outstanding concerns. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. Vensatry (ping) 12:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As the article creator, I obviously support this. I believe it passes all the criteria, and is an interesting, comprehensive list of information about this topic. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, but I believe it's as good, probably better, than some of the other Featured cricket lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I have included you as a co-nominator. I know the support was made in good faith, yet beware that you cannot support your own nominations. Cheers Vensatry (ping) 11:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't sure, which was why I didn't bold it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude, AssociateAffiliate

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. I have an open FLC for List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds, but that has two supports and no unresolved comments. All changes in response to user comments on that FLC have been incorporated into this article too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Anurag Kashyap filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after failing at its first FLC, this list has gone through a PR and now I feel meets the criteria's. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks much better than the one during its first FLC. Hope it passes this time. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The list is modeled after articles of related award categories such as the Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year and the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album, both which are listed as FL. The Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year was an honor that was presented annually at the Billboard Latin Music Awards, a ceremony which honors "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music, as determined by the actual sales, radio airplay, streaming and social data that informs Billboard's weekly charts." According to Billboard magazine, the category was "created in response to the growing number of charting titles from the genre" of reggaeton. Regards, DivaKnockouts 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Erick[edit]

  • Please explain why the award category was discontinued. I presume it was because it was later replaced by the "Latin Rhythm Album of the Year" award, but the article doesn't explain why Billboard hasn't given the award since 2008. You also need to include the category Awards disestablished in 2008. Also use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to have Billboard italicized on the article title. I'll check for more later. Erick (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Delegate note: if you must use subsections, they need to be at least a level 4, or they pop out onto the main FLC page.--PresN 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Erick. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. — DivaKnockouts 16:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 12:33, 18 June 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) 12:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Satyajit Ray[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ray is considered as one of the great filmmakers of all time and he has won numerous awards for his films and honors for himself. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies FL criteria. Looking forward to constructive criticism.

  • Note: Sorry to say this but bad-faith Indian editors...please stay away. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks much FrB.TG for the review and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on a quick run through

  • Consider changing the caption of the image. Looks pretty obvious to everyone that it's a portrait.
Any suggestions?
  • The table lists 133 wins and 15 nominations – This is a blunder
In what regards?
@Vivvt: Some of those award wins would have had previous nominations which you should include in the total. For example say a film was nominated for five Oscars and won twice then you would include in the table as five nominations and two award wins. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see a point in splitting "Awards for the films directed by Ray" and "Awards for the films contributed by Ray". After all, he was the recipient (of a particular category), regardless of who made the film.
  • honors -> honours (Indian English usage)
Not done Will keep US English for this list.
As Ray is Indian, the standard is to use British English not US English. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ray received numerous awards and honors, including India's highest award in cinema, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, in 1984 and India's highest civilian award, Bharat Ratna, in 1992." – The placement of commas confuses the reader. Consider splitting the sentence as it looks lengthy.
  • Same for the succeeding sentence.
  • "Commander of the National Order of the Legion of Honour, the highest decoration in France" – Are you sure about it being the highest decoration? If so, needs a source.
  • "an Academy Honorary Award at the 64th Academy Awards in 1992"
  • "Ray made his directorial debut in 1955 with Pather Panchali." – Needs a source
  • You say 3rd National Film Awards (1955) and 7th Berlin International Film Festival (1957) – Be consistent while mentioning the years.
  • In the lead you say he won 10 awards for Best Screenplay, but the table lists 12.
  • OCIC Catholic Award of Cannes Film Festival is linked to a Sri Lankan film award.
  • 'Are 'Aparajito and Pather Panchali American films?
Just so you know, the answer is no. But the official site lists the entry under American film awards. However, its Wiki page says " The category was named "Best American Film" until 1961, when it became the "Best Non-European Film". In 2001, the name of the award changed back to "Best American Film", and the European category was changed to "Best Non-American Film"." Added it to the list.
To correct this simply change the category like this: [[Bodil Award for Best American Film|Best Non-European Film]] Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In BAFTA, you should give the actual names of the category; Best Film -> Best Film from any Source
Not much clear about what needs to be done
The Apu Trilogy films won the "BAFTA for Best Film from any Source" so correct in table as [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film from any Source]] Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Filmfare nomination for Shatranj Ke Khilari (Best Film) is not verified by the source. Further, Ray doesn't look like the producer of the film. If so, he shouldn't be credited with the nomination as the film belongs to the producer.
  • Awarding body for Dadasaheb Phalke Award should be DFF. I'm not sure if the Dadabhai Naoroji Memorial Award is presented by the government. Also, since the UK govt. seems to present an award of the same name, this needs to be clarified.
  • Kanchanjangha->Kanchenjungha
Corrected Though the award is given in this particular section, I incorrectly assumed it to be a screenplay section with his name written as a screenplay writer. Another film Bab El-Oued City was awarded that year.
  • In "Established in 1909, the National Board of Review awards are awarded annually by The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures" – Link "National Board of Review of Motion Pictures" rather than the awards. Also, the "Top Foreign Language Films" seems like a list. Not sure if that qualifies as an award.
  • You should know the difference between "The film is directed" and "The film was directed" (in the notes section), especially when the other part of the sentence uses another tense.
  • Refs. #47 and #48 use the same title.
  • You have included Bijoya Ray's Manik and I: My Life with Satyajit Ray as a source, but not used it as a ref. anywhere in the article.
The second para of the lead just reads like a series of bullet points. It goes too much into the Apu Trilogy discussing only about those three films. I'm sure the nominator must be aware of other films that fetched him a lot of awards. I can see that a lot of hard work has been put into the list, but sadly there are so many issues with the list. A peer review would have made this process much more easier. Vensatry (ping) 19:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This one is about the filmography of American actress Angelina Jolie. I'm aware that this is a second open nomination for me; however, my current nomination has five supports, and no unaddressed comments. Cheers to all reviewers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: Her television appearances ain't mentioned as I don't think it is important. It's pretty common among film stars to appear in TV shows. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per my comments being addressed, good article. Azealia911 talk 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: Looks good! But per WP:SLASH, for roles like "Kate Libby / Acid Burn", please add a footnote to specify whether she played a single or dual role in the film. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Quick drive-by comment - the entry for "Hackers" says she played a role called "Falstaff's Boy", but our article on the film says she plays "Kate Libby (a.k.a. Acid Burn)". I've never seen the film - which is correct.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for pointing it out. I have corrected it. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Since I have addressed your "quick" comment, do you have more to post or would you like to express an opinion here? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on prose quality; very repetitive, and it discusses films in too much detail. We need to try and keep it more concise. This list has 3721 characters in the lead, for an actress with what is essentially a 20-year career. Look to our lists on people like Laurence Olivier to see how to write about such things concisely; He had a much more lengthy and prolific career than Jolie, but the lead is the same length as the one for this list. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: Thank you for having a look on it. I agree with you on the length of it. I have removed some of the unnecessary stuff through these revisions. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree on the image yet this one is something related to her films. And since this is a filmography page, I have kept this as the lead image. As for the directorial film, I have rephrased that. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There are literally dozens of images of Jolie on commons, including several that show her discussing her work (this one is from 2010, a Salt discussion). I find it difficult to believe that the current lead picture (terrible pose/lighting; more than ten years old) is the most appropriate image for her filmography. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's a valued image and I really like it. I have changed it to that. Don't think there is any better "filmography" image than the current one. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support — Nice list on one of hollywood's popular contemporary actresses. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you friends for the kind thoughts and comments. They are, as always, much appreciated. :) -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

  • Please remove the box office and budget columns. I know they have been used previously in older FLs but as per this talk [[1]]. There is consensus not to include them in filmographies.
  • "While still a child" makes it seem that it was a surprise that she started then which isn't really the case as she is the daughter of a notable actor.
  • If she won a Golden Globe award for the television film, what made Gia her breakthrough role. Clarify.
  • Overall the prose is very dry in places with lots of Jolie did this... She received this... Jolie did. It needs a lot more variation in its sentence structure. I'll try and see if I can copyedit it later.
  • Since she has directed only four films this can be incorporated into one film table with the notes section specifying that she directed it.
  • Television films should be in separate section as "Television" because they are television appearances which just happen to be feature length.
  • IMDb said she made a cameo in The Fever (2004). Also missing: Kung Fu Panda Holiday television special, Kung Fu Panda: Secrets of the Masters animated short, Difret (executive producer), Trudell (executive producer), and Confessions of an Action Star (cameo).

Cowlibob (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Thanks for the comments. I think I have resolved all of the above. I have tweaked the prose to avoid monotony. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing what you have. As this is for featured content, I would try to find better alternative sources for info referenced by Daily News, The Wrap, Yahoo! Movies, New Tang Dynasty Television, j2 Global. Also any books published by as it's a self-publishing company so anyone one can put their content on it so we don't reference to it. Cowlibob (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Cheer Cowlibob. All sorted now. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of The Boat Race results[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, last time round this became subject to an edit war so it needed to be withdrawn. I have reduced the controversial part to a minimum so, with luck, we won't end up in the same boat (tee hee). As always, thanks to anyone who has the time and energy to comment, your efforts are always appreciated, and I will attempt to address any and all comments as soon as practicable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


  • 40% of the lead is dedicated to the reserves. Overrepresentration?
    A large proportion of the results section is dedicated to the reserves. How would you like me to improve the lead to satisfy your concern? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe have a graph showing the progression of victories after each year?
    I don't see how this helps, the information is in the table. It's personal taste. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    I've created a graph! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    What is the horizontal scale? From 1947 on it seems to be in fours, but prior to that it's unclear. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    It's the year of the event. Prior to 1947 the race was intermittent, which is why you may find it unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    I suspected as much... it's fine when races were held every year, but when they weren't, it's not at all apparent which year really applies. For example, the year shown before 1947 is 1937, so assuming that was four races earlier, we cannot tell from the graph what years the three in between were. This was of course when WWII was on, so they were 1938/9/46; but for other gaps, like 1829-41? We need to refer to the table. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, which means to say that the graph and the table are complementary, the actual bare facts are in the table, the sense of dominance and equality and now how close it is after 161 events is given in the graph. Alternatively we could replace the year with the "edition", 1 to 161. Then dates, gaps etc become irrelevant. By all means upload your own preferred version. Or I can remove the graph altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the table could use a column with the length ran that year. Use multirow if necessary
    No, but what I could do is to add a footnote regarding the courses which weren't the Championship Course, after all it's just a handful. Adding the same length for 150+ items is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk)
    Footnotes added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what easily is supposed to mean. Exact margins are completely unavailable? Is it >10lengths for sure? Perhaps have a footnote for it?
    It's what the official source says (i.e. the Boat Race website) and what the contemporary sources say. There's no definition. In answer to your first question, yes, exact margins are completely unavailable in the early races. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The body of the list doesn't really explain what are reserves supposed to mean, and why was it started in '65. Have there been cases of somebody being injured in the main crew and they hopped from reserves to main?
    This is a list about the results, not the history of the Boat Race. If you're worried about the meaning of the word "reserve" then would you prefer me to link to Reserve#Sports?
  • how much is a canvass and a boat length?
    I can link this to the Glossary of rowing terms if you prefer, every boat is of different construction so its length and the length of its canvas is variable, there is no one answer and no regulation regarding it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded to your questions above, please let me know how you would like me to proceed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sure you will find plenty of reviewers out there happily dealing with your replies. Nergaal (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • Not sure the first reference needs repeating in the first sentence, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it.
    Funny, some people get sniffy about quotes, so I directly referenced it each time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "to which Oxford responded with then record-equalling streak of nine consecutive victories" I think there is a missing "a" between "with" and "then".
    Yep, added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cambridge won the last race before the First World War resulted in a five-year hiatus in the event, and while Oxford triumphed in the 1923 race, Cambridge won thirteen consecutive races between 1924 and 1936, and led 47–40 overall." This sentence doesn't fit together right for me. The Oxford win in 1923 is relevant for breaking up a string of Cambridge victories between 1914 and 1936, but the article doesn't make that clear. At the moment, that middle bit seems a bit unnecessary to me.
    Tried an awkward reword, feel free to batter me for it and make alternative arrangements. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lead you refer to "the 4.2-mile (6.8 km) Championship Course", with a lower case "the", but thereafter you always use "The Championship Course". I prefer a lower case "the" myself, but either way, remain consistent.
    Well in the first case it's split by the measurement. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to have some sort of indication in the table, be it a symbol or a note, ideally next to the time, for those races that did not take place on the current course.
    Agreed, that's on my to-do list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't have an accessdate for ref #13. Technically, as a newspaper source, that isn't the end of the world, but given you have provided one for the similar refs #17 to #21, for consistency it would be nice.
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Harrias talk 19:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Muchos gracias, I'll sort the footnotes about the length of the race, as noted also by Nergaal, tomorrow, I'm too tired to do it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Footnotes now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

73rd Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2011 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, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – The issues I raised have all been addressed. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am going to point out again that these awards articles ought to have a controversies section. Every year, immediately after, or maybe even years later, notable figures will complain that some awards did not go to the most deserving winner. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, Oscar ceremony articles, we won't give attention to what was snubbed for the reason of objectivity. Unless the incident resulted in an action such as a protest (i.e. protests at the 64th and 68th Oscars from homophobia and racism respectively), this information of what was more deserving or not belongs in the respective film's articles.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

List of works by Dorothy L. Sayers[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy L. Sayers was an absolutely fascinating woman. She had a brain the size of a planet and a sense of humour and zest for life that was admired by all who knew her. In 1923 she introduced the character Lord Peter Wimsey, the archetype for the British gentleman detective. She then went on to write theological essays and plays, as well as literary criticism of Dante; she also translated Dante's Divine Comedy, and works from medieval French. This is a new page with some basic info removed from the main Sayers page and worked into a fuller, more complete list, now fully supported by reliable sources. – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Seattle

  • Dorothy Leigh Sayers (usually stylised as Dorothy L. Sayers; 1893–1957) was an English crime writer, poet, playwright, essayist, translator and Christian humanist; She was also a student of classical and modern languages. can you just move "and student of classical and modern languages" to the end of "Christian humanist", and cut the "and" after "translator", for flow?
  • Let me mull on this one a little. The initial list is her public output and profession; the second list is lesser known and more a hobby or way of life. It would also make for an unweildy list to open. I'll ponder further on this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, Seattle, I've mulled over this and I think, for the reasons I've given above, that I will leave it as it stands for the moment. It's still very early days for the FLC, so should others object or comment, then I will certainly try to re-work the sentence. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Support – with a few minor comments:

  • Lead
    • As you may imagine, I don't much care for the false title in "which feature English aristocrat and amateur sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey", but to each his own.
      • Oops! Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "over stressed" – one word, not even hyphenated, in the OED.
  • Tables
    • Not sure I see the advantage of sorting on the publisher's location.
  • They sort on the publishers name only, not the locations. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Not on the only table I tried, viz the Poems one, nor, now I inquire further, in the Translation table. (I don't at all think it important, you understand, but I speak sooth.) Tim riley talk 18:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Later: You don't give the publishers' locations in the Non fiction table. Perhaps you might do so, for consistency. Tim riley talk 18:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Quite right, Pike, I was waiting for someone to spot that. Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Novels
    • Is it worth mentioning in the notes column that Unnatural Death and The Five Red Herrings were published in the US with different titles, namely The Dawson Pedigree and Suspicious Characters?
  • Yes, now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Non fiction
    • Should the definite article be added to the first column of Greatest Drama Ever Staged?
      • Yes, my error when trying to sort the formatting for the sort. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. Happy to support this excellent piece of work for FL. Tim riley talk 08:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tim, for your thoughts and comments - all much appreciated. While I have your attention, could I draw your eyes to Seattle's comment above re the opening line. Do you have a view either way? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
If you were to roll all the various occupations into the one list it would go on a bit. Perfectly acceptable, but it's easier on the reader's eye if you break it up, I think. The semicolon is an excellent choice - linking the lot. A full stop would be a bit emphatic. On the whole, I think I'd leave the sentence as drawn. Tim riley talk 12:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Doc Blofeld

In the external box is "By List of works by" intentional?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Nope! A slip from the splitting off of this info. Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Looks in very good shape and seems to meet FL criteria. I suppose aesthetically I'd rather see each note column with some info and a source rather than empty ones among the others but it's probably redundant to do so in many cases and no point in adding stuff for the sake of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "She is perhaps best known" not sure. Is this your own opinion?
  • This is from the Kenney ref. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Would prefer to see all upright images the same size.
  • Why is the location of the publisher put first and then not sorted against? I thought you would put the location in parentheses after the name of the publisher?
  • [4][10][11][9], [4][11][9] etc refs in numerical order preferably.
  • Some of the notes have inline references, some don't, for those that don't, are the notes adequately referenced elsewhere?
  • Yes. All the information in all the tables is supported by the initial sources shown at the head of the Title column. There are a couple of entries (just the Detective Club books, I think), where the details were sourced from elsewhere). - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer the infobox to be in the same order as the sections in the article, not that it's a big deal but it seems like common sense.
  • I'd like that too, but it's a pre-set order in the IB; for the body of tables, I've gone for chronological throughout, as with other similar lists - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Was The Silent Passenger never performed? It has a blank "location of first performance".
  • It was a film script, rather than a play. I've added "See note", as I have done with the radio plays, to make it a little more clear - and re-named the section and table. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise I can't fault it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks The Rambling Man, all done, I hope satisfactorily. Please let me know if I've missed any of the bits, or added confusions somewhere with the edits! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

World Fantasy Special Award—Professional[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Whelp, the last nomination didn't get enough responses, so lets try this again with a bit more proactive asking on my part. Here is the 7th World Fantasy Award list, and #33 overall in our perpetual FLC series. I don't like this award. Not that it isn't fine in concept- a catchall award for professionals not covered by the written or artist categories (your editors, publishers, etc.). No, my issue starts with the name (An mdash? Really?) and ends with the utter lack of consistency in the stated reasons- a given person may be nominated one year as "for editing Magazine X", and the next as "for Magazine X". Ugh. Not to mention that a few times companies were nominated instead of individuals- that's just nonsense. I've faithfully transcribed what was awarded, though, so here it all is. As always, this list should look very familiar, since it keeps the standard award list formatting of my other FLs, and comments from prior FLCs have been brought forward here. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support – your reasoning is pretty unconvincing, but this was a solid list first time around, and it remains thus. Top work! Harrias talk 21:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

After reading your negative remarks towards the award, I wonder what makes you work on it (so hard, of course). -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 00:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I just think the formatting of the award is problematic. I'm not going to just not write one out of ten World Fantasy lists because I don't like the way they format the nominations. --PresN 01:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There isn't anything that requires a fix, with the exception of one which needs to be explained: Why both "Entries with a blue background and an asterisk (*) next to the individual's name have won the award" and the key indicator (exactly below that) are there? Both of them explain the very same thing. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Seattle: You capped your comments; are you willing to support? --PresN 22:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see another set of eyes review the list before I revisit. Seattle (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Barfi![edit]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2012 Indian romantic comedy-drama film Barfi!. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala I'm a non-native English speaker. Hence, i request the nominator to keep the fact in mind that these aren't the only possible issues and a better editor may also contradict my views. To the best of my knowledge, i could spot these issues. Please rectify them, or give a reasonable explanation here.

  • The film stars Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, and Ileana D'Cruz in the lead roles, with Saurabh Shukla, Ashish Vidyarthi, and Roopa Ganguly in supporting roles — The film features Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra and Ileana D'Cruz in the lead roles, with Saurabh Shukla, Ashish Vidyarthi and Roopa Ganguly playing supporting roles.
  • Did Basu "co-wrote" the film's script with his wife Tani?
  • Any film's narrative in general either tells or narrates the lives of the protagonists. Barfi in particular. Give it a thought!
  • Is Barfi the only India's official entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 85th Academy Awards? I mean, was there any other one too?
  • What does mostly from recognition of the film itself mean? Can you please explain?
  • Barfi! received nine nominations, and swept eight awards — more formal usage of terms is encouraged.
  • Note c and d require references.
  • Is reference number five reliable?
  • Make sure that all the links in the reference are not dead.

Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Well, every year there is only one official selection for the Oscars. The reference number five is very much reliable and thanks for your comments.—Prashant 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pavanjandhyala. What makes Business of Cinema a "very much reliable" source? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
We have been using this in almost every FAs.—Prashant 16:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Namely? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: and @Pavanjandhyala:: Shah Rukh Khan (Reference number 133), List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra (Reference number 64), and many more. Do I need to prove more?—Prashant 14:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Prashant!, FL exemplifies one of the best works on Wikipedia and that's why we ask you to prove its reliability. Well, reference number 6 and 28 are dead. What about them? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I have checked and found that reference number 28 is working properly. And, fixed the reference number 6.—Prashant 12:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This tells a different story however! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That was reference number 29. Fixed it.—Prashant 12:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There are four green links there. Turn them white by archieving them, just like reference number 6. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Fixed all the references.—Prashant 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, i find this list eligible for a Support now as FrB.TG is looking after the prose, where i am weak being a non-native English speaker. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • A Support from me for putting up with all my crap. Cheers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash I support this FLC as I find no obvious improvement needed in prose.However, the links may be archived to prevent link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2 Support — Looks pretty comprehensive. Nice work on this, Prashant. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

  • Well done, Prashant, I'm happy to support following the improvements made based on others' input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – I see a problem with the tone of the article. I know this is an accolades list, but you can still try to make it neutral. Though the film was a critical success during release, it received sharp criticism when it failed to get a nomination at the Academy Awards. Given that you've included stuff about the same, I think the reasons could well be added. Vensatry (ping) 21:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Vensatry for the oppose. But, please try to tell me an exact reason because this is an accolades list and not the article. I think that is for the article. So, you think I should remove the official entry thing from the list?—Prashant 15:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I think my reason was quite "exact". "because this is an accolades list and not the article. I think that is for the article" – You mean to say lists can bypass WP:NPOV. I suggest you please reread the criteria before arriving at a conclusion like this. Vensatry (ping) 08:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Because I feel every film from India is criticised for not getting nominated for the Oscars! And, I havent seen a single accolades page talking bout their criticisms. Do they? I have followed a pattern similar to lists and not articles.—Prashant 08:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about other lists, neutrality is a prime requirement for all articles. As for the Oscars, yes I do agree most of the films receive criticism, but in the case of Barfi, the criticism was very sharp right after it was submitted to the Academy. I see no point in mentioning that in the lede since that can neither be considered an award nor a nomination. But then, if you wish to retain it, the criticism too can be added to maintain WP:NPOV. Vensatry (ping) 19:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments

  • Per WP:ALT, alt text should identify the names of people in these types of lists. Their appearance or posture doesn't really matter.
  • "It was co-written by Basu with his wife Tani," - The source doesn't mention anything about his wife and from our article's infobox I see that she is credited (jointly) only with the film's story. However, I don't see that claim made anywhere else in the article (in words).
  • "Pritam Chakraborty composed the film's musical and background score while Akiv Ali edited Barfi!, with the cinematography provided by Ravi Varman" - It's better to move the name of the film (Barfi!) to the beginning of the sentence because it gives the reader an impression that we are talking about two different films.
  • "in total, the film has won 68 awards." - Needs "as of ..."
  • Since you are sure that the film has won 36 awards, why don't you include a table in the infobox mentioning the total number of wins and nominations? Many of the existing FLs seem to follow that pattern.
Its not a must in all the lists and all Indian films list follows the same pattern.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do Critics' Choice awards have nominees?
  • The nominees/recipients of Best Film awards are the producers themselves. You seem to have included the name of the film in the table which is technically incorrect.
Same as above explanation.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As Cowlibob says, the Times of India Film Awards are not notable. They are just internet polls.
It like you haven't seen the rest winners, which includes Jury Awards. It follows the pattern of all Indian awards like Filmfare, IIFA, Zee Cine and the rest. Popular awards are decided by votes and rest by Jury.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "including the Best Film and Best Director" is repeated three times in the last three sentences.

Vensatry (ping) 15:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Done with the rest.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong support excellent piece of work. nicely written neutral point work. Daan0001 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your exhaustive review. Care to explain how well the article appeals neutral to you? Vensatry (ping) 08:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
You mean it sarcastically. Because I think Daan0001 always supports Prashant, regardless of the situation. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Ha, that clearly shows how good he is as a reviewer! Vensatry (ping) 11:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments wow, so many supports!

Well, another nomination of mine also got many supports. Hehe.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "features" vs "incorporated" - pick a tense and stick with it.
  • No need to overlink rupee.
  • Second paragraph reads really clunkily, like a series of almost unrelated factoids.
  • "nominations in categories" is "in categories" really necessary?
  • 13 ... seven, etc... - see MOS:NUM.
Well, someone had told me that I should use numbers after 9. —Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
See WP:NUMNOTES Vensatry (ping) 06:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Done.—Prashant 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If ETC Bollywood Business Awards are notable, why isn't there an article? At least it should be red-linked.
Yes, these awards are notable, linked one of them to its existing article, created another and red-linked the last one.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Same comment applies to the Lion Gold Awards and the South African Indian Film and Television Awards.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Done.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

  • Suggested rephrase "The screenplay which incorporates a nonlinear narrative was co-written by Basu with his wife Tani." Also Tani Basu contributing to the screenplay is not mentioned in the source.
  • For critical acclaim you can replace the Business of Cinema with one from NDTV [[2]]. Just because it has been used a few times in featured content which often have 100s of references doesn't mean it's reliable, if it was used extensively to verify key information then there could be something to talk about, in any case refs should be able to stand on their own.
  • What makes South African Indian Television and Film Awards notable for inclusion here when it doesn't have an article of its own?
  • Times of India Awards also doesn't have its own page, I'm just redirected to the Times of India page. The awards themselves are determined by an internet poll which we had consensus to exclude. I see another user mentioned this above but the nominator just told him to stop discussing it without a valid rationale which is completely inappropriate behaviour. Nominators should show respect for the reviewers and not dismiss their comments as "Please don't start a new controversy for awards."
  • As table is sortable wikilink every entry wherever possible. Check the table for this, and also if we have articles for any of the currently unlinked nominees.

Cowlibob (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. And, for the TOI awards, they are decided by voting (Popular awards) much like Zee Cine, IIFA and Filmfare. But, there are also Jury awards which is decided by the Jury. As for its page on wikipedia, anyone can create it, when one have time.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Tani Basu is not mentioned in the source that you've sourced, please add a source that she co-wrote it or that's unsourced.
  • I'm not suggesting that just because there's no article for South African Awards means not to include it. Do the awards ceremony get substantive coverage from secondary source (not simply a listing of who won the award) per WP:GNG so that they can be redlinked per WP:REDLINK?
  • In regards to the TOI awards, they are internet polls which are different from ones you've described. Internet polls such as this have ben suggested to be excluded by three reviewers at this FLC as well as this RFC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Bollywood_Hungama_Surfers.27_Choice_Awards.
Cowlibob (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

List of national parks of Madagascar[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced and meets the FL standard. Having a high quality list of the national parks of Mada, a very low income country with strong ecotourism potential, might also help promote tourism to this beautiful country among the globetrotting Anglophones of the world. Thanks for taking the time to look this over and share your constructive comments. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments Very cool list but it does need some work. I think the first step would be to write a short paragraph describing what each type of reserve means. For example, there is a category "Strict Nature Reserves" but no definition as to what a "Strict Nature Reserve" is. Also acres is an american unit, and Madagascar officially uses km^2, so that should be first. Also a map is a vital component of this page, but for some reason has a category for "marine reserve" but there are no marine reserves. There are also categories that are not national parks, making it a bit confusing. I hope these comments point the way for some improvements! Mattximus (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, Mattximus. I'd like to do what's needed to improve this and get it through the FL process. Regarding the measurements, I'm American and the article is written in American English, wouldn't that mean the units should be in acres first? (If there is official guidance on this, please point me to it because I'm writing all the Madagascar culture and history articles and measurement units are common in many of them, so this would be important). So far I've had quite a few pass FA and GA with the US measurements first. Regarding the map, I don't know where it came from/who created it, but there are marine reserves in Madagascar, although on this list the naming of them is not consistent because it depends on the classification of the reserve. So some are national marine parks, some are protected marine and coastal areas, etc. I organized these according to the way they're classified on various websites (official and unofficial), and the most authoritiative website is the Ministry of Environment, but even that one is not fully up to date because some of the most current info in the article was reported in a government circulaire (official announcement of new law) from this past April. I can shift things around a little so the naming looks more consistent for these things but they're currently named and classified here based on the source material so I'm a little reluctant to change what seems to be the official naming in favor of arbitrary consistency. I have not yet found a description of what each type of reserve means. I agree that would be very useful. Let me look a little harder through the documents on the Ministry website - maybe there is something I missed. I agree, too, that it's confusing to call this a list of National Parks when there are other types of parks here, but it's a precedent that exists. The FA-level List of National Parks of Canada also has multiple classifications of parks on that list, and I'm following that precedent because it's the highest quality example I've found of a list of national parks. Would it be better if I shift the National Park list to the top of the page and move the strict nature reserves down below that so the other types of parks are all together after the national ones? Thanks again for your feedback. - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I like this article so I'll try to list my comments one by one to make changes easier. (PS yes keep the official classification naming system, no need to change those unless they are in French, then a translation is in order)
  • Yes, as SI is used in Madagascar, as per WP:UNITS, we should use metric units primarily. Only non-scientific articles about uniquely American things should use the Imperial system.
  • I agree that we need a definition for each subheading. I'm not sure this can pass if we list "Strict Nature Reserves" but don't define what a Strict Nature Reserves is.
  • I think each item of the "All other Protected Areas" needs to be given a class, for example, are they marine reserves? After reading through this list, it's not really a list of national parks, but a list of all protected areas of Madagascar.
  • So perhaps a title change is in order precedent or not?
  • What do you think of having one large list, but having a new column called "classification"? This might fix the stand out "all other protected areas" table.
  • The map does need some work, as it only tangentially relates to the topic (contains much more information than found in the article), and is written half in French and half in English. I wonder if someone here in the wiki community can help create a map for you given this information, keeping only categories that are found in the item list itself. Mattximus (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "This list of national parks of Madagascar includes all officially recognized" should really be reworded. The "This is a list of..." style formatting was deprecated long ago in high-quality works. Try: "The national parks of Madagascar include all officially recognized..." for a more naturally worded opening sentence.
  • I'll restate that the acre measurements should appear second, not first.
  • At the same time, you should double check each conversion to ensure you're not implying false precision. I'm dubious of the precision involved because such an exacting value of "4,200,791 acres" is given in the text as an approximation, a value which just so happens to convert to "17,000.00 km2". That's too perfect of a conversion to have a such a round number. to two decimal places This is a big red flag for me. More likely, to me, it should be "approximately 17,000 square kilometres (4,200,000 acres)", or better yet given the sizes involved, "approximately 17,000 square kilometres (6,600 sq mi)". (The acre as a unit lends itself better to smaller values that would be expressed in hectares, not such large values in square kilometers that match up better to square miles.)
  • The headings should be updated. I don't see "Protected Areas" used as part of a proper noun anywhere in the body text of the article, so "System of Protected Areas" should be "System of protected areas", "Protected Areas" should be "Protected areas", and "All other Protected Areas" should be "All other protected areas" per MOS:HEAD.
  • "initiated a twelve year process" → "initiated a twelve-year process" or "initiated a 12-year process", depending on which rule for spelled-numbers (under 10, or under 20) you're going to follow. Either way, "twelve-year" is a compound adjective modifying the word "process", so it needs to be hyphenated.
  • Personally, I'd remove the photos from each of the tables and place them in a gallery under each table. As it is, no photos have captions. As a reader, I'm curious what the cute animal is in the photo for Andasibe-Mantadia National Park. Shift the photos to a gallery and give each a caption. You'll also free up space in each table that can be used to widen the columns.
I agree with most of your comments, but I have to disagree with this one. I'm not a fan of galleries collected at bottoms of lists, it really makes it hard to link the picture to the specific row of the table and looks rather messy. I much prefer the images placed in the row themselves just like this, but of course they need alt-captions at the very least. Mattximus (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As I've noted on other nominations, leaving the two measurement values in the same cell is very much less than ideal, as you've done with the areas here. Using |disp=table in {{convert}} along with the appropriate change to the header row will do two things. First, it will split the column into two, one for each measurement system. Second, it will right-align the numbers so that they line up appropriately. You can see the results in the Strict Nature Reserves (Réserves Naturelles Intégrales) table of this version of the page.
  • This is by no means a requirement– both are currently accepted at FLC. It's a matter of personal preference. Seattle (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Recreation Visitors" heading should also be put in sentence case like the headings that need to be fixed, so "Recreation visitors".
  • The dates, locations and areas all have citations through the footnotes in the heading, which is fine. The descriptions do not have any citations, and for that much text in total, some citations need to be provided.
  • There are citations with dead links. If they've recently gone dead, they may not be in archives yet because there can be a delay between the time a page is archived and the time it's available.
  • There's an inconsistency in spelling out or abbreviating publisher names. In note 3, UNESCO is abbreviated, but in the next note, it's spelled out with the abbreviation given in parentheses. I'm used to such names always being spelled out in citations without an abbreviation, although if you were going to spell it out once with the abbreviation, it really should be in the first footnote that references UNESCO, and not the second. It should also not be linked on the third usage, just the first.
  • It would be nice if the French-language sources could have |trans-title= entries provided with the English-language translations of the titles. Nice, but not required, but it would help readers. Notes 14 and 16 don't note that the sources are in French, yet the titles obviously are.
  • Note 10: "", note 13: "Sobika", yet the domain name for the site is If "Sobika" is the name of a publication, then it should be in |work= (or one of its aliases) in the citation template so that the name is in italics.
  • Note 17: "La Tribune de Diego" looks like the name of a publication, so it should be in |work= to appear in italics, even if it's in a foreign language. We'd still italicize the newspaper name, La Monde.

Most of these issues are easy fixes, but four of them concern me enough to actually oppose promotion. The appearance of false precision and the lack of citations for the descriptions in the table are big issues. The other two are more minor, but they're still structural issues that are bigger deals compared to some corrections. The absence of captions for photos that would be better outside the table is important because otherwise those photos are just large decorative blocks of color taking up space in the tables.The layout of the area columns in the table when the templates already give us a very simple solution to make the tables' values very easily parseable by our readers is concerning as well. Imzadi 1979  10:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Shinhwa discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Shinyang-i (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is an inclusive and useful list that meets the content and style requirements of discographies and standalone lists. I also want it to serve as a model for Korean music-related discographies, as there are currently no FLs in this area from the time period covered by this list. South Korea's music charts have changed a few times over the years, and I feel this list accurately portrays and represents the charts being used at various points in time. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your comments. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. I believe this now meets the featured list criteria. (I tweaked the references myself.) Random86 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • "The discography of South Korean boyband Shinhwa consists of" – I would reword it as "The South Korean boy band Shinhwa has released".
  • "One greatest hits compilation, My Choice, was released under SM Entertainment" – greatest hits need to be wiki-linked.
  • "Under SM Entertainment" used three times in the lead. Consider rephrasing.
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, you don't need to write the original titles in brackets.
  • The publisher of the references have to be either linked in each occurrence or only in first instance.
  • Why are the dates in the United States format ([month] [day], [year]). The band does not even relate to the USA.
  • The image caption is a bit confusing. "L to R" – do you think readers will understand what is it? They must be in full forms.
  • The Korea Times linked in ref. 1 and 2 but not 84.
  • Ref 84. has a publisher The Korea Times. Needs to be removed.
  • Be consistent with the owners of the references' publishers; either in all or none.
  • Some of the references are archived as their links are broken. Understandable, but why is it so with ref. 10 and 13.
  • I am not sure about the reliability of Mwave?
  • Avoid WP:SHOUTING in references i.e. ref. 11.
  • The titles of the references shouldn't be in italics even if they are the title of albums.
  • "Unrecognized redirect": ref. 29.
  • Ref. 43 has no accessdate.
  • Why is the publisher for ref. 88 in italics?

If possible, please have a look at my nomination. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 19:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Another cricket award list! A fair bit of tidying work on this list, and hopefully the prose helps to make sense of it all, though I've gone around in circles a couple of times on points. As always, all thoughts and comments welcome. Harrias talk 19:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Support, with a few comments: I'm sure you've thought long and hard about the running order, but it seems odd to go from Sangakkara in 2014 to Ranji in 1900 – yet the distinction between current and retrospectively-notional is entirely rational, I admit. I struggle to understand why the totals of the Awards by country table and of the graphic next to it differ by one, but am quite prepared to be told I'm missing something obvious. Seeking to find anything more to grumble about, I mention the inconsistency of image sizes, with Sir Viv's so much narrower than his compeers'. That apart I can see no reason to withhold support for this article, which seems to me to meet all the FL criteria. – Tim riley talk 22:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The totals for the country table and the graphic were just a typo, so I've fixed that now. Viv's image is narrower because it is already full size: you're right that it does look odd, I might remove it for that reason. Thanks for your review! Harrias talk 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


  • For consistency you should use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template to italicise Wisden in the article title.
  • "This criterion continued for" would "This criterion was applied for..." be better?
  • I know we know but you could mention that Ponting was Aussie.
  • "panel helped to select the winners" helped to select or did select?
    Both. I'm not sure which is more accurate. Engel collated the listed with help from experts on certain eras, and then those in question had a final smaller panel to determine the winner in case of dispute. The sixteen figure refers to the whole lot, experts plus the deciding panel. The details gets a bit complicated. I could try and expand it out more to explain it if you think that would help? Harrias talk 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sangakarra caption, "Leading Cricketer of the Year." do you mean "Leading Cricketer in the World"?
  • Here's a weird one, sort by Player name up and then down, then sort by Country, it doesn't work....
    I think it's because of the sorting I used for the World War columns. It does work if you then click to sort by Country again. I don't know if the functionality would be improved by removing the forced sorting? Harrias talk 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Split the refs using {{reflist|30em}}

Otherwise nothing to complain about. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I've addressed all but those noted above. Harrias talk 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Can we specify the period considered for the award. Whether it is January - December or September to September or whatever. Tintin 13:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Something like " select the best cricketer based upon their performances anywhere in the world in the previous calendar year."? Harrias talk 16:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "A sixteen-person panel helped to select..." helped to select sounds like they were not actually making the decision themselves when they obviously were. I would change it to selected.
  • "Don Bradman was listed the most, winning in ten years..." the winning in ten years doesn't sit well with me. I think it could be made clearer that he simply was the leading cricketer ten times. Sounds a bit ambiguous at the moment.
  • "as the Leading Cricket in the World..." think there is a typo here, should be cricketer

NapHit (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@NapHit: Think I've dealt with all of these, thanks! Harrias talk 08:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool beans, happy to support this now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Pure Michigan Byway[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No content to leave the tourism marketing campaign to just brochures and our license plates, we now have Pure Michigan Byways! With a bunch of work, and a assistance from an intern at the Michigan Department of Transportation, I bring you the only single page that documents the lengths, dates and termini of the byways in Michigan's program. (Really, MDOT never bothered to compile a single list any place even though they're in charge of the program.) Polishing this list will provide a template for other state or national scenic byway programs in the future. Imzadi 1979  06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


  1. Dead links
  2. five historic, six recreational and five scenic byways have been designated by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in both the Upper and Lower peninsulas (UP, LP) of the state. 5, 6, and 5 in both Upper and Lower, or 5, 6, and 5 altogether?
  3. a road must be a state trunkline highway can you link "state trunkline highway" somewhere, or explain it in the text?
  4. The criteria includes "criteria" is plural; includes → include
  5. to sites or districts on the National Register of Historical Places, recreational areas, or scenic landscapes. add "to" before "recreational areas" and "scenic landscapes"; it currently reads like "on" should be placed before both
  6. Working with local communities, organizations, and government agencies, the Pure Michigan Byway Program strives to identify roads that access Michigan's unique natural, scenic, historic, recreational, and cultural resources. The program also attempts to preserve the unique and irreplaceable qualities of selected corridors, improve distinct roads in a careful and considerate way, promote a greater awareness of and appreciation for the state's scenic, recreational, historical and cultural resources. this doesn't sound too neutral; can you rework?
  7. new signs are due to be unveiled in 2015. do you have a reference for this? How close are we?
  8. in the southeastern corner of the LP needs a period
  9. The first recreational route ... The last the last recreational route?
  10. As of December 22, 2014, only the US 31 and M-134 proposals are are → were, past tense
  11. touted the promotional benefits of including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign and can you cut this? This isn't neutral.
  12. "say" → "said" in the same sentence
  13. "Ref" column in the table should be "Ref(s)", as all but one rows have multiple references
  14. After I sort one column, I can't sort another; after I sorted by "name", for instance, I couldn't sort by "Type"
  15. "Length (mi)" and "Length (km)" columns should really be combined; there should be no sorting difference between the two
  16. I don't think the key at the bottom is really necessary if the text is spelled with the color
  17. Do you have a reference for the ineligibility of the National Forest Scenic Byways routes to become Pure Michigan Byways?

For these reasons, I oppose this nomination for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


  1. Those "dead links" are in citations that have archived versions in place. There's nothing to fix. The original URLs cannot be removed without breaking the citations.
    1. Michigan: State Programarchived on April 14, 2013
    2. Bay City Receives Historic Heritage Route Designationarchived on December 12, 2008
    3. Monroe Street (M-125)archived on October 18, 201
    4. M-123 Tahquamenon Scenic Heritage Route Expandedarchived on October 7, 2012
  2. There are 5, 6, and 5 total across both peninsulas.
  3. [[Michigan State Trunkline Highway System|State Trunkline Highway System]] or "State Trunkline Highway System" is linked in the very first sentence.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Added.
  6. Is there any thing specific that leads you to say it's not neutral? It's all based on what the sources say. If I had some idea upon which you're basing your opinion, I'd know what to change, if anything.
  7. The legislation, as noted in the body of article, was signed into law on December 30, 2014. MDOT has a full year from that date to obtain a trademark clearance and design the new signs. Therefore we could theoretically be waiting until December 30, 2015, for the new signs to be unveiled. My inquiries to MDOT about their progress on the signage have been unanswered at the present.
  8. Added.
  9. Clarified that it was the last of any type. (It's actually a scenic one.)
  10. Changed.
  11. No, it is neutral. That is exactly what the backers were saying as part of the justification for the name change. They justified the name change by tying the new name into the tourism ad campaign.
  12. Changed.
  13. I'm not sure. It has worked just fine for me, and it's using the standard coding for sortable tables.
  14. I disagree and point to List of Interstate Highways in Michigan which has separate columns.
  15. It was suggested that I add it before I opened the nomination, and I disagreed with that suggestion. Since you agree with me, I'm removing it. :-)
  16. That's purely definitional. The National Forest Scenic Byways are county roads. Since they're not state trunkline highways, they can't be Pure Michigan Byways.

@Seattle: replies and fixes have been made. Will you follow up? Imzadi 1979  04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: #13, I found the issue, which was related to something needed for the color key that was removed in #15, so it's fixed. Imzadi 1979  05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Can you clarify that this is "altogether" instead of separate in the lead? It currently reads as though 5, 6, and 5 are in both; "five historic, six recreational and five scenic byways have been designated... in both the Upper and Lower peninsulas (UP, LP) of the state"
  2. I'm sure that's what the sponsors stated; we don't include what the sponsors "touted" of other legislative acts, such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or the Clean Air Act, as that wouldn't be neutral.
  3. "say" should still be "said" in that sentence.
  4. Other than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, why do you think that miles and km shouldn't be combined? Seattle (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


  1. Tweaked to add "in total" after the counts and before the mentions of the peninsulas. (Because of various things, it's pretty standard to make sure readers know that a program applies to both peninsulas; we have separate state championships by peninsula in some high school sports, and firewood from the LP can't be brought into the UP, among oddities.)
  2. But in this case, what they said is the reason why they replaced an otherwise perfectly good name ("Michigan Heritage Route") with "Pure Michigan Byways". If It was just a change in federal regulations requiring them to use the word "byway", they could have renamed them "Michigan Heritage Byways" or even "Michigan Byways". You need both aspects, the federal regulation and the tourism campaign, to explain the full change to "Pure Michigan Byways". It's all interconnected, so I can't cut it out, sorry.

    I think you need to read the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for the policy on neutrality: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That doesn't mean we have to excise all opinions. Rather, we include those that are pertinent, and to comply with the other key policies (WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research), we have to attribute them with citations. We also have to include opposing viewpoints in proportion to their occurrence in the appropriate literature. In this case, there just aren't dissenting viewpoints; the bill passed 105–3 in the House and 37–0 in the Senate. According to the press release from the Governor's office, "The bill builds on the success of the state’s “Pure Michigan” tourism campaign." Unless someone finds some dissent mentioned in the news, and I've looked, there isn't one to list.

  3. Changed, sorry I missed that before.
  4. Ok, first off, if we combined them into a single cell, it would complicate or break sorting by length. It would also mean that either "miles" or "mi" would appear in every cell in that column as would "km". By using two columns, which is a standard option using |disp=table in {{convert}}, then the unit is dropped and moved to the header. This is just a very standard way to handle things, and I could give you dozens of examples that use two columns like this. Also, by using this formatting, the numbers are right-aligned. For columns of numbers, this promotes legibility, and because the level of precision is consistent, the decimal points line up.

@Seattle: replies made and a few additional changes done to the article, so once again it's back to you. Imzadi 1979  07:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as the NPOV issue, why not just prefix the statements with "According to X"? --Rschen7754 13:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: those "magic words" would only hand in-text attribution (in addition to inline footnotes). The text already has in-text attribution by saying, "Sponsors of the bill touted..." to attribute the "the promotional benefits of including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign..." as what they touted. WP:NPOV only requires that the viewpoint be attributed, which the current text does, not that we use some magic formula. Imzadi 1979  04:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, from my reading I can see the point that the text seems a bit promotional. For example, "preserve the unique and irreplaceable qualities of selected corridors" implies that there are "unique" and "irreplaceable" qualities of those corridors. "These actions provide economic benefits by stimulating tourism" is also a bit problematic as it is presented as a statement of fact, and it coming from sources that are perhaps a bit too closely related to the subject leaves me a bit uncomfortable. I'm willing to reconsider, but I'm a bit uneasy with it being left as is. --Rschen7754 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: you're talking about something else then than what is being discussed down here. We're discussing the sentence about the name change in the history section, which complies with the NPOV policy as written. Imzadi 1979  05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The cited sources use the words "unique" and "irreplaceable", and definitionally, if they weren't "unique" or "irreplaceable", they wouldn't be listed as PMBs by MDOT. After all, it's not just any old roadway in the state that can be listed. That being said, I did play with the language a bit in that section. Imzadi 1979  06:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The changes made are good for me. --Rschen7754 13:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned that section in my original comments, and I agree that those changes look good. Can you do the same for the "sponsors touted" section? Sortability wouldn't be affected. This is an example of what the table would look like– readable and concise, to me. Seattle (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Seattle: policy requires us to attribute in text any opinions, and the current text does that already, so no changes are required to comply with WP:NPOV.
As for your change, I reject that. The existing formatting right-aligns each number, roughly lining up the decimal points. This enhances legibility of numbers. Ever notice how spreadsheets normally right-align numbers? Or how old-fashioned ledgers (even check book registers) align columns of numbers to the right or by the decimal?
The current formatting also eliminates the redundancy of the word "miles" and the symbol "km" from appearing in every column. As I noted on your FLC, you don't restate the word "County" in every row when the heading implies that, and you don't include the unit name of "people" for every row of the table in the population column, so why must I repeat the word "miles" when the heading can handle that? Sorry, I reject that change as decreasing the quality of the table, not increasing it.
If you don't want to repeat "mi" and "km2" after every entry, add |abbr=values to {{convert}}. If you want text to be right-aligned, add |disp=br() to {{convert}}. There's no reason why these two columns couldn't be combined. I'm not withdrawing my oppose until you change this inferior table to its more concise alternative. Seattle (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Are there any outstanding issues, besides the formatting of the lengths that prevent you from striking your opposition? If so, can you let me know so we can resolve them and move on? Imzadi 1979  23:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The "touting" of supporters and the superfluous table column keep me from supporting this article as a featured list. Seattle (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think combining the columns decreases readability, due to the decimal issue, and because it makes the column look more crowded. --Rschen7754 01:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I can use a synonym for "touted", but that would be inaccurate. "To tout" means to "peddle", "sell", "hawk", etc, and that's exactly what the sponsors were doing; they were offering reasons to persuade others of their position and the need to change the name to include "Pure Michigan" not just the word "byway". It is the concise and accurate description for what they were doing, therefore it is the neutral choice. "Touted" doesn't make a value judgement on whether or not they were correct as it does not have that implication in its meaning. The text on the page would not be neutral if it implied that they were correct or not, but it is neutral because it simply states what they touted as their reasons.
I won't change the columns to a format that I feel is inferior. Dozens of FAs on highways use two columns for the mileposts (and their metric conversions) and the other FLs on highways do as well, so there is ample precedent for the format. The proffered suggestions still collapse separate values, granted for the same measurement, into a single column and decrease legibility in the context of a table. Given that there is no requirement to make that change, I trust the delegates can weigh your oppose accordingly as a matter of personal preference, not one that enhances legibility. Imzadi 1979  01:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I am in the midst of writing a review of this article, should have it posted by the weekend. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

List of census-designated places in West Virginia[edit]

Nominator(s): Seattle (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A list of census designated places (CDPs) in West Virginia; some CDPs show past prosperity, but current economic emaciation. Seattle (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Lead needs a good copy edit as there are lots of passive sentences in a row. For example the first sentence could be written more actively as follows: "The United States Census Bureau separates places by incorporation for statistical purposes during its decennial census". It's also a bit strange that the lead starts with something that this list is not about. Specifically talking about incorporation instead of the definition of a census designated place. Mattximus (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mattximus: I've mixed a few active sentences into the lead. CDPs themselves don't have much of a definition, after a non-incorporated place. I've defined incorporation and the requirements specific to West Virginia to give a more complete definition of CDPs by way of contrast so that, if municipalities can do the defined articles listed under the Municipal Code of West Virginia, the implication is CDPs cannot. I followed the same for rules for incorporation. Seattle (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead really needs a copyedit, but I like this list, so maybe I can take a look. Revert any edits you do not like. One thing that stands out is that almost all the lead is dedicated to talking about what makes an incorporated place, but the list is about unincorporated places. It's great information if this list was about incorporated places, but I don't understand why it's in this article.
Also the caption beside the lead photo is great and useful, but also not related to the page in question. The list of CPDs should not have a detailed history of a particular building. That summary belongs on the page specific to that building, and this page can link to that one. Mattximus (talk)
  • Comments by Imzadi1979:
    • The photos in the same section as the list table are creating a formatting issue. Right under the header, the photos appear on the right opposite a large blank space. Because the table is wider than the space left over by the photos, it appears under them. (The same behavior happens if I print the page to a PDF file.) I suggest converting the photos into a gallery under the table or removing them.
  • That doesn't happen on my viewing platform, but I've seen that happen before. Moved to a gallery. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • As for the photos, there is some work needed related to the captions. I suggest piping the state name out of links in the captions. It should be obvious that any mentioned places are in West Virginia based on the title of the page, but if they were retained, someone needs to audit them to make sure a comma always appears after the state name. Since all of the mentioned places are linked in the table, they need not be linked again in the captions. Someone should also audit if linked phrases are common enough to go unlinked.
  • I've removed the state names from the captions. I don't have a problem with convenience links in the captions so that readers won't have to scroll back to the table for more information on the town pictured. If you have a specific phrase that needs to be unlinked, let me know. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • In the table itself, the population column should be right-aligned for legibility. If this was done, ones place, the tens place, the hundred place and the thousands place (with the comma) would line up. Then it would be more apparent at a quick glance which values are larger than others.
  • They look fairly well aligned now; if the community's population is larger, an extra digit will appear from the previous entry, or they will be the same. For sortability purposes, the list appears aligned. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I would recommend that you use separate columns for area using |disp=table in {{convert}} since that would right-align the numbers for the same legibility concerns. It would have the added benefit that the unit value (sq mi or km2) would not need to be repeated in every row. You don't repeat "County" after every county name, so why do you need to repeat "sq mi" after every area? The implicit "people" unit for population isn't displayed in each row.
  • I've added a line break in the column to align the conversions, and removed the labels. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • In the references, you've used "United States Census Bureau" as the name of a published work, putting it in italics. Since it's the name of the agency that published those sources, it should not be in italics. Now if you wish to include the relationship of the United States Census Bureau to the United States Department of Commerce, you could use the former as the author and the latter as the publisher, you could list both as the publisher. You could drop the department and just use the bureau as the publisher, but as it stands, it should not be the name of a published work.
  • Ultimately the United States Department of Commerce publishes the data collected by the United States Census Bureau, the work. The United States Census Bureau operates within the United States Department of Commerce. I've formatted references to the National Register of Historic Places, published by the National Park Service, in a similar fashion. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The West Virginia Code is the name of a published work, in this case a collection of the state's statutes. It should appear in italics to be consistent with the rest of the footnotes. Legal citations, in Bluebook format may italicize the title of an article in a journal or newspaper and then run the title of the word in roman ("plain") text, but you're not using Bluebook here, so you should conform those citations to the formatting style that is in use. The same goes for "Miss. Code Ann." (Mississippi Code Annotated) and "Fla. Stat." (Florida Statutes). At the very least, just as we advise with journal titles, we should not be abbreviating these. Since we are designed for a general audience, we should not presume that our readers know what "Miss. Code Ann." means.
  • I don't yet have experience with Bluebook citations, but I tried to follow the abbreviations listed here. I expanded the legal citations' details, and included dates for publication. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The publisher for the newspaper in n20 is superfluous and can be removed. With newspapers, the name of the paper alone (supplemented by the location of publication if not included in the paper's name) along with the date of publication is sufficient to identify the source of the article being cited. Since this is online, you should supply the access date, just as you did with other online sources.
    • If possible, it would be good to get publication dates for all of the sources that lack them. For the legal code sections, an enactment or effective date for the law (or its last amendment date) is sufficient.
  • I've added dates where possible. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I won't state an opinion as to support or opposition at this time. Imzadi 1979  04:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The numbers in the table are not aligned, which is not the same as sortability. When you have different orders of magnitude, as you do here, right-aligned numbers would be better. Looking at some values from the table, 9 is an order of magnitude smaller than 95, which is still an order of magnitude smaller than 961, and there's another order of magnitude higher with 9,995. Spreadsheets, and the paper ledgers before them, use right-aligned numerical values, or decimal-aligned numbers so that these orders of magnitude line up: the ones place is on the right edge in every row, the tens place is immediately to the left of it in every row, etc. However, when you left align these numbers, the 9s all appear first, even though they represent values within their larger numbers of 9, 90, 900 and 9000. Last comment on this point: when you add an additional digit while counting up in numbers to indicate the next order of magnitude, such as when your car's odometer rolls over form 99,999 miles to 100,000, you add it to the left, not the right. When you left-align a set of numbers of mixed magnitudes, you're effectively adding that extra digit to the right.
  • I never conflated sortability with alignment– if I sort the values, they left align. I've aligned population and areas to the right. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Area column suffers from these same concerns of alignment, which again isn't the same as sortability. Additionally, by putting the metric values underneath, the visual scanning breaks down. I scan down the table, and read areas of 3.27, 8.5, 10.26, 26.6... At a quick glance, I don't parse that as 3.27 mi2, 8.5 km2, 10.26 mi2, 26.6 km2, but the numbers run together as the same base unit because no base unit is specified. Also, the decimal places aren't consistent so it's a bit jarring to scan the column and see the precision flip back and forth. Also, the parentheses are problematic because that is one of the ways used in accounting to note negative values, along with the minus sign or red ink/print. In any case, it forces the reader to pause to discern what is being displayed instead of parsing it more naturally.

      Now, this format might be necessary where space is limited, but it is not so limited here. Readers can figure out what the numbers mean, but not as easily as if they were in separate columns. You could use a header that placed the words "Total surface area" on one line that spanned both columns with "Square miles" and "Square kilometers" on a second line, or if that were too wide, you could use "mi2" and "km2" for the column labels on the second line. Then the values should be right aligned.

  • I've re-added the miles and km markers, because in no other column are two values present, and right-aligned values. And I credit our readers with enough good sense to realize that there can't be a negative value for a straight conversion of area. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The National Register of Historic Places is a published listing, and therefore a work; someplace is a printed copy of the register itself maintained by the National Park Service, and it alone isn't the name of an agency or office within the NPS. The "United States Census Bureau" itself is the name of a government agency, not the name of a book or a periodical like a magazine or journal. There may be a published work that begins with the name of the agency, a United States Census Bureau Journal, for instance, but that doesn't make the bare "United States Census Bureau" itself a published work that should appear in italics. It is either an author, a publisher, or both.
    • I'm glad you expanded the legal code names. For a generalist audience, those abbreviations can be quite cryptic, but lawyers who deal with them on a daily basis would not have such concerns. The page you referenced is for those in the legal profession, not a generalist audience.
  • I don't care how you feel. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • To comment on something in Harrias' review below, "census-defined place" is actually the more correct punctuation. Together "census" and "defined" jointly modify "place". There is no such thing, that I know of, as a "defined place" that would make sense modified by "census". No, instead it is a place that is "census defined", and when that compound adjective appears in front to modify the word "place", it should be hyphenated under basic English grammar rules. If the Census Bureau doesn't punctuate it that way though, well, that's a debate for another day. Imzadi 1979  05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually the website title at is "", if it has a title at all. (Not all websites do.) In turn, that website is published by the United States Census Bureau, a division of the United States Department of Commerce. The bureau is not the name of a published work no matter now you try to parse it.
  • No, actually I'm "parsing" it directly from Template:Cite web; the "title" of the webpage is "United States Census Bureau", for which represents. Seattle (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This version clearly shows how to compactly format the table with separate columns.
    • As I noted above, you've dropped the word "County" from the name of each county in that column, because the column heading implies that. You've omitted the unit of "people" from the population column, because the column heading implies that. Properly done, there's no need to repeat the unit in each row of the table because the heading will imply the proper units. However, dropping the units and leaving the conversions in the same column is an open invitation for readers to mis-parse the data while scanning the table; seeing raw numbers in parentheses in a table can be mis-interpretted as negative numbers or notation of measure uncertainty.
  • Tell me what criterion of the featured list criteria the list fails, in its current state, and I'll be happy to address it. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You seem to believe that splitting the columns is bad for some reason, yet that's what |disp=table is for in {{convert}}.
  • I don't know why it's there; you'd have to ask whoever added the parameter to {{convert}} his or her reasoning behind adding it to the template. As I noted above, I re-added the parameters because "in no other column are two values present". Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Done this way, the two columns actually take up less horizontal space.
  • The second column under "Total area" is superfluous to the first; "parse" it any way you want, but there's no reason that couldn't be one column.
    • The table takes up less vertical space because the only rows that need to occupy two lines are those for places in two counties. So except for those rows, everything lines up across vertically as a reader scans each row horizontally as well. For those two-county rows, you could separate the two values by a simple comma instead of a line break, which wouldn't widen the column much, if at all. On narrower displays, the cells will still line-wrap at the comma if necessary to reduce the width of the overall column.
  • Again, a smaller vertical width seems like a personal preference. Tell me what criterion of the featured list criteria the list fails, in its current state. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Finally, the panoramic photo should be reinserted into the gallery, moved elsewhere (like the bottom of the lead), or removed. It is jarring to have this nicely formatted gallery with a photograph of a totally different formatting scheme directly underneath. The inconsistency gives an unpolished look.
  • No, the photo, at that size, renders it too small for any productive use. Readers can see details of the community in its current form. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Imzadi 1979  09:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose—fails several criteria. Until this point, I had not reviewed the prose, but now that I have, I feel the lead section fails criterion 1 in addition to the WP:V policy. There is a direct quotation that lacks a citation for the source of the quotation, contrary to policy. From WP:V, "All quotations ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Professional writing standards, and typical Wikipedian practice, is to immediately follow quoted text with a source. I might assume that the footnote at the end of the subsequent sentence is the source of the quotation, but that assumption would be no substitute for appropriate practices, even if that means consecutive sentence bear the same footnote.

The entire second paragraph is off-topic, but would be appropriate in a list of incorporated places in West Virginia. If this paragraph were recast a bit, it could be on-topic for CDPs/unincorporated places, but much of the information as presented does not apply to the topic at hand.

  • Disagree. This paragraph actually describes CDPs by describing what they are not– they haven't met the requirements for incorporation, which I specify in paragraph two, or they have chosen not to incorporate. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to criterion 4, the second paragraph of the lead should be its own section once reworked as it would form a natural area of the topic of CDPs in the state, a description of what a CDP in the state is. The last paragraph of the lead, as it appears, is a good summary of some the details in the table, so it should remain in the lead to satisfy criterion 2.

  • I'm not sure what your objection is here. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition the length of some of the captions in the gallery cannot be classified as "succinct", failing criterion 5b. If the author wants to expound on various places, he or she can add a "Description" column to the table.

  • If you have a specific objection, be sure to let me know. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Criterion 5a is failed related to the layout of the table regarding the area columns. The placement of a panoramic photograph immediately after a gallery, resulting in the juxtaposition of two styles of photographic elements also fails criterion 5a. Splitting the unit systems for the area would enhance the legibility or the ability of readers to parse the numerical data and improve the visual appeal of the table. Harmonizing the juxtaposition of photo layout styles, even just by moving the one photo up into the prose sections preceding the table would also improve the visual appeal.

  • I'll disagree and point you to a consensus at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 against segregating units. Now, if you want to try and change that consensus through a RFC, that would be your best route– it currently appears that both are accepted. I disagree that the wide photo of Corrine is "jarring" after the gallery– it's a nice way to end the list, actually, with a detailed panorama of a West Virginian CDP. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For these reasons, I now oppose at this time. Imzadi 1979  11:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • List of cities and towns in Arizona (promoted in 2009), List of cities and towns in California (2012), and List of cities and towns in the San Francisco Bay Area (2012) use separate columns for each measurement system when displaying converted measurements, although they have the same issue I originally experienced with this list regarding blank space and photographs. The also include the population density, which is completely missing from this list. That tells me we're not satisfying criterion 3a related the "annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". Similar lists for Canada and other countries lack converted values, specifying areas and population densities only in terms of square kilometers, so one could argue they're failing MOS:CONVERSIONS. However, they're at least putting the unit in the heading and not repeating it in every row of the table, something that currently has to be done here to keep the customary and metric straight. Imzadi 1979  12:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • Why is it a "List of census-designated places in West Virginia" with a hyphen, when it defines a "census designated place" with no hyphen? Unless there is a reason I am missing, this should be made consistent, and probably follow our article, and have no hyphen.
  • I'm a little confused about the second paragraph. As far as I can tell from the first paragraph, a CDP lacks "elected municipal officers and boundaries with legal status", while the second paragraphs discusses "municipal corporations": are "municipal corporations" a subset of CDPs?
  • The last paragraph seem a bit repetitive, given that Bowden is the smallest and least populated, those facts could do with being merged into one sentence.
  • Everything in the table looks hunky dory, and the images display fine next to it for me, but I do have a wide screen. Harrias talk 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • We cannot assume all readers have wide screens. I have one as well, but I keep my window width constrained to approximate a sheet of paper held in the portrait (upright) orientation, not a sheet of paper in landscape (wide screen) orientation. Before the page was changes, I had the same issue viewing the desktop version of the article on my iPad in the portrait orientation, and when I rotated the device to landscape mode. Viewing the mobile version of the page, pre-change, gave me the same formatting issues in portrait mode, but not in landscape. And just to be complete, I viewed the page on my phone. My phone gave me the same results as my tablet for the desktop view. In mobile view, the table appeared under the photos no matter which way I held my phone.

      In short, we have a lot of variables to account for in laying out the elements of a page, and assuming that a reader has a wide screen and won't have issues with a format is a bad idea. The change to a gallery under the table is a great improvement. Imzadi 1979  23:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Moved images; I didn't see a break, but I've seen them before. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Premier League Golden Glove[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk); Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Been a while since I have been here, but came across this list recently and was in good shape, so have just sprued it up and hopefully it now meets the criteria. Since I haven't been here in a while, I might not be up to date with certain style guidelines, so I apologise in advance if that is the case. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • During his streak, Van der Sar went 1,311 minutes... the third longest in the world after Mazarópi's 1,816 minutes. I'm not sure what this has to do with the award, mates. Seattle (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point, I'd like a few more opinions first before I remove it. It does seem superfluous to the article. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. Seattle (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Arshad Warsi, roles and awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Arshad Warsi has been in the Hindi film industry since 1987 but it was only in 2003 that he won fame for his role in Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.. Since then he has won several awards for his acting skills. This list presents all his film credits, awards and nominations.Skr15081997 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG
  • I don't see a need to add three images of him, all taken during the same time.
Removed 2 from the filmography section.
  • Why is it that you've not included a "Director" column in the table?
If an actor-director collaboration is really noteworthy, then it is mentioned in the lead. Adding separate column for director would increase total width. I have followed User:Cowlibob on this. An actor's direct contribution to a film is his/her respective role. Almost all the filmography websites list film's name, year and role. On WP, we provide 2 more columns–notes and ref(s). Had he been a director/producer then a different format would have been followed as in Satyajit Ray filmography.
Yeah, I know. Not a requirement, just a suggestion.
  • "and reprised his role as Circuit in Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. in its sequel Lage Raho Munna Bhai" - grammatical error.
  • "Warsi also hosted the first season of the reality television show Big Boss, for which"
  • Don't restrict the awards to only Filmfare in the prose as it's not just a filmography, but also awards list.
All awards and nominations have been mentioned in the lead.
  • "he played a lawyer in the National Film Award-winning comedy" - "National Film Award-winning" is WP:UNDUE.

Please have a look at this. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. I now support. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Thanks for reviewing. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


  • The very first item listed in the WP:Featured list criteria is WP:Naming conventions, which says, in part, to "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another". A title such as "Arshad Warsi, roles and awards" suggests to me that this article is a subsidiary to the main Arshad Warsi article, and many other editors have expressed similar concerns about this particular title format (see, for example, User:sroc's comprehensive reasoning here). Therefore, I believe that this title violates WP:Naming conventions and that thus the article does not currently meet the FLC.
A Thousand Doors, the new title is List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that, while I have no objections to titles of the format "List of roles and awards of [name]", there are editors who do. If this article were promoted to FL under its current title, I'm not convinced that it would stay there for very long. I feel that the community need to reach a consensus on what are appropriate titles for list of this type before we promote anymore to featured status. I'm afraid to say that my oppose stands. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Lack of community consensus isn't a good reason to oppose.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing in sroc's reasoning that is applicable here (or anywhere else, for that matter) and your agreement with one user's opinion means nothing in this context. Indeed, quite the reverse, as the consensus was against him there and in similar discussions. The title format "Name, roles and awards" is entirely acceptable, here and elsewhere, and an oppose based on such an opinion holds no water. (To clarify, although I am an FL delegate, I will not take part in closing this candidacy to avoid the question of COI on this point.) It is a great shame that the title has been changed because of ther bullying stance, and a greater pity with it is such a poor choice: the double "of" is utterly jarring. Whay was a perfectly good title changed for a poorer substitute? - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have compared this article to the FLC; I do not believe that it meets them. That is why I am opposing. Sroc was certainly not "one" user. I count over a dozen editors who have, at some point or another, raised objections to this particular title format:
  1. "The title seems very ungrammatical to me"
  2. "The title bothers me as well" (NB. This user went on to support John Gielgud, roles and awards becoming an FL)
  3. "Comma here may imply that we are speaking about John Gielgud, some roles and some awards"
  4. "This is a terrible title, and I'm incredulous that this made FL with such a title"
  5. "the present title sounds like a discussion about John Gielgud, roles and awards"
  6. "the current title at best scans poorly and at worst is confusing, if not sub-optimal use of English"
  7. "'John Gielgud, roles and awards' doesn't work"
  8. "the current title is at best awkward and at worst a comma splice"
  9. "the comma version is atrocious"
  10. "The current title is awful"
  11. "The current title is pretty mediocre"
  12. "maybe to something like Roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards of John Gieldgud. To me, that just reads and looks nicer"
  13. "Personally, I can't parse the current version with the comma"
  14. "The title is a little non-standard"
  15. "'Name, roles and awards' has unsatisfactory syntax because it has the appearance of a list" (NB. This user was the closing admin in the Category talk:Filmographies discussion)
This all suggest to me that titles in the format "[Name], roles and awards" are not, in fact, "entirely acceptable". I'm certainly not seeing anything at WP:AT that forbids use of the double "of". We have many featured lists with such titles (for example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Accusations of bullying are unwarranted. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Nothing that "forbids" double of? There's nothing that specifically bars many things, but it's piss poor English, which is why it jars. WP:OSEmi a nutshell. As to the previous name format, the ignorance of a small number of the holier-than-thou, self-appointed Guardians of the MoS regarding the British use of the comma does not in any way diminish the fact that this is an entirely acceptable format. The reason articles still exist in the format is because there was no consensus to change it, and because it is grammatically correct. I stand by everything I said in my first comment. – SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for now – Fails 3(b) criterion. With the prose size of the parent article being less than 5k chars (~800 words), I don't find any reason to fork out a separate list just for roles and awards. Vensatry (ping) 10:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I have added a few lines to the main article, hope that suffices 3(b) requirement.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you even call than an improvement? Vensatry (ping) 17:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I appreciate the time you are giving to this nomination, but can you be a bit specific? It will help both of us.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the minimum prose size. Since you want me to be a bit specific, my rule of thumb would be 15k chars, say the size of Bipasha Basu's. Vensatry (ping) 06:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
15k sounds too much at present. However I will try to make the article 8-10k characters in prose size. Meanwhile can you review the list?--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I know but make sure it reaches at least 10k. Vensatry (ping) 10:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, give me some time.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry: now the parent article has 10,167 characters of prose. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • The very first sentence has two instances of the word "film".
reduced to 1
  • Warsi didn't "star" in either Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya or Salaam Namaste. Salman & Sushmita did in the first, and Saif & Preity did in the other. Please tweak.
  • "His performance in the latter won him the Filmfare and Zee Cine Awards in the category Best Actor in a Comic Role" ==> "in the Best Actor in a Comic Role category"
  • "honoured him" is not something we use to talk about film awards. Please use the more conventional received, won, garnered etc.
  • In can see many, many instances of "in the same year". Please construct your sentences differently. In general, the prose definitely needs an additional bit of work.
  • There is no mention of which of his films earned the most money. It's an important bit of info in an actor's filmography. It's also important to say that his first film was a box office flop. Without those bits of pertinent information, the lead reads like a monotonous collection of "he played xxx in yyy".
Added info on box office performances
  • The source you provided for Jeetenge Hum makes no mention of when it released, but only states that it has been in production for a long time. What made you put 2001 as it's release date?
The film was shelved for about 10 years. IMDb lists its release date as 2001 while the BH source used now says 2011.
  • I don't think the name of the tv show is Bigg Boss 1. The 1 refers to it's first season. The show is simply called Bigg Boss. You need to mention which season he hosted in the notes column.
  • Warsi's official website as an external link is unnecessary in his filmography page.

--Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: I hope my recent edits have resolved all of your concerns. Thanks for your thorough review. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

More comments:

  • "Warsi also co-produced and starred in the supernatural comedy-drama Hum Tum Aur Ghost. It performed poorly at the box office." The two sentences can be combined.
  • "Golmaal 3, the year's second-highest grossing Hindi film also featured him in an important role". Not sure what "important role" refers to. You can say he played one of the primary roles in it.
  • "...and turned out to be a commercial disaster". Sounds like a tabloid report. Please tweak to something more formal.
  • What is a "solo commercial success"? Do you mean it was his first commercial success in which he played the lead role? It's not very clear from the prose that before Jolly LLB most of his successes were in ensemble films.
I have removed this claim.
  • You have a number of "shelved" or "unreleased" films in the table, and have yet provided a release year for them. Why?
Those are the years they were scheduled to release in.
The very purpose of the year column is to state which year the film released in, or for films that haven't released yet, the scheduled year. For shelved or unreleased films, this is a violation. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Maintain consistency in the notes column. In the television section, one note says "He hosted the show's first season." and another note simply states "second season". Follow the latter format.
  • Also, the season must link with the respective article, where available.
  • I see you have used "" as a source for several claims. Personal websites are not considered reliable sources, and cannot be used to cite claims.
Replaced with better sources.
  • Why do we have the location information only for a few refs? Either include it for all them or don't include them at all.
Location is an important information for references.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Not quite what I meant. You need to maintain consistency here. If you provide location information, then you must provide for each of the refs. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

--Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: I have responded to all of your comments. Cheers, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually he was nominated for Best Comedian.
Yes, but you put the wrong category in the table.
IMDb says he was nominated for Best "Actress" category.
Added and thanks for the source.
This will be everyone's worry. See here. The worst thing is that couldn't be archived.
Hopefully it's only temporary.
Well, I too hope so. Lots of FLs (and even FAs) have references from -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 23:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes a reliable source?
Working on Stardust.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No awards or nominations found on IMDb, BH or other site.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Per a BH source, he has received a Stardust nomination for Ishqiya. @Skr15081997: You can use this source. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added 2 more awards. Now there are 25 awards & noms; 2 Star Guild Awards, 3 BIG Star, 5 Filmfare, 2 GIFA, 5 IIFA, 1 ITA, 4 Screen, 1 Stardust and 2 Zee Cine Awards.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The prose really needed a lot of work. I've given the lead a copy-edit. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Calvin999
  • In the references, you should only link a magazine, publication, TV show etc etc the first time it is used, then subsequent references should not be linked. But I can see that The Times of India and Bollywood Hungama, just to name two out of many examples, are repeatedly linked throughout the references. The Awards and nominations table should also have the shading for the Year column, so match the table and to comply with WP:ACCESS. These issues are quite easy to sort out. I think the lead reads fine, and the other tables are fine, too. As a result, I will Support this nomination given that you correct these couple of points. If you wouldn't mine looking at nomination, I'd appreciated it.  — Calvin999 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Calvin999: the WP:ACCESS issue has been resolved. About the links in the references I think that repeated linking helps our readers since they generally don't know in which ref the newspaper, magazine or website is linked at the first instance. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude, AssociateAffiliate

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..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support great work NapHit (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Angel Haze discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Angel Haze is an american rapper, they've released one studio album, two extended plays, six mixtapes, eleven singles (including five as a featured artist) and eight music videos. I am nominating this for featured list, I've been working on it extensively for the past few days and think it sufficiently meets criteria, hope to hear others thoughts. Azealia911 talk 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 Participation Guide
, HyunAChachki, Calvin999, SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG
Comments/No vote yet
Chasewc91, Cowlibob
The Rambling Man
  • Haven't looked thoroughly and may add more comments later, but on first glance:
    • All mentions of "extended play" should be changed to EP, the more common term. The releases infobox even uses "EP".
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The "they" pronouns should be explained in a footnote for readers who have not read Haze's biography.
Done: Explained and sourced. Azealia911 talk 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Chase (talk / contribs) 04:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Looks great! Simon (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@: Please could you elaborate a bit on how this meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. As PresN has outlined here [[5]], short "looks great" reviews can give impression that the list wasn't actually "reviewed" even if it was especially if later reviews find substantial things to fix. I don't want it to seem as if I'm trying to hinder these noms but I'm actually ensuring the nom has better chance as reviews don't need to be discarded later on. Cowlibob (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: user HĐ did tweak the page before leaving comments, just to eliminate any thought of "gave approval without even looking at the page" Azealia911 talk 03:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a gifted support but have to take into account how these early "votes" have been considered in the past. Cowlibob (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like a good article, apologies for my disruptive edit! new user here HyunAChachki (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the !vote, and that's ok, we were all new at one stage, happy editing. Azealia911 talk 21:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@HyunAChachki: Since you started your account just yesterday and have made 8 mainspace edits. It's probably too early to start giving supports to featured list candidates but feel free to continue contributing on expanding articles. Please look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria for what is required for a FL. Cowlibob (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

I'm actually going on wikibreak for a couple of weeks for exams. Comments I can leave with you are:

  • the lead is only 900 characters which wouldn't be enough for DYK nomination. Is it possible to expand that? You could use things like chart positions, notable collaborations.
Done: Expanded and sourced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be surprised if others suggested merging the discography back into the main article as the main one only has 3.5K of prose. I think Lorde who has a similar length discography had atleast 5.5K prose before it was split.
Done: Calling this a done seeing as it's not a fixable problem concerning the discog article, I'll buff up the main article as much as I can though. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't use metacritic in this case for critical acclaim as it is based of 6 reviews.
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Table error in guest appearances where the table is open.
Done: Fixed year error. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of links to commercial sites such as iTunes, they are generally used if there are no other sources for the song/album.
Done: Replaced majority, only remaining is a very low-key artist I can't find an alt link for, and one for the New York EP, which partners with one that mentions the release of the EP in October 2012 without specifying date. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd also try to find alternative sources for the info which is based of Facebook, wordpress and other such sites even if they are operated by the artist.
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Main image needs alttext per WP:ALT
Done: Provided. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Those would be my initial comments. I can't reply to it due to above wikibreak. Hope they are helpful. Cowlibob (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Best of luck with you exams, and hopefully if the nom is still open when you get back, you can give your support. All the best, Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As per Azaealia911's message on my talk page, all of my concerns have been addressed (I just made some additional fixes to some refs as well), so I now Support.  — Calvin999 20:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose again, too many quick supports...

  • Please fix all the WP:DASH violations per the MOS, mostly in the reference titles which seem to use spaced hyphens rather than spaced en-dashes mostly.
Done: Corrected, think I got 'em all.
  • Infobox has 1 EP while lead and main article show 2.
Done: Corrected.
  • Are you claiming a single source that says "only someone who gives at least several fucks could offer up something this personal, this diverse in its influences, and this polished" means that an EP is "critically acclaimed"?
Done: Sourced.
  • Image caption is an incomplete sentence so it needs no full stop.
Done: Corrected.
  • "Haze released... Haze released..." repetitive and dull prose.
Done: Cut down use of the word "release" from 11 times in lead to 5.
  • "release it sometime in early 2014.[4] Due to the leak, the label rush-released the album, and it was officially released" count the "release"s, again dull and repetitive prose.
Done: Same as above.
  • "sold as little as 850 copies" as few as...
Done: Corrected.
  • "Although Dirty Gold received generally positive reviews from critics" where is this referenced?
Done: Sourced.
  • "which is set to be released in 2015." well we're half way through 2015, when is this going to happen?
No idea, I'm not affiliated with Angel Haze's music team, simply a fan. But as you pointed out, we still have six months left of this year in which the project may be released, and as we know, albums can be released with no prior announcement, even from the biggest artists. The article cited stating the projects are due for a 2015 release are them most up-to-date I can find, and as long as we're in 2015, I see nothing wrong with the wording.
  • "were released from Haze's upcoming projects, both released" released released.... zzz.
Done: Fixed.
  • Please include the country of release for each of the specific release dates.
Done: Done.

That's it for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Corrected all errors pointed out. Azealia911 talk 21:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm watching this page. I'll revisit later and will express my opinion once I am satisfied with the list. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 12:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 Atlantic hurricane season ended similar to that of its predecessor, with below-average activity overall. With the addition of all post-season analysis data via the National Hurricane Center, I believe this page satisfies the requirements of a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AHeneen:

  • No issues from the alt text, external links, disambig links, reflinks, and peer review tools, except there's no alt for the image in Template:2014 Atlantic hurricane season buttons .
  • SI units should be used, since this is a science-related article and not completely US-centric. (WP:METRIC, if using Template:Convert you can just add the flip parameter...flip=yes).
  • Needs to comply with WP:TIMEZONE...a comma is needed between time & (8:00 p.m. EDT, June 30) and I didn't see a wikilink for EDT. A more important issue, however, is that the non-UTC times add a lot of clutter and sometimes are not the most relevant time zone for an event. Events that are unrelated to impact to land do not need a time other than UTC (eg. formation of TD2 on 21 July). EDT & AST are used in places where they should not be used (I realize you probably got them from the NHS statements):
  • This sentence needs to be reworded for clarity: "The season featured nine tropical cyclones, of which eight further intensified into tropical storms; six became hurricanes and two further intensified into major hurricanes." The semicolon breaks up the sentence to make it unclear that the six hurricanes are part of the eight TSs and further part of the nine TCs. Here's a better version: "The season featured nine tropical cyclones, of which eight intensified into tropical storms and six further intensified into hurricanes (including two major hurricanes)."
  • In the lead, could a wikilink be added to Atlantic hurricane—a very useful and appropriate topic for this subject. Also, when linking to tropical storm, hurricane, and major hurricane, I think it would be better to link to the scale used to define these terms or mention the defining criteria directly in this article (eg. to note 2).
  • "Impact throughout the year was widespread although not particularly ruinous." Citation needed.
  • "No tropical cyclones developed in the month of June." Is this necessary?
  • Aug 9: "several hundred miles" (add conversion)
  • Refer to TDs as "Tropical Depression [number]" throughout the article.
  • "The extratropical cyclone of Gonzalo..." Using "of Gonzalo" doesn't seem right to me and since extratropical cyclones aren't named, it would be better (in my opinion) to use the term "post-tropical cyclone [name]" or "the extratropical remnants of [TS/H] [name]".
  • The Commons Category template should be inline, since it is taller than the two links in the "External links" section, use Template:Commons category-inline.

Those are all I the issues I see. I haven't reviewed any featured content before (but I have reviewed several GAs), so this may not cover every issue with this article. AHeneen (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front order of battle[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list overall is a quite a decent list. Created it back in March. Since it was part of MILHIST it passed a B-class and a A-class review both in March. The A-class was closed and my article was promoted earlier this month. Anyways, I really hope this passes, even though this is going to be my first featured content. Thanks for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the title include the war? There are many Western Fronts, and not everyone knows the AEF were WWI. Mattximus (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mattximus: done.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Looks good - just a few queries probably due to my limited knowledge of the subject.
  • "President Woodrow Wilson created the AEF in May 1917, originally appointing Major General Frederick Funston as commander." As Funston died in February 1917 I do not see the point in mentioning him.Yes check.svg Done
  • "41st Infantry Division" What does "was separated" mean?Yes check.svg clarified

Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370[edit]

Nominator(s): AHeneen (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has been expanded/improved to meet the FL criteria. A copyedit request was made at the Guild of Copy Editors and has been finished. I've created several GAs, but this would be my first Featured content.

Although the search is ongoing, there has not been a lot of events associated with the search in recent months. Since November 2014, there has only been about 1-2 events per month (and a few of the events listed aren't very significant). Most of the events occurred between March-May 2014 and the start of the current phase in October 2014. I believe the list meets the stability criteria because it "does not change significantly from day to day".

The choice for the sections is basically a breakdown of the timeline by activity and roughly based on the phase of the search.

  • March 2014: Search in Southeast Asia and events related to the initial investigation and reaction. The shift to the southern Indian Ocean occurs on 17 March and the rest of the month is aerial searches in a very remote region (refer to map).
  • April-May 2014: Although the aerial search continues, the focus during this time is the acoustic search and the sonar survey by Bluefin 21 which are both carried out from ships
  • June-September 2014: The period between the end of active searching (Bluefin 21 search ended 28 May) and the start of the next phase in October
  • October 2014-present: Current phase of the search (underwater phase)

AHeneen (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Further comments from Littlecarmen

  • Link magazines, newspapers, websites, publishers etc. the first time you use them in references.
  • De-italicize publications that aren't magazines or newspapers and italicize those in some of the cases you haven't. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I will link the references as suggested. (Done) Italics, however, have been formatted by the templates used for the citations—mainly Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web—so the only way to de-italicize publications would be to change the citation template (if appropriate) or override the template formatting (if that is possible). I don't see anything in the MOS concerning citation formatting. The WP:CITE guideline doesn't provide instructions on reference formatting and links to WP:CITE/ES, but the latter is not a guideline or policy. The Cite News template italicizes the name of the "work" (eg. BBC News, CNN). The Cite Web template italicizes the website name (eg. Malaysia Airlines, Joint Agency Coordination Centre). I would assume that the formatting implemented by the citation templates is compliant with the MOS, or at least it should be acceptable. AHeneen (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I have addressed the first concern about wikilinking the first occurrence of a source in the references. I have also formatted the references consistently (same name, eg. "Joint Agency Coordination Centre" and no use of "JACC"), fixed some bad links (per External Links tool, only issue is the Journal of Navigation paper that does not require a subscription but the tool says it does), and removed one duplicate ref. Diffs AHeneen (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I usually de-italicize publications by using the publisher parameter instead of the work or website parameter. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
But is that necessary? AHeneen (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well it's just a fact that only magazines and newspapers are italicized, you can also see that in the naming of Wikipedia articles. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I had fixed all the references in the article to use the appropriate Citation Style 1 template: Template:Cite news, Template:Cite web, and a couple others. Per WP:CITEVAR, what matters is that an article uses a consistent formatting style. Per WP:CITECONSENSUS: "If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate. It is inappropriate to set parameters to false values in order that the template will be rendered to the reader as if it were written in some style other than the style normally produced by the template (e.g., MLA style)." It is not appropriate to place, for example, the name of a website in the publisher parameter. The article is internally consistent in that it applies the Citation Style 1 formatting to the refs. AHeneen (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I asked for some advice about this topic here and if the website and company name are the same, the publisher parameter can be used. Radio and TV stations are also seen as publishers so the publisher parameter can also be used here. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have adjusted all of the references to match the suggested formatting if accurate (refer to above quote from WP:CITECONSENSUS), but there are exceptions where the website is kept (and thus italicized) because the publisher has a different name:
There is also the case of an interview, where the title is italicized (Inmarsat breaks silence on probe into missing jet) by Template:Cite interview but it is not a major work that should be italicized. Again, I will refer to the previous comment about the accuracy of citation parameters and the fact that the text formatting that doesn't match is MOS is produced by the templates for the most common citation style on Wikipedia. I have made adjustments when accuracy is not affected, but it is not appropriate to omit a parameter because of the formatting style. AHeneen (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Fringe episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This list includes all episodes of the science fiction series Fringe, which aired from 2008 to 2013 in the US. I've drawn from other television episodes lists for ideas on constructing it, so I hope it is near to meeting the FL criteria. Thanks in advance to any reviewers! Ruby 2010/2013 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Littlecarmen

  • Move all references to the end of the sentences.
  • Per WP:CITEFOOT, "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity". If a citation does not support the entire statement, I purposely did not add them to the end. It is meant to make verification easier. Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Fringe's pilot episode was picked up by Fox in May 2008,[10][11] and it premiered on September 9.[12][13]" Remove the "it".
  • "Critics hailed the series as a successor to Lost, with an even more expensive pilot;[14] the two series shared many similarities including Abrams' involvement, their characters exploring a series of unexplained events, their use of many of the same actors and writers, and the difficulty in categorizing each show within just one genre.[15]" There's a lot of info in this sentence and not all of it relates to one another, split it up. Is the cost of the pilot significant? If so, add the cost.
  • "Entertainment Weekly conjectures that despite its ratings decline, Fringe survived for five seasons in part because of Fox executive Kevin Reilly's love of the series, and also due to the network's desire to make amends for the science fiction shows it had previously canceled.[26]" Mention who Kevin Reilly is and what his involvement with the series is.
  • I already mention that he was an executive of Fox. Other than that, he had no specific involvement with the series other than overseeing the network's various entertainment offerings (and deciding what remains and what is canceled). Out of curiosity, what else would you wish me to add here? Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh, I somehow missed that one word. It's fine, sorry. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Why didn't you keep the date format from the article consistent in the references?
  • The citation date format is consistent with other Fringe articles (like The Same Old Story etc.). I didn't start this date style but have attempted to maintain it for consistency. Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Then it should be changed in those articles, too. The date format in the references should be consistent with that in the body of the article. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am sympathetic to your concern. However, I feel consensus would be needed to change the format in over 100 articles. And such a change would take a massive quantity of time and effort, which I do not have. Unless this is something a script could do? (I've never used one myself). Ruby 2010/2013 15:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, you don't need to change them all now. That can be done over time once/if those articles are nominated for FL, FA or GA. I don't know of a script that could do that, I've also never used one, but maybe there is one. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Only link magazines, publishers etc. the first time you use them.
  • I don't believe this is required and prefer to link every instance, as the citations list is rather long. Also, the bulk of those citations come from the transcluded season pages, so I cannot simply unlink most of them (since then the citations would not be linked at all in the season pages). Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? How does unlinking something here affect other articles? See WP:Overlinking: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Littlecarmen (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Other than that, the list looks great to me! Littlecarmen (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for commenting, Littlecarmen! I had almost forgotten that I nominated this :) Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a short but comprehensive and well-sourced list. (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support The article looks good to me, with everything being referenced properly.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Lists of number-one albums by (category) are always interesting. Korean music is rising in the mainstream. Why 2011? This article more complete and better referenced than the articles for later years.Listmeister (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is well-referenced, but references to Gaon should always include an archive url since the site changes so often. Random86 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added archived urls for some. Thanks! (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks great and very well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments I've got serious issues with this list as it currently is.

  • Like Cowlibob, I'm also concerned by the lack of secondary sources. Of the 67 references in this article, only one is not a primary source, and, since it's dated 2010, one can't really claim that it's actually about the subject in particular.
  • I'm still looking for third-pary sources. Simon (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Two third-party sources have been added. Simon (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Adding in more secondary sources would also help to beef up the lead, which to me looks rather sparse. Currently clocking in at under 1500 characters, it wouldn't even pass DYK in its current state. Is there nothing else that can be said about the number ones on this chart from this year?
  • The lead has been expanded. Simon (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Understandable. I have moved the page. Simon (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The prose shifts between present tense and past tense rather awkwardly in places, e.g. "albums claimed" and "peaked atop", but then "are three acts" and "is the longest-running". You're mainly discussing past events in the second paragraph; MOS:TENSE therefore suggests using the past tense.
  • Fixed the tense. Thanks for your comments! Simon (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this article still needs a lot of work doing to it, and I wish all the participating editors the best of luck in improving it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I've addressed all of your concerns. Simon (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

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)

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 that 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)

List of awards and nominations received by Crowded House[edit]

Notified: Rm w a vu (nominator), WikiProject Australian music, WikiProject Australia

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't believe it meets the featured list criteria. It was promoted more than seven years ago and hasn't aged well:

  • This is a list of awards won by Australian band Crowded House. we haven't started lists like this in years; plus MOS:BOLDTITLE violations Yes check.svg Done
  • Dash violations in references Yes check.svg Done
  • Reference 2 lacks page information Yes check.svg Done
  • I'm not sure why ARIA and APRA awards are separated, when they could be combined under a column header Yes check.svg clarified
  • Text under "History", "ARIA Awards", and "APRA Awards" should be merged to lead Yes check.svg Done
  • Awards in "Other Awards" should be merged to singular "Awards" column Yes check.svg Done
  • Table needs !scope="row" tags per MOS:ACCESS Yes check.svg Done
  • "See also" section needs a {{clear}} because it breaks the "References" section below Yes check.svg Done
  • Some searching needs to be done for any awards won over the past seven years Yes check.svg Done

Overall, some large structural issues, primarily combining tables and combining all text sections. The list currently is not at 2015 featured list standards. Seattle (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Together with Dan arndt, I am tackling these issues.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a question re: dot point 4: combining ARIA and APRA awards. Could you show me where these awards have been combined in any FL article? I'd like to see what it would look like. However, I really don't know why they should be: they are provided by two separate award-giving bodies for different areas of the music industry. It is akin to combining BRIT Awards with Ivor Novello Awards, or Grammy Awards with ASCAP Awards.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@PresN: @Shaidar cuebiyar: It would look similar to List of accolades received by The Dirty Picture, with "Year" substituted for "Date of ceremony". I think that list looks much cleaner than this list, in its current state. We wouldn't necessarily be comparing the ARIA awards to the APRA awards, because each award would be spanned to the governing body. The advantages are a singular list without the stilted headings, and the ability to sort for works across all awards, instead counting how many times an award was nominated over three tables. Outside of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, why should the current format be kept? Seattle (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

I believe that all the identified issues listed above have now been addressed and the article mets the featured list criteria.Dan arndt (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding issues that I've noticed (though it's looking a ton better already!):

  • There were a few places where you used a comma rather than a colon/semicolon- I changed it myself, but just something to keep in mind in the future. Yes check.svg Done
  • I guess it's fine, but it keeps throwing me that you treat "Crowded House" as a plural noun- I keep wanting it to be "Crowded House is a band", not "are a band".Yes check.svg clarified
  • The reference column should be center-aligned; easy way to fix it is to click the magnifying glass/pencil icon in the upper right (search and replace), and replace "|<ref" with "|align="center"|<ref"- this will fix all of them in one go. Yes check.svg Done
  • The row and col scopes are messed up- where you have scope="row" it should be col, and you should have scope="row" just before the year cell, like "|scope="row" rowspan="7"| 1987". Also, you don't have a scope on one (and only one) of the columns? Yes check.svg Done
  • The big one: why aren't the tables sortable? Looks like it wouldn't take much- change the table class from "wikitable" to "wikitable sortable", add "class="unsortable"" to the reference column, use the {{Sort}} template to make sure the songs don't get sorted by the quote marks while the non-songs get correctly sorted by the first letter, and link the few things that aren't linked already in the table.Yes check.svg Done
  • There's some minor things- Four Seasons In One Day should be lower-case i, there's a handful of redirecting links (Brit award, BMI award, MTV award), but nothing else big. --PresN 02:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

@PresN:@Seattle: ::Was just looking at similar FLs and one of the most recent List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey promoted April 2015, has each of the different awards separated into separate tables, even where there is only a single nomination - none of which are sortable. In fact none of the featured list of awards and nominations for musicians appears in the form as outlined in the comments. Is this just one reviewers personal preference or is there a common standard? We believe we've addressed all the issues to date and are prepared to make any further changes but would appreciate feedback on the article as it currently stands. Dan arndt (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I'm in the middle of moving across the country and won't be able to check this for a few days; it's hard to review things on a phone. Don't worry about this being delisted; that's very unlikely at this point as far as I can tell. --PresN 03:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, having now taken a look at this (and added in links- in sortable tables, you link every instance, not just the "first", since that changes based on how the reader sorts the table) I'm fine with keeping it as an FL- it doesn't appear that there's a standard for single-table vs multiple tables for this kind of list, and while I personally would have gone with a single table so as to be able to sort everything together, I'm not going to oppose over it, and overall the list seems back up to par now. I'll leave this up for a few more days as I'm a little busy to do the actual closing, so if anyone else has concerns feel free to give them before I get back around to closing the nomination. --PresN 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I support the single table, but holding this list to a standard not held to other featured lists seems unfair. I do have some comments, though:

  • "|scope="row"" tags should be "!scope="row"" tags, and "plainrowheaders" should be added to "wikitable sortable" Yes check.svg Done
  • of a popular New Zealand-originated rock group how do you define "popular"? "Popular" is a PEACOCK term Yes check.svg Done
  • Crowded House's fan base was already established before any material was recorded. They... How were they already established before the band recorded material? Do you have a reference? Also, "they" after the sentence sounds like you're referring to the fans that recorded material Yes check.svg Done
  • APRA also named their track, "Don't Dream It's Over", sounds like APRA's song. Yes check.svg Done
  • Crowded House performed in an array of venues and through this, earned industry and fan credibility How has they're performance "in an array of venues" increased industry and fan credibility? Yes check.svg Done
  • File:Crowded-house1.JPG: Source URL is dead; the file needs to go through OTRS to ensure that the actual author released the file under a WP-friendly license
  • (including the seventh best Australian song of all time) you've mentioned this earlier, you don't need to mention it again. Yes check.svg Done
  • They also had two other songs ... The group also won repetitive prose Yes check.svg Done
  • They dissolved in 1996 the BRIT awards, or Crowded House? Yes check.svg Done
  • I'm not sure that you can count "Triple J" awards as wins in the infobox Yes check.svg Done
  • Eight of their ARIA Awards were won in the band's earlier years from their first two albums I don't think "in the band's earlier years" is needed here Yes check.svg Done
  • with the line-up of Finn, Hester and Nick Seymour (bass guitar, backing vocals) this needs disambiguation: I'm not sure to whom "backing vocals" and "bass guitar" goes. Can you rework to: "with the line-up of Finn, Hester and Nick Seymour, who plays bass guitar and provides backing vocals." Yes check.svg Done
  • APRA Awards were established in 1982 to honour the achievements of songwriters and music composers, and to recognise their songwriting skills, sales and airplay performance, by its members annually. sentence doesn't make sense Yes check.svg Done
  • The awards are one of the most significant awards that a group or artist can receive in music in New Zealand do you have a reference for this? What does "significant" mean? Yes check.svg Done
  • Refs 16–21 need ndashes.Yes check.svg Done Seattle (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. I've had a go at all of these.
  2. For the infobox photo I went to Commons and updated the url. At wp:en, I put a note on the uploader's talkpage. On the source's website find "Copyright" where the uploader/author exerts their ownership of this photo (amongst others) and gives permission for its use on wp. I added this permission link be added to the Commons' file.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@PresN:@Seattle: I believe that we have addressed all the issues that you've raised in your comments. If there's anything that we've missed then let us know. Dan arndt (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Seattle: Are you okay with not delisting this list now? Or do you think it should be delisted? --PresN 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@PresN: I vote to keep this as a featured list. I'm really glad editors picked this up. It's gone from this to this. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Prose wise, there are still issues. Stray commas, a colon out of nowhere...  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
  • Still multiple considerations (why list the months of releases in the lead, for instance)? I think we need one or two prose reviews before this is closed as keep. The meat of the issue's been addressed, but there's still work to be done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: month of releases removed from lead. Can you identify any other issues - as happy to address. Dan arndt (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I really shouldn't have to. The lead needs a good copyedit, period. Especially with an eye for removing extraneous detail (hint, hint). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: have gone over the lead & removed extraneous comment but it is hard to address your issue if you don't provide a clear indication as to what exactly your concerns are. As previously indicated we are prepared to make any changes required, as shown by our efforts over the last three weeks, but need to know what you believe needs to be amended first. Dan arndt (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Brown discography[edit]

Notified: Candyo32, the initial nominator for the pages promotion in 2010

I am nominating this article on the basis of it's lack of citation in certain areas.

More specifically:

  • The overly-long lead does not feature one single reference to back up its content.
  • The entire Mixtapes section is unsourced.
  • Three Promotional singles have no references to prove they are promotional singles, as opposed to Other charted songs.
  • Several (25 to be exact) Guest appearances are unsourced.
  • In several instances throughout the article, in the US charting column, charting placements exceed the number 100, without extra reference, while the main reference for the column does not support these placements of 100+, as any US placing between 101-125 charts on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, not the Billboard Hot 100, and required independent reference.
  • Untidy referencing throughout the article, a specific example being the UK charting references in Other charted songs.
  • 31 references are dead links.

I definitely think this article has declined in quality since it's promotion five years ago, it certainly wouldn't pass if re-assesed today. Azealia911 talk 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Delist per nominator; no progress made in the more than two weeks since this list was nominated for removal. Seattle (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: It's now been a month since the removal request was opened and no progress has been made to the page. Azealia911 talk 09:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Delist Unfortunately, no progress in last month since nom. Issues remain of overlong unreferenced lead. Unreferenced content within the article, multitude of dead links, overall not close to current FL standards. Cowlibob (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)