Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  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:

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Sam Waterston on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Arbero (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is my first featured list candidate about an actor and I would like to see it added amongst other filmographies featured lists. Arbero (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Padma Vibhushan award recipients[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because last nomination was archived, mainly because of the delays in resolving comments due to my wiki-inactivity. This time I hope to get it to its desired status. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Sussex County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have undertaken a great deal of work to improve this list, and make it a more comprehensive description of the cricket grounds used by Sussex. I believe it meets all the FL criteria, and is of a similar than FLs about other counties' grounds (List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club grounds, List of Essex County Cricket Club grounds, List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club grounds, List of Leicestershire County Cricket Club grounds, List of Somerset County Cricket Club grounds, and List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The other lists you mention include First Class, List A and T20 matches, but there are no T20 matches on this list. Is there a reason for this? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Only 2 grounds have hosted T20 matches (County Ground and Arundel). Also, some of the tables in the similar articles look messier because they're too long if you add T20 matches.
But I can definitely add them if people want. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Added them. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Selma is a 2014 historical drama directed by Ava DuVernay. It received many awards and nominations for its direction, David Oyelowo's portrayal of Martin Luther King Jr. and the song "Glory" by John Legend and Common. As always looks forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Lapadite (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Carol is a 2015 British-American romantic drama film directed by Todd Haynes. The screenplay, written by Phyllis Nagy, is based on Patricia Highsmith's 1952 groundbreaking romance novel The Price of Salt. Carol is Metacritic's best reviewed film of 2015. Over 130 critics and publications have included the film in their Top Ten Best of 2015 lists. The film has received over 170 industry and critics nominations and over 50 awards. It has been nominated for six Academy Awards. Nominating this list (my first) as I believe it's notable, comprehensive enough and well-sourced. Suggestions and comments on improvements are appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think this nomination is premature and the subject is too recent, in fact it is too current. There are still so many pending templates throughout the list, and it will be liable to change in the not too distant future. I would prefer to see this nominated when the list is complete; either wins or nominations, no pending's, because then we know that the content is not likely to change too much if this list is successful (in fact, it shouldn't have to change at all). If Carol wins a lot of the awards it is still pending confirmation for, this will have to be altered in the lead within the next couple of weeks (really not long to have waited, considering the remaining ceremonies will take place in the next two weeks or so anyway).  — Calvin999 09:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, there 8 awards pending (all major, e.g., BAFTA, two guilds, Independent Spirit Awards, Academy Awards). I nominated it now since this process tends to take a while. I wouldn't have nominated it if the pending awards where the regional critics (of which there are a lot) as there's usually a lot of traffic when those are announced. IMO, the pending awards are few and it's just a matter of changing {{nom}} to {{won}} and adding any wins to the lead (e.g., "nominated for __BAFTA, and won ___). But if this is considered too recent/current then let me know if I should withdraw the nomination or just wait it out. Lapadite (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I completely agree. As this film was popular with critics, it is likely that it will receive more nominations which means that the content is to change too much, therefore threatening the stability criterion. I also wanted to work on and submit the Revenant list but not until the award season is over. I hate to say this but I think you should wait for some more months and then renominate it. -- Frankie talk 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
        • You won't really have to wait that long. The film was only released in December and virtually all of the award ceremonies have taken place already, and some will take place this month. So it's not really a long process. I'd wait a couple of months. I originally was going to oppose but didn't end up saving it, because as such I think the list is good, but it's too premature and it's still a current topic.  — Calvin999 10:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
          • It's fine, it can wait. In the meantime, I'd welcome comments on improvements to the article. (Edit:) Frankie, critics have already announced their awards so no updates will be needed there. Lapadite (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
            • I think it's good, but the lead I think is at least one paragraph too long. I stick to facts which can't be included in the table, as well as high profile wins. We can gather most of what you've written by looking at the table. The lead shouldn't be a prose version of the table, it's duplicating info. 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

World Fantasy Convention Award[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, almost done with this latest article group: at #10 out of 10 in the World Fantasy Awards, and #36 overall in my perpetual sci-fi/fantasy awards list FLC series, we have here the World Fantasy Convention Award. Why is there a special convention award, separate from the general "did neat stuff in the past year" professional/non-professional awards, or the life achievement award? Unclear, since the WFAs seem to be allergic to writing down their own rules; which is perhaps why it has only been given out 11 times, the last in 1997. It's still an official category, though, and long enough to be the final WFA list to come to FLC. As always, the formatting is identical to other WFA/sci-fi awards lists, and I've brought forward comments from prior FLCs in the series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Ranji Trophy triple centuries[edit]

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 12:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. Bharatiya29 12:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - I think it meets the criteria's now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Arsenal F.C. players (1–24 appearances)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal. Having checked the names, nationalities, and numbers, I feel this meets the criteria, hence the nom (hopefully someone here will cross check for any clangers). Again, I've modelled this on lists which have been promoted, and used the same database source for players as the main list. Welcome any sort of feedback, cheers...Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments, will return later.....
  1. The article says "Since Arsenal's first competitive match, more than 500 players have made a competitive first-team appearance for the club", but above you say "Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal". So which is it?
The latter, corrected now. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
"have failed to reach a quarter of appearances for the club" - very bizarre turn of phrase, nobody would ever refer to 25 games as "a quarter of appearances". Just say "25 appearances" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Have done. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. In "They became the first southern member admitted into the Football League in 1893", why do the words "southern member" link to Southern Football League, a competition Arsenal have never played in or been associated with ? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed it; wanted to link Arsenal's southern ties to the 'Football in the south of England' section, but that might just be confusing altogether. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is there are a particular reason for the omission of the goals column? This is standard in all lists of this type. Seems strange to me. NapHit (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Silly me, have added them now! Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "The list is ordered first by number of appearances in total, then if necessary by date of debut." It appears to be ordered by date of debut first to me
  • Shouldn't all defenders prior to 1960, have FB as their position instead of DF? Seeing as that is what the position key states.
  • Changed. Done the same for midfielders.
  • "and defunct competitions the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup..." this doesn't seem right to me. Need a better way of introducing the defunct competitions
  • I removed the defunct bit as it reads better just listing the competitions.
  • I think the position key should be sorted by position. So GK, FB, HB etc, would be more beneficial to the reader in my opinion
  • Done, feel free to change the table if something's wrong.
  • link for 1893–94 season in note 1?

NapHit (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@NapHit:, cheers for your comments as ever, think I've addressed all your points now. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Happy to support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite

  • "Despite finishing fifth in the Second Division in 1915": I'd state the season they won it, rather than the year.
  • I feel the positions key should be like that used on other FLs, e.g. Birmingham and York. It makes it clear to our readers when the positions change.
  • I'm not sure about using the precise positions for the old positions, those wing half, inside forward and winger. You've not done the same for modern positions, not that I would encourage you to do use them.
  • "The list is ordered first by date of debut": how is it orderered after date of debut...?
  • "This feature of the game was introduced in the Football League during the 1960s": could you be more specific?
  • The aforementioned Birmingham and York lists include markings for current players and loan players (see "Player" section in key of Birmingham list). Do you feel this list would benefit from doing the same?
  • Total appearances and Total goals: Personally, I would list the competitions by league and cup, and then chronoligically. Also, Arsenal only played in the Europa League when it was known as the UEFA Cup, and you've not included the European Super Cup. So, I would write "Football League, United League, Premier League, FA Cup, FA Charity/Community Shield, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, Football League Cup, European Cup/UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup, UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy and European Super Cup".
  • "London League Premier Division" (division) should be just "London League" (league), for consistency with the other leagues.
  • Per WP:RED, we should wikilink non-existent articles when the "subject is notable and verifiable". I would argue that all the players in this list without articles who played in the Football League should be wikilinked; it is a fully professional league, meaning they pass WP:NFOOTBALL.
  • Some flags are anachronistic, e.g. the flag of Ireland (introduced 1922) and the flag of South Africa (introduced 1994) are used incorrectly in some instances.
  • Accuracy of content: you define the club career as "the first and last calendar years in which the player appeared for the club". However, there's several players who are supposed to have played for the club over more than one year, despite making only one appearance, which is impossible using your definition. See James Charteris and Edward Williams as just two examples.
  • Sourcing: this is probably my biggest concern with the list. From examining the general refs, I take it the one you're using for the player positions, dates and apps/goals is the Arsenal Player Database. However, the dates they provide appear to be contract dates, and not debut to last app. That might explain the wrong dates referred to above?
  • Just a quick note: debut dates are from The Arsenal History. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Further to these points, I did a spot check on Sebastian Larsson, and his years and apps/goals are wrong. Per Soccerbase, Larsson debuted in 2004 and last played in 2006, and made 12 appearances.

I feel the entire list probably needs running through, to ensure accuracy and verifiability, before I can confidently support this nomination. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rod Steiger on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 17:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC), Ssven2, MarnetteD

My 25th nomination about the filmography of Rod Steiger, one of Hollywood's greatest and most beloved character actors. Some of his notable films include On the Waterfront (1954), The Pawnbroker (1964) and In the Heat of the Night (1967). I have borrowed some texts from his biography. Hoping to get some comments which can help further improve the article. Thank you. -- Frankie talk 17:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding Ssven2, and MarnetteD as co-nominators as they've also contributed lots to this list. Cowlibob (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed and added. -- Frankie talk 05:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede is too detailed. There's quite a few relatively unremarkable roles mentioned like Innocents with Dirty Hands, The Magic Mountain, Catch the Heat etc. To anybody really up on Steiger's career it would seem strange to even mention ones like that in a career summary. I also don't think it's a good idea to "borrow some texts from his biography". In places you seem to have misinterpreted the text, if you read it closely you'll see that Three into Two Won't Go wasn't a box office flop, it was actually the 19th highest grossing of the year. it was the film before it which flopped. I would also rather some understanding of the sorts of roles he played was given too.

I didn't take the TiTWG bit from his biography. That's what the Guardian source claims.
It did well at the box office but a number of critics didn't like it I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"During the 1970s, Steiger starred in foreign productions and independent films in search of more demanding roles, and suffered a setback in his career. " -you don't make it clear what that setback actually was initially, so best not to mention it until you bring up the subject of his health in late 70s. You definitely need to mention his health and career decline because after it the studios treated him as good as dead and he had to find roles in crappy B movies (which I'd avoid mentioning for the most part). If you;re going to mention 90s TV/miniseries I would favour mentioning playing Sam Giancana in the miniseries Sinatra (1992). Catch the Heat is currently a redirect to List of Argentine films of 1987. Please create a stub on it if it doesn't exist!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Other than this ithe list itself looks in good order.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole lede needs a revamp. I've edited it a bit and will try to give it my full attention this evening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Dr. Blofeld but I would like to withdraw the nomination as I am comfortable with its current state. But since it's also Ssven2 and MarnetteD's nomination, they can contest it. -- Frankie talk 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you Frankie. We can keep plugging away on improving the list until you are ready. I can mention one thing in regards to the career decline - making the film W.C. Fields and Me had been a long time ambition for Steiger. When it was panned it either started or added to his depression and health problems. Unfortunately this is all from memory of talk shows and newspaper articles from the time so it is WP:SYNTH on my part. Also it might not be relevant to this list article. Cheers to everyone and I hope that you enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

After a long hiatus from Wikipedia, I am back with my 19th FLC nomination on the lovely Jessica Chastain. Hope to receive constructive criticism, as before. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - based on comprehensiveness and coverage. I don't find it very detailed, and that's partly because each table is quite short because of her comparatively few film appearances compared to others. I don't think it represents the best of Wikipedia, and it's quite premature in my opinion. I would rather see a longer list. I don't see why it's not just called "Jessica Chastain filmography" either. The wording of the current title sounds more like it should be a prose article, not a list, and that's actually what I was expecting to see when I clicked on the Wikilink. I find the lead a bit choppy too. it's just short, successive sentences that aren't that interesting to read, and it's more like a chronological re-telling of what we can gather ourselves from the list. I'd rather see more about the characters she has played and critical responses, awards and nominations, not just what year she was in each film.  — Calvin999 12:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: "_______ on stage and screen" is frequently used for actors and actresses with theater credits. A common alternative is "_______ performances". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I know, but for me it sounds more like it should be a prose article. Using 'filmography', we know it's a table or list.  — Calvin999 09:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Calvin999, your reasoning for the oppose are based on your personal opinion and not on an existing criteria. I urge you to read the FL criteria before such a drastic opposition to the nomination. I'm sorry but "it sounds more like it should be a prose article" is not a strong justification. Also, no filmography list provides a list of critic reviews - however, this list, wherever possible, and without being tedious to read, provides details of her major award wins and nominations, as well as the critical and commercial performance of her most notable films. It is in no way just a bland listing of her playing "x" in film "y". Please familiarise yourself with the standard followed by the film, TV and theater appereance listings of actors (such as Meryl Streep on screen and stage - a list that I wrote with Dr. Blofeld) that we follow out here, and I'd be happy to follow up on more legitimate concerns. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
They are my reasons. I don't think the lead is broad enough in its coverage or that it is detailed enough. It's not engaging or interesting. You could also illustrate the article with some images, surely (and I don't mean by adding multiple pictures of Chastain; the second one is completely pointless). With regard to Streep's, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists comes t mind; no two lists are the same or can be the same, each one is different. Having said that, I actually found Streep's interesting to read. Unfortunately, I do find Chastain's a bit of a bland listing of "x" in "y". Another problem with the title is that it's not reflective of the content. Only one sentence in three paragraphs says about her stage work. I'm sorry that you're quite clearly rattled by my opposing, but I don't think this list represents the best of Wikipedia as a whole. I don't think this list meets 1, 2 ,3a or 5b of the criteria, either in part or fully in places. How's that? I'd actually say this list could be merged with her bio, which is a problem regarding criteria.  — Calvin999 10:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Look, I'd be willing to make amendments/improvements to the article - that's the entire purpose of the FLC process. But you've got to be more specific about what needs changing; something like "not engaging or interesting" doesn't exactly help this nomination. Could I request the coordinators or some other editors to weigh in on this matter, please? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Streep's one to me has more of an engaging and interesting flair to it. I enjoyed reading it and I found it informative. I didn't get the same feeling when I read Chastain's; it read more like a burst of short sentences. It's meant to be Chastain on stage and screen, but only one sentence out of three paragraphs actually mentioned stage work. I think also her comparatively shorter career doesn't help as there is less to draw upon and write about. But therein lies another issue for me which is bigger: I think this article could be easily merged into her bio. Lots of actors have select filmographies, and I think that the same could be applied to Chastain's. For me, that is a big problem, because I don't think it warrants its own standalone list at this point in her career because it's quite short. It's nothing to be taken personally, no nomination of any kind gets no criticism or feedback. It's not a critique on you, remember that.  — Calvin999 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

69th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1997 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG:

  • "During the ceremony, AMPAS presented the Academy Awards (commonly referred to as Oscars)"
  • "took place on March 24, 1997, at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles beginning" – de-link LA as MoS suggests.
  • Besides writing the number of awards by The English Patient at the ceremony, you should also add that it won the most awards.
  • "Best Original Musical or Comedy Score winner Rachel Portman became the first female winner for composing a musical score" – can be rephrased as "Rachel Portman became the first female to win the Best Original Musical or Comedy Score".
  • "Winners are listed first and highlighted with boldface, and indicated with a double dagger double-dagger"
  • The tables besides the one in the Winners and nominees section need to meet MOS:DTT. !scope=row is what I am referring to.
  • "comedian Billy Crystal to host the 1997 telecast stating," – a comma is needed before "telecast".
  • Why the inconsistency of wiki-linking the publisher of a source-the one in ref 5.
  • Ref 34, 44, 47 - ditto.

In the comments is also the source review (only concerning consistency) of the article-- Frankie talk 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tom Mix filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Tom Mix was a major and influential star of the early days of American cinema. He warrants having an outstanding filmography. I strongly believe that what is offered here is of FL status. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Jimknut (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Raveena Tandon filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 15:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Raveena Tandon is one of Bollywood's most popular actresses. She has also received critical acclaim for portraying strong women in several films and has won the National Film Award for Best Actress. Looking forward to lots of constructive commentsKrish | Talk 15:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • Screen debut can be either on-screen or off-screen. Please clarify.
  • Replace "won" with "earned" in the case of Patthar Ke Phool.
  • "This was followed by a series of unsuccessful films which continued with her 1993 releases"—I suggest you to rephrase it to "This was followed by a series of unsuccessful films until the end of 1993."
  • "Among these were two of the top grossing films"—highest grossing? If yes, also mention whether they were for that year.
Please read the whole text which says "In 1994, she appeared in eight Hindi films, most of them were commercial successes. Among these were two of the top grossing films – the action drama Mohra and the romantic musical drama Dilwale." So mentioning of year is not necessary Krish | Talk 09:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Action film is enough for Mohra. Few thrills cannot make an action film an "action thriller".
  • "Her other film was the comedy Andaz Apna Apna, which though initially a box-office disappointment, over the years achieved cult status"—"achieved cult status over the years".
  • Again, Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi is just an action film.
  • Remove action film for Ziddi. It shall avoid repetition and shall make the readers job a bit easy,
  • Any reason for not mentioning her Tamil debut Sadhu, Kannada debut Upendra, Aalavandhan? The last is surely a notable one and the second is her only Kannada film till date.
  • No mention of Bangaru Bullodu (1993) and Akasa Veedhilo (2001) in the list and the lead. According to this, the former is her Telugu debut and including Pandavulu Pandavaulu Tummeda (2014), which you mention in the lead, Tandon did three films in Telugu. I suggest you to document the other two correctly in the list and the lead, if possible.
Because it was her comeback film after a long hiatus. And, she is known for her Bollywood films, so its not really important to say she made her this language debut 5 times.Krish | Talk 09:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case, i would ask you to list her three Telugu films with reliable sources in the list under filmography section. You have one, and two are left. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Pavanjandhyala Actually there aren't any sources for other two films. Hence, I was suggested to remove those films in the first FLC.Krish | Talk 17:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead and add them. I will provide the sources. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Pavanjandhyala I have added the films, so kindly provide aources for the same.Krish | Talk 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Is Laboratory her Bengali debut? If yes, mention it.
  • Three dead links, one uncategorized redirect and one has connection issue. Fix them. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
These links are for box-office figures and Box Office India is the only source which provides old film's box-office figures. As published in an article on the site, it will start working in few days.Krish | Talk 09:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case, then please let me know once these links start working. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Replaced with the archives.Krish | Talk 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • BTW, Tandon didn't make a cameo appearance in a song in Bbuddah Hoga Terra Baap. In that, she had a small role, which cannot be considered a cameo appearance however. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Corrected.Krish | Talk 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Nice job on the list so far. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your detailed review Pavan. Face-smile.svgKrish | Talk 14:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review by FrB.TG:

  • Reference 1 says that she received Filmfare's New Face Award for her debut film yet our article claims that it was Best Female Debut.
It was renamed. Look at Tabu filmography.Krish | Talk 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, they are two different categories, see Filmfare Award for New Face of the Year.
This page was created in January 2016, without any sources. In other FLs, Best female Debut is used and the template is same for these awards because only the name was changed and that's it.Krish | Talk 05:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither source 1 nor 2 support the claim that she had a number of flops until the end of 1993. Ref 2 does list her films' verdicts but they are only from 1994-present.
The NDTV source does say this "hereafter, the actress did several films like Parampara (1992), Ek Hi Raasta (1992), Divya Shakti (1992) and Pehla Nasha (1993). But it was her 1994 film Mohra which turned out to be a blockbuster hit."Krish | Talk 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to wiki-link The New Indian Express in source #8.
  • Ref 36 and 86 - ditto.
  • The reference for Vinashak – Destroyer says that the name of her role in the film is "Kajal" while our article claims that she played "Kajol"
  • Ref 43 does not support the name of her role in Saalakhein.
  • Ref 66 is supposed to be for the film Officer and is titled so, but the link goes to Aks.
  • Ref 80 is the wrong link, like above.
  • The reference for Pehchaan: The Face of Truth does not support the name of her role.
  • The source for Pandavulu Pandavulu Tummeda does not say anything-the names of director and her role- that the article claims except that she was in the film. -- Frankie talk 15:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Rest Done.Krish | Talk 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

  • Since Dus wasn't completed, is it wise to mention the release date?
The film was scheduled for a 1997 release. It also has a page on wikipedia and the film is still notable owing to the popularity of the song "Hindustani". The film wont release ever, so we can't even put after 2016. So, its fine.Krish | Talk 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest using an en-dash instead of the year.
  • I think its better to mention the director's name of Satta in the lead. It saw one of her best performances.
  • "..she starred as Choti Bahu". Can you remove "Choti bahu" from it?
  • Why mention Ritu Ghosh in television section?
Not done. You can mention him in the lead like Bhandarkar, since he was a highly notable bengali director. But not in the table.
Removed.Krish | Talk 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Both reality dance/comedy show redirects to reality television.
  • The whole film table seems to rely on a single source "BH". Am sure there are better sources avaliable for those films.
No, there is not a single source other than Bollywood Hungama, which provides the information about cast and crew. It's the only site and its reliable. It took me a day to put all the links together owing to her large filmography.Krish | Talk 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have worked on a much larger filmography with minimal use of "BH" as a source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I can see that. But I don't think that is a criteria. All the American filmographies have the same Rotten Tomatoes and AllMovie sources cited for films.Krish | Talk 18:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It's not a good idea to rely on sources all from the same publisher. There is also a WP policy on it which I don't remember. You can have some different sources probably film reviews. -- Frankie talk 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see But Kajol filmography, Preity Zinta filmography, Madhuri Dixit filmography – all written by you tells a different story.Krish | Talk 18:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, they don't tell a different story. Zinta's filmography has a variety of sources. Besides, it is not about me but this article. -- Frankie talk 18:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Look, I have asked what I believe should be done. Just because you don't agree with me on a certain thing does not mean that you lash out on a me or other reviewers (that you disagree with). You need to calm down and asking reviewers to "put an oppose" and asking them to "leave" is not a good thing to do. -- Frankie talk 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You have written mostly contemporary actor's and musician's list. It's very hard to write and get sources for an Indian actress who has worked in several films in the 90s. There are not even reviews for most of them. Plus, some reviews dont say anything about her role, some dont say anything about the director and so on. There is not much information available for most of her films. That's why I'm saying this.Krish | Talk 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, it's not about me and it's up to you whether to resolve them or not. I think reviews on those films can easily be found. Anyway, one of my comments is still unresolved, see my source review. -- Frankie talk 19:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That is not even an issue.Krish | Talk 18:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Atleast add those sources that are available. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yashthepunisher I will not add or replace any source becasue this is a frivolous point.Krish | Talk 15:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Then i can't support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Put an Oppose and leave.Krish | Talk 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thats it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.Krish | Talk 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Director[edit]

Nominator(s): Johanna(talk to me!) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. I have modeled this page on the pages Academy Award for Best Actor, Academy Award for Best Actress, Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, and Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, none of which were significantly contributed to by me. I have completely redone the table on the page and have also written a lead, a "multiple nominations and wins" section, and an "oldest and youngest winners" section. Thanks to any commenters on this historic and important subject! Johanna(talk to me!) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support: I can help you with the remainder of the sorting. Anyways, great job!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment from Jimknut
  • It looks like the film titles still need some work with the sorting. Titles that begin with "A" or "An" should sort under the second word in the title. Likewise, while it's optional, I think titles that begin with number (such as 12 Angry Men) should sort as if the number was spelled out (i.e. Twelve Angry Men). Jimknut (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jimknut: After looking at Birdie and Cowlibob's edits with regard to sorting, I understood how to do this and was then able to complete the sorting by myself. I am finished with all the films that begin with "A", "An", or "The". However, I do not think that I should change titles that begin with number, as this was how they were initially marketed. Also, it would be a bit silly to change 2001: A Space Odyssey to "Two Thousand One: A Space Odyssey" or to "Eight and a half". :) Thank you for the comment! Johanna(talk to me!) 02:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

  • "It is given in honor of a film director who has exhibited" – "exhibited" is not quite a good choice of word.
  • "Currently, nominees are determined by single transferable vote within the directors" - see WP:CURRENTLY and this sentence is unsourced.
  • "awards in this category with four Oscars".
  • Why do you have both the full form and abbreviation of Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in all of the references?
  • Reference 4 is incomplete.

In the comments is also the source review (only concering consistency) of the article-- Frankie talk 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @FrB.TG: Sorry for the late comments--this page must have accidentally fallen off my watchlist. I have fixed all your comments except for one. I copy-pasted these refs (after checking them, obviously) from other FL Academy awards articles. I will remove the persistent use of the acronym if you insist, but I just wanted to let you know that. Johanna(talk to me!) 15:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know but to me it seems to redundant to repeat both full form and initials every time they occur. If you use initials for something you don't need to use the full form and the other way around. -- Frankie talk 17:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

List of power stations in Sri Lanka[edit]

Nominator(s): Rehman 07:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The previous nomination page had to be archived because it was opened for too long. Ping: @Dudley Miles:, @Giants2008:, @The Rambling Man:. Rehman 07:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I guess all issues are sorted? Rehman 05:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments from  — Calvin999
  • fossil-fuel → Link (and in the section below)
Done. Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Should a List of power stations actually mention some or their locations in the lead?
I'm not too sure... Sri Lanka is quite small so the power stations are not really located that far from each other. Do you think it would be better if it included? The table(s) does list the city... Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Well considering this is a list of power stations in Sri Lanka yet no power stations are mentioned...  — Calvin999 14:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Calvin999:. I don't understand your last comment... No power stations are mentioned? Rehman 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally find the graph in the lead too encroaching and I think that it would be better placed elsewhere.
Perhaps move the map up, and graph below it? Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a picture at all in the lead.  — Calvin999 14:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I like that chart there, as it nicely summarized a lot details, which would otherwise need paragraphs over paragraphs if written in text... Will keeping it effect the list's chance in reaching FL? Rehman 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Does the map of Sri Lanka need to be that big?
Unfortunately yes. Any smaller, and the linked pogs would not work. Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Bit of an OCD thing of mine (I don't actually have OCD, just a thing for neatness) but couldn't the columns for the two tables in the Fossil-fuel section be the same widths as each other?
I tried that too, but there there is no way... The closest I can get is to get the two tables have the same total width... Rehman
Yes, that is what I meant. It's not difficult, and is it possible. Look on Drunk on Love (Rihanna song).  — Calvin999 14:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Rehman 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I placed a 'clear' at the bottom of the section so it doesn't interfere with the section below.
Thanks! Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Instead of calling this section Fossil-fuel, why not call it Non-renewable, so that it matches the antithesis of the Renewable section below?
Done. Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Aside from this, I think the list is really good and clean. The tables are really clear and well formatted. I'll be happy to support once my points have been addressed. If you wouldn't mind looking at my nomination, I'd appreciate it.  — Calvin999 16:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Calvin. I have responded to each point above. I will also have a look at your nomination soon. Regards, Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from NortyNort

Hey Rehman, I looked it over and agree with Calvin's points. The layout of the list is similar to Electricity sector in Sri Lanka and seems to duplicate that article purpose in areas. It is not as 'easy to navigate' as I believe it should be. The chart and hydro complex graphic, while very nice, clutter the article.

Moragahakanda and Broadlands have no coordinates and I saw your response to a similar query in the original nom... but both articles have coordinates themselves. Why are those not on the list?

I am on an SD monitor now and the three pictures in hydro and wind leave a substantial amount of white space in the section.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi NortyNort. Thanks for reviewing. I agree with you that the chart needs to be removed; I shall do so today. The coords on Moragahakanda and Broadlands articles are of the dams itself, not the power station. The coords on this list are of the power stations. The white spacing issue was also discussed in the previous nomination, by Dudley (Point 5). It doesn't seem like its something that can be completely avoided... The only other way I could think of is to reduce the table's width, and that by removing the "date commissioned" column. Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed the chart. Rehman 09:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethel Barrymore on stage, screen and radio[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethel Barrymore was a superlative actress whose career ran between 1893 and 1957. She was one of the finest stage actresses of her time, although her career—like those of her siblings Lionel and John—suffered from periods of dalliances with drink and drugs. This list has been separated from the main Barrymore article, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of her work. This is the third history of the siblings, following successful FLCs for John's career and that of Lionel. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • This new history is long overdue and complements the two listed above. It is well and clearly written and thoroughly referenced and sourced. It needs to be on featured lists. Jack1956 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Jack - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Not much to say from me.

  • Is the title of the final citation correct? "WOOB"?
  • LOL - yes! I did check, and I'm still unsure of what or why, but that is what is there!
  • She was forced onto the stage for financial reasons, but did she always want to be a pianist really? Did she eventually enjoy being an actress? If so, at what point?
  • She may have done, but it's not really clear from the sources. I'll have another look to see if anything else comes up. (Incidently, this was exactly the same as John and Lionel Barrymore: none of them actually wanted to be actors, and all tried to escape from it at some point). - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There might be some merit in the caption of the lead image providing some more context. It's also taken from Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines, presumably?
  • Good point: I'll address that now. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Many thanks ATD: much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • "She was the middle child of actors Maurice Barrymore and Georgie Drew Barrymore, and her two siblings were Lionel and John. These and other family members were part of an acting dynasty." -- not sure about the conjunction here, or the sentence on the whole. It would work better, I think, with the introducer coming first; "Barrymore came from a notable family of actors; she was the middle child of actors Maurice Barrymore and Georgie Drew Barrymore, and the sister of two brothers, Lionel and John.." possibly?
  • "Her first Broadway role, alongside her uncle John Drew, Jr.," -- Ethel or Louisa?
  • "Barrymore was quickly popular..." -- Not sure about the adverb here. It would be more impactive without it, in my opinion. Or even: "Barrymore became popular quickly with..." should you wish to keep it there.
  • I've gone with "Barrymore was soon popular with English...": I hope that suits? - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "On her return to America in 1898..." -- New para, new noun.

Apart from all that, it's the usual good list I've come to expect. Support (btw). CassiantoTalk 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Many thanks! All tweaked, as per your suggestions (with one minor change). Thanks for your comments and time on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • Looks better now. I support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks SNUGGUMS. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

UCI Road World Championships – Men's time trial[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after extensive work, I believe this list is now worthy to face the scrutiny of the community. I currently have a list up, but is has multiple supports and no outstanding comments. NapHit (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

With all my comments sorted, support. Relentlessly (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Pleased with the improvements and believe it is worth featured status. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Gene Roddenberry[edit]

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The previous nomination of this article closed with two supports some 20 days ago. So I'm renominating it in the hope that it'll gather a greater consensus. Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Previous nomination can be seen here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Gene Roddenberry/archive1. Miyagawa (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is my fourth featured list nomination; it's yet another tributary list. This one is about the tributaries of Mahanoy Creek, a 51-mile-long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Schuylkill and Northumberland Counties, Pennsylvania. Mahanoy Creek is impacted by abandoned mine drainage in its upper reaches, as are some of its tributaries. This list hopefully covers all the significant aspects of the tributaries, and most of the streams have pictures (and, as usual, all have articles). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Little Mix[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 12:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it meets criteria. Based on many FL's of the same structure. Little Mix have released three albums with a lot of material.  — Calvin999 12:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I can now gladly support. Well done. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.  — Calvin999 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – nice work lad. -- Frankie talk 18:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you.  — Calvin999 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • becoming the first group to do so
  • had originally entered
  • "but were put together to make a quartet..." I think this could be worded better, something like but were placed together in a quartet
  • I don't think we need to know that their first single had a "gothic feel" to it. Seems superflous to me
  • Commas after member and Roberts
  • You don't need to use had before words like originally and previously, the past tense is implied by these words
  • My biggest concern is that the lead is too long. As the group are still active and likely to record new material, how are you going to work this in? Four paragraphs for a group that has released three albums and only been active since 2011 is a bit excessive. I would trim it down to what's necessary
  • The table shouldn't change when sorting it by song initially. Currently, A.D.I.D.A.S. moves down the table, when it should stay at the top
  • ref 6, there's no need to archive it as the original link still works, especially when the archive one doesn't load.
  • ref 7, should be an en dash
  • ref 14, it's The Daily Telegraph not The Telegraph
  • ref 17, needs an en dash, as does ref 19, Independent is spelt wrong as well in that ref

NapHit (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  07:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I present to you the County-Designated Highways in Michigan, a unique system of county-maintained roads in the state. I feel that this is one of the most comprehensive and best researched lists and histories of this system available online, or in print, and it's at least worthy of review if not promotion here. Imzadi 1979  07:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872:

  1. Is it necessary to have two CDH markers in the infobox when one can convey the message?
  2. The zone map in the infobox looks good, but do you think we can get a map that shows both the zone designations and the routes?
  3. You should add the total length of the CDH system to the infobox.
  4. Do we need the abbreviations for Interstate, U.S., and state highways when this article is about the CDH system?
  5. The total length of the CDH system should also be mentioned in the lead and the prose.
  6. "As of 2015, no counties in the E zone have assigned roads to the system, and many counties in the other zones have yet to participate", can this be updated for 2016?
  7. When mentioning the zone borders, maybe should mention national, state, and lake boundaries for people who aren't familiar with the geography of Michigan.
  8. You should add sources for the Notes in the table.
  9. You should add some additional historical context in the table for the CDHs that were formerly US or state highways, specifically what years they had the former designation. Dough4872 03:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Replies:

  1. I switched one out for another one.
  2. @Fredddie: if you can make a map, that would be great. Otherwise, for now, what we have is great and mirrors what MDSH had in their original log of the CDHs, and what was published in the Holland Evening Sentinel article.
  3. Added.
  4. Dropped.
  5. Added.
  6. Once MDOT publishes the 2016 map, yes, I can change that year reference.
  7. I'm not sure what you want here, Dough4872. The lakes and various political boundaries don't really factor into the zones because they'd form the outside edges of the state's two peninsulas.
  8. Added.
  9. Added.

Imzadi 1979  10:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the zone boundaries, I would word it like "The A zone is bordered by I-96 on the north, Indiana and Ohio on the south, Lake Michigan on the west, and US 127 on the east." so the readers aren't left guessing what forms the southern and western border of the A zone boundary. Dough4872 15:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dough4872: added. Imzadi 1979  03:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Support - The list looks good and meets the criteria. Dough4872 03:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support My only comment is that it says "as of 2015", so just make sure you update to as of 2016 when you get an updated source. Otherwise it's fine to me! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - "Zones boundary highways highlighted in red" -> singular zone? Other than that, I couldn't find any issues. --Rschen7754 20:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, got it fixed a little while ago. Imzadi 1979  20:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Space Shuttle missions[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Previous nominations:

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards for a featured list. I previously nominated this list a year ago and declined because I was inactive due to schooling. I have since resumed activity on-wiki and will be around to answer questions. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Recusing myself as a delegate to review this list:

  • Looks like I reviewed and supported this list a year ago, so that's a good sign
    • Indeed it is! :)
  • The first time you call it the International Space Station it should be followed by (ISS), since you use the abbreviation thereafter.
    • Fixed.
  • "78 missions while 54 missions [...] and one" - use numerals consistently
    • Fixed.
  • "Four full operational orbiters" -> "Four fully operational orbiters"
    • Fixed
  • "by Atlantis on 21 July 2011" - in the image caption in the lead you use month-day-year, but here is day-month-year- either is fine, as it's american / military-ish, but you should be consistent. You seem to use day-month-year in the tables.
    • Fixed the lead image caption.
  • Okay, the numbering section is really confusing. Looks like what it is is that they numbered them 1-9, then had the code scheme, but kept using the sequential numbers on paperwork? Then when they started up again after STS-51-L, they went back to sequential officially, with the numbering starting at 26, only now the numbers can get out of order because they didn't renumber when they rescheduled a mission? Assuming that's right, your text is a mess- You say they were sequential for 1-33, then that they officially used the code scheme for a while, then sudenly say "Flights were assigned with sequential numbers from STS-9 through STS-33"... which you already said a different way, so it gets read that the code scheme stopped and they restarted at 9... and it isn't true anyway, your table says that STS-9 was the official number, no code given. You then say that "After the Challenger disaster, NASA restarted with STS-26R"... except what they actually did was go back to using the sequential numbers, and they slapped an R on the end (which you don't have in the table). Then you change paragraphs, and talk about the Challenger disaster again, saying that the numbers got out of order. It would be way less confusing if you combined these two paragraphs- "after the Challenger, they went back to sequential number, though they get out of order. For STS-26 through STS-33, the missions taking place in the two years after the program restarted, an R was appended (e.g. STS-26R) to represent 'reflight'."
    • You got it right, as far as I know. I've removed some information to clarify.
  • Basically: that whole section needs to be re-flowed, it's confusing. It's also not clear why STS-26 through 33 don't have an R in the table.
    • R's added, articles don't exist though so I had to fiddle links.
  • Additionally, both here and in the lead you talk as if STS-9 was the first flight with a code, but you call it STS-9 in the table, not STS-40-A.
    • I confess I am confused here, as I reference by year not flight. I changed one link, I hope that clarified things.
  • "Four missions were cut short by a day or more whilst on orbit" - "on" orbit?
    • Fixed.
  • You use periods in the tables sometimes, when you shouldn't: "ISS assembly flight ULF4: Mini-Research Module 1.", "ISS assembly flight ULF3: ExPRESS Logistics Carriers (ELCs) 1 & 2.", etc. Rows: 2, 18, 19, 28, 74, 127, 129, 132
    • Fixed.
  • Redirects that don't seem intentional, if you want to fix them: Challenger in the lead, DoD row 4, TDRS and EVA row 6, Sullivan row 13, EASE/ACCESS row 23, Magellan row 29, Misty row 34, EVA row 47, NASA and tether row 49, TDRS row 53, EVAs row 74, EVAs row 88, Spacehab isn't allcaps'd in row 117/119, PMM and ELC in row 133, ELC row 134, the "main article" link to Cancelled Space Shuttle missions, Soyuz at the end of "Contingency missions", and 4 of the "See also"s
    • Fixed
  • If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement FLC down below. --PresN 21:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @PresN: I will give you a review as soon as I can give it a proper in-depth look. I've addressed everything above, thank you so much. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 23:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - I reworded some of the numbering section, but I'm satisfied enough now to support. --PresN 21:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you much! It reads much better than my version. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The Kennedy Space Center served as the landing site for 78 missions while 54 missions landed at Edwards Air Force Base, California and..." commas after while and California
    • Fixed.
  • Tables needs colscopes per MOS:DTT
    • Fixed.
  • I would move the colours in the statistics table to the name column, so they are with the symbols
    • I wish I could, but I can't figure out how do do it without CSS hacks. Currently, the rowscopes override the row coloring.
  • Sources column in that table should be unsortable
    • Fixed.
  • make sure all sources that are PDFs have the parameter |format=PDF added to the ref. I can see a few that are missing this
    • Fixed.

NapHit (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi[edit]

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2016 (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 praise for his work in Lage Raho Munna Bhai, Ishqiya, Jolly LLB, Golmaal series and numerous other comedy films. This list presents all his film credits, awards and nominations. The previous nomination was archived. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - I just thought linking them everywhere might border OVERLINK, but i agree with your reason. Overall its a nice list and meets the criteria. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and support, Yash.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – all good now. I currently have an FAC here. Will appreciate it if you if leave some comments. -- Frankie talk 12:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Frankie and A Thousand Doors, thanks to both of you.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mexican National Lightweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it matches the format and quality content of a number of other professional wrestling championship featured lists that I have maintained over the years and this would be another article towards a potential Featured Topic I have been working on off and on over the years. After each FL review I have gone through I have made sure to apply feedback from those to future FL candidates including this one.  MPJ-US  03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"List" is a "Class" not "type", you can see Category:List-Class articles. Anyway, thanks for doing change in class of this article. List otherwise seems ok to be called as FL. Good work. --Human3015 It will rain  15:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): User:Joseph2302 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The groundwork on this list was done by Joseph2302, I tweaked and tidied and expanded the prose a little. This is a niche club of bowlers, a handful have achieved this feat and the list should be good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment – Not sure if this is a 3(b) violation. We have debut-fifers lists for almost every team (may not be for every team but for Australia, England, India, South Africa, and West Indies). Apart from India and South Africa (which are FLS), the rest are potential ones. Don't you think it's a safe option to merge this with the corresponding lists? Vensatry (Talk) 09:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • A fair point. Perhaps we both need to look to see if this record has been covered sufficiently to warrant its own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Bedfordshire[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This list follows the format of List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire, which recently passed FLC, and I hope it will also be found to be of FL quality, Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself in order to review this list.

  • "As of January 2016 there are twenty Local Nature Reserves in Bedfordshire, eight in Bedford, eleven in Central Bedfordshire and one in Luton" - the 8/11/1 are the breakdown of the 20, so the comma after Bedfordshire should be a colon.
  • Cooper's Hill - "This Site of Special Scientific Interest has the best remaining area in the county of heathland" - best? What determines best?
  • Why is it "Galley and Warden Hills SSSI", not just "Galley and Warden Hills"? It's the only SSSI to get that callout in the name
  • This is how it is shown by Natural England. All names are as in the NE listing.
  • Henlow Common - "Plants include marsh marigolds and there are kingfishers and the river bank has otters and water voles." - and...and...
  • Marston Thrift - "Like Kings Wood and Glebe Meadows, this is a Site of Special Scientific Interest which ash and maple woodland on heavy clay." - which "has"?
  • Should Park Wood, Bedford just be Park Wood, since the disambiguator isn't needed in a Bedfordshire list?
  • As Galley and Warden Hills SSSI above. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Putnoe Wood - "Bird species include wood pigeons, blue tits and great tits" - seems consistent to link those three species, since you link other relatively common animals
  • I fixed a citation error that I'm not sure is usually directly visible to editors- line break inside of a citation title
  • Support, looks like you've gotten the pattern for these lists down. --PresN 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Cottage Bottom Fields: Not sure Wheatears should be capitalized.
  • Flitwick Wood: "with some ancient trees and others which have been recently planted." Should "been" and "recently" be reversed in order?

Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Giants. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Bermuda hurricanes[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 19:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I spent quite a bit of time building this list up from scratch over the past few months, and I believe it now meets the FL criteria. The list roughly follows the model of existing regional hurricane FLs (such as List of Texas hurricanes (1980–present) and List of Delaware hurricanes), and covers an important aspect of Bermuda's history. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This looks good, although I wonder if it would be possible to add more images to the list as large bits of this feel barren. I also have done a minor date correction to a caption, so just make sure that things match up on the dates. I would also suggest fixing the one link to Hurricane Humberto, and adding alternate text to the existing images. There are also five dead links to fix, although four of them went dead eight days ago so I can't fault you on that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. The file caption actually was correct to start with (the image even has the date on it). As for more images, I'm afraid that anything useful has already been included. High-quality satellite images are pretty hard to come by for storms before, say, 1990, and free-use damage photos are always a scarce commodity. I have found some useful illustrations that could be strong candidates for fair use, but I'd rather avoid that. I suppose I could add more track maps to spruce up the place, but I don't think they add an enormous amount of encyclopedic value. Three of the five deadlinks fixed... I'll need some time to sort out the others. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments – Disclaimer that I helped out in a relatively minor capacity in getting this behemoth of a list together. My contributions account for less than 10% of the article's total byte size, with the majority stemming from the creation of the landfall table and the 1813 storm.
    • Images should have alt text (your favorite, I know Face-wink.svg)
    • Regarding a dead link which a substantial portion of this article is based upon, an earlier version (.doc file) of this document does exist but it lacks all the necessary details. I can vouch that all information cited with this presently unavailable source is accurate. For citation purposes, I've changed the ref to a general citation until (hopefully) an online document is restored.
    • Strictly speaking, only nine landfalls have occurred during years included in the official Atlantic hurricane database. – Might be worth specifying that the database begins in 1851, either by way of a note or prose.
    • The most recent storm to affect the islands was Hurricane Joaquin in October 2015. – If you want to keep Joaquin, this sentence should specify its the most recent tropical cyclone...otherwise Alex should be here per its inclusion on the list.
    • Regarding the October 1926 hurricane, the reanalysis writeup indicates that the 128 mph measurement in Hamilton was a 5-minute sustained wind; however, it had a known high bias and was at an elevated location. A surface corrected value of 102 mph (1-minute sustained) is provided in the writeup. Additionally, the ...strongest recorded storm to strike the territory. bit is outdated as the accompanying source was written before the reanalysis was publicized; the 1899 and 1926 hurricanes are tied as the strongest landfalling storms, both at 105 kt.
    • In response to the hurricane's destruction, the name Fabian is retired and replaced with Fred for 2009. – A reference is needed here

Overall an exceptional and comprehensive list that is well-deserving of featured status. Proud of ya for sticking through this beast and seeing it through to the end, JC! I'll be more than happy to support once the few comments I have are addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: thanks for taking a look! Good catch with the 1926 reanalysis data. I think I've fixed the above problems. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick question - on my screen, "Recorded tropical cyclone landfalls in Bermuda" appears below the column for "Number of recorded storms affecting Bermuda", but it should be above the right column. Is that just on my computer, and if not, is it an easy fix? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks fine on my screen (PC/Firefox) but I know the wikimarkup that I stole from other lists can be buggy. I'd appreciate any help from someone who knows more than I do about table formatting. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • I really wish the opening didn't remind me of the old "This is a list of" beginnings. Can we make it a little more interesting?
  • While doing this, you might want to prevent Bermuda from both ending the first sentence and starting the second, therefore appearing back-to-back. A fix to the first comment should help address this naturally.

I've only read through the 1910s so far, but it's been a great read so far. I'll continue as time permits. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Good points - is that better? Thanks for reading through the article, and I look forward to any more suggestions for improvements. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts[edit]

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have finally added in all known colleges and universities that have operated in the state, with a recent focus on closed institutions. I don't know why I did not address those issues during the nomination process, but I would like to give this another run, as I feel that it meets the criteria laid on the relevant page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Just had time to look at the first 2 paragraphs. Prose needs a bit tightening up. Here are 2 suggestions

*Para 1: second mention of "listed under the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education" can be removed as redundant.

  • Perhaps rephrase to merge those two sentences to be something like "are public excluding the private Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was originally a public school..."
  • Para 2. Oddly structured first sentence. Maybe something like: Harvard University is Massachusetts' oldest post-secondary institution and was founded in ...

More coming later. Mattximus (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That is much better... review continuing:

  • Para 3. "multiple Judaic", can multiple be changed to the exact number?
  • Para 4. Needs some work. First, I'm not overly sold about the inclusion of college rankings, but I agree that it is important to highlight MIT and Harvard in the lead as they are internationally respected. Is it possible to link a few lists of top universities from several sources and say that they are both recognized as top 10 global universities? Either way, you must change "college" to "university", since you are comparing internationally. Mattximus (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead now, good work. Some more changes:

  • last para still needs rewording, for example: "the state is also known for its academic strength"... well it's not literally the state, but the institutions found within the state... So, something like "Massachusetts is home to a number of internationally recognized top 10 universities including MIT and Harvard" or something like that would be a better sentence. I would also remove the "As such" from the next line, as it's not really adding anything but filler.
Have another look at that first sentence, I think it's much worse now.
Still does not make sense, sorry. "This includes Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are ranked amongst"

Mattximus (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I would still include Harvard in that last sentence of the lead along with MIT. Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

*I like the first table, but the enrolment should have an obvious year attached since they change so much. I'm not sure how you can do this without messing with the formatting, but can you think of a way? I think that is good for the first section

  • Featured lists no longer begin with the sentence "Below is a list of..." as it was removed some time ago as tautological. So that needs to be reworded. You can just go right into the meat of things. This section would have to be be re-written to reflect this wikipedia custom. Mattximus (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I will conclude my review next edit. Mattximus (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing review:

  • First paragraph is almost perfect, just a strange discrepancy. It says "Massachusetts Institute of Technology was originally founded by the state legislature in the spirit of a land-grant institution" but then later says "UMass Amherst is the state's sole public land-grant university".
I'm still confused as to what is meant by "to be akin to a land-grant institution" but not a land-grant institution. This needs to be made clear if it is to be included. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

*Second paragraph needs a good copyedit. Just the first sentence: "Since the Worcester Medical Institute closed in 1859, multiple institutions have closed over the years" is needlessly passive. Maybe something like "Multiple colleges and universities have closed over the years beginning with the Wrocester Medical Institute which closed in 1859." Even better would be starting that paragraph with "At least x colleges and universities have closed...".

  • Second paragraph is better in terms of conforming to wikipedias "this is a list of..." policy, but there are still parts of the paragraph that refer to it, see "Also listed" and "However, this is not inclusive ", what is meant by "this". This paragraph needs quite a bit of work. Mattximus (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I tried my own copyedit, what do you think of the changes.
  • Final comment: Final two sentences are both unsourced and confusing.
    • "Also excluded are the Bussey Institution, which functioned under Harvard University, and Crane Theological School, which functioned under Tufts University." - No explanation given as to why they are excluded.
    • It also excludes institutions which operated as part of larger for-profit corporations, such as Empire Beauty Schools, as they were not operated as separate college campuses, but as larger corporate schools. Citation? Also what is "it". I'm fairly sure you are referring to the list, but I believe Featured lists try to avoid "this is a list of...", "this list contains.." etc, preferring to have a paragraph that describes the content, not the list of the content if you know what I mean. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose for now, its been 10 days and there has been no response. Mattximus (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and condensed the prose in the spirit of what you wrote above, so I hope that helps a bit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That should work now, as I reworded the areas in both paragraphs, although I suspect there are only a few lists being used and people are parroting them online. Let me know what you think though, and thanks for the comments! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Done, as I had a date in there at one point but took it out per a previous review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I just took another stab at it, so how does the last paragraph work? The first sentence on the first paragraph is modeled after similar recent pages, so I'm not sure what else you might want done there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • How about now? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Mattximus:, just in case you didn't see the above comment. I added the Harvard bit as suggested, but I'm unsure about the intro, per what I wrote above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Still have those two outstanding recommendations that were not struck out. Not sure about your harvard comment as "Massachusetts is home to a number of internationally recognized universities, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which are ranked amongst the top ten universities in the world" is where I thought you should include Harvard in addition to MIT. The second section still begins with an outdated "this is a list of..." which is no longer accepted in featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you mean there, as I missed the second section and somehow worded the last paragraph in the intro to include Harvard, but somehow forgot to add it. Either way, let me know what you think, and thanks for the help! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I completely missed that Mattximus (talk · contribs) when I was doing the below review, so let me know if that all works. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • The last paragraph of the lead is stubby, at only one sentence. Would it be possible to merge this with the previous paragraph, or expand upon it a bit?
  • "amongst" → "among".
  • Defunct institutions: The Stanley College founding date is missing. If you don't know what it is, put an em dash here like you do elsewhere in the table. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Done, as I merged the last paragraph up one, although I am not sure if it will make things a bit too long at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thematically it's more consistent in the second paragraph, which is about largest/oldest universities. The third is about accreditations which has little to do with rankings. Made the change myself. Mattximus (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

List of municipalities in New Brunswick[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC) and Hwy43 (talk)

We are attempting to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 8 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Source review – Source reliability looks good, and the links all work according to the link-checker tool (which coughs a little at the sight of XLSX files, from the looks of it). Formattting also looks good for the most part; the only thing I'd change is spelling out the abbreviation in the publisher of ref 2, if it can be spelled out. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review, User:Giants2008, please let us know if there are any other changes needed to gain your support. Mattximus (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Likewise, thank you! Hwy43 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Now that the fixes have been made, I'm satisfied that the list meets the standards set by the others in this series. I'll leave the source review out so the potential closers can see that it was done. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice list. Only a few issues:

  • First sentence needs comma after Canada
Sorry, but no pause is necessary in that location, and therefore a comma is superfluous. Hwy43 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, but of course I'm not going to oppose over a single comma. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "population of at least ten thousand" "population of fifteen hundred or more" - I think that should be 10,000 and 1,500 (or 10000 and 1500, if you prefer)
Changed. Mattximus (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The list looks odd with images hanging in the empty space above the list. I realize it's not easy to find a good place to put them, but it looks strange. Perhaps make a gallery or embed them in the table itself (like I do with my lists)?
This is been an issue that is brought up before. I sympathize with the formatting, but it turns out it only occurs with users who have small screens or low resolution. The problem can be fixed by zooming out just a bit in your browser. The reason we do not make use of the gallery is to be consistent with the other 13 lists which all have the same formatting. I hope this explanation is sufficient justification for our placement choice. Mattximus (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed it only does that on my laptop, not my desktop. No problem. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "New Brunwsick has 8 cities, 26 towns, 65 villages, 1 regional municipality, and 8 rural communities" - not supported by ref 4. Interestingly, ref 2 claims 7 rural communities, not 8.
Great catch, found the official list and changed the number from 8 to 7 (which matches with our list). Mattximus (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. This is where the error was introduced. The other errors elsewhere have been fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Saint John was the first municipality in what would later become the province of New Brunswick to incorporate, in 1785" - not supported by ref 6 or 7.
Another good catch. Made the link specific to the city of Saint John. Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Didn't realize how awkward this sentence reads. I'm going to fix it. Also, it was the first community in Canada to incorporate as a city. The reference doesn't confirm first "municipality" in New Brunswick, but the fact that it was the first city in Canada therefore infers first "city" in NB. Hwy43 (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

--Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Please let us know if there is anything else that is needed to gain your support. Mattximus (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That's good, thanks for the quick response. Nothing stopping me from Supporting now. I'd greatly appreciate it if you checked out this, though. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2013 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 21:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

My nomination of the 2012 list was promoted in September. This list is very similar, apart from the obvious. BaldBoris 21:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What is going on with references 13 and 14? The text only says "ASO 2013", and the link doesn't seem to go anywhere... (This was also in the 2012 list, so it could be just me not understanding how to read references...)--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It's using the shortened footnote template. If you are not aware what shortened footnotes are, they're an easier way to cite a paged source. In this case it doesn't make much sense because there's only two pages. The reason I haven't added the pages is because it's an extract from a larger book. BaldBoris 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Aha, that helps. But I think the shortened footnotes are not used properly... In the template page that you linked to, the shortened footnote is "Elk 1972", and the corresponding reference starts with "Elk, Anne (November 16, 1972)", which makes it clear which one is referred to. But in the current FLA, the shortened footnote is "ASO 2013", but the corresponding reference does not even include "ASO" or "2013". (The reference uses the expanded form of "ASO", we should not assume everybody knows what ASO is short for.) A solution could be to put "Amaury Sport Organisation" in the shortened footnote, and include the year 2013 in the long reference, but there might be a better solution.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand your confusion, but I'm following the guidelines correctly. See: Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template. BaldBoris 13:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I've added the appropriate year to the source. BaldBoris 16:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
OK! I see that the abbreviation is indeed allowed, so it look good now.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Support. The list has good sources, and it covers all things it should cover.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support meets the criteria, great work. NapHit (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This looks very good to me. I've made a couple of small edits. One outstanding concern: the list of victories in the nationalities table adds up to 20, but you have 21 in the total. This is because of the TTT. Perhaps you could deal with this as in the 2015 Vuelta list? Relentlessly (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

NapHit advised me to remove the with (see above), so I'm not sure. Thanks for taking the time give it a look. BaldBoris 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think "with DvP as the youngest rider" makes it sound like he was acting in a play! Whatever the wording of that sentence, I'm happy to support. Relentlessly (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

Introduction: Very well written, as someone who is completely unfamiliar with the Tour de France. One thing I found confusing was the significance of the yellow jersey... maybe you could mention that the yellow jersey is the "general classification?"
The opening image has no alt text.
By starting number: Sorting on the position column is funny. The DNF's are ordered descending by stage, but the HD's are scattered throughout the sort. Maybe sortkeys will help here?
This is the agreed layout per the recent Grand Tour teams and cyclists FLs. The two HDs are both in the correct position.
Footer: Footer is a little confusing. What is the reasoning behind having the sources as an H3 under references?
There's no strict rules on this. In fact MoS advises this style.

If this review is helpful, please take a moment to review my FLC below. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorted out your first two comments and replied to the others. Thanks. BaldBoris 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. In that case, I happily Support (and learned something new!) ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

List of RKO Pictures films[edit]

Nominator(s): Onel5969 TT me 18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after checking the requirements, it appears to meet all the criteria. I would also like to specifically thank WFinch for all their efforts with the images on the page. Look forward to everyone's comments. Onel5969 TT me 18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Jimknut
  • You need to fix the sorting for both the dates and the film titles. Any title that begins with "A", "An", or "The" should sort under the second word in the title. Jimknut (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jimknut - Thanks. Will fix that. When I originally expanded the table I thought I had gotten all of them. But will go back over it tomorrow night. Again, thanks for pointing that out. Onel5969 TT me 04:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jimknut - actually going back over the article, I expanded it before I know about the sortname feature. I think I have them all fixed now. Onel5969 TT me 22:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments - a triumphant and massive list, well done.

  • Don't start list articles with "This is a list of RKO Pictures films,...."
  • "which was ... which was ..." poor prose.
  • "added Pathé Exchange, to the " no need for the comma.
  • "the U.S.[2]" would prefer to just see "and the United States."
  • "During... during" see above.
  • And then followed by "During this time..." really need to work on this prose to make it engaging.
  • "it was graced with some of the great names of cinema history" sounds like personal opinion.
  • "1931 Academy Award for Best Picture" can be linked.
  • "(1946 - and the studio's only other Academy Award for Best Picture)" spaced hyphen violates WP:DASH, and link to other Academy Awards list.
  • "and what some people consider the greatest film of all time, 1941's Citizen Kane." citations please.
  • "and was eventually" and it was...
  • " to General Tire and Rubber Company in" missing a "the".
  • "which is now under new management" as of when?
  • "As per the guidelines set forth by the WikiProject Film group" when do we allow Wikiproject guidelines cross over so overtly into article space?

That's it for the lead. If we can make some amends here, I will be tempted to review the rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the excellent input, RM. I've incorporated all your suggestions, as well as many some other minor changes to grammar and prose. Yes check.svg Done. Onel5969 TT me 13:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback.

Comments

Lead
  • Paragraph 2 - Either only sourced for Citizen Kane or sourced by something not defined.
  • Third Paragraph- Only one source on this whole section and only and that is just for the 1957 sale as far as I can read? too many things unsourced in this section.
  • Fourth paragraph - Totally unsourced
Table
  • Looking these I am at a loss for to see any sources IN the grids?? To me that's the biggest problem
Sources
  • There is a reference error that needs to be fixed
  • Note section, but no notes?
  • I don't have a problem with the repeated, short "Jewell" references but I am looking for that one reference that actually outlines what "Jewell" is - perhaps a "cite book" reference or something to give us more of an idea what "Jewell" actually is?

Looking at this there is a real lack of sources in the lead and in the tables that I would expect from a Featured List. The tables themselves look good, sorts fine etc. but the sources are it's downfall. MPJ-US  02:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi MPJ-DK - I think that's what you were looking for. Let me know. Onel5969 TT me 03:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Onel5969 - Wow I am impressed with the amount of work and is happy to lend my Support to this fine list. MPJ-US  13:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Superfly discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Prosperosity (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies the FL criteria. Prosperosity (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment by an IP

*The discography of Japanese musical act Superfly consists of five studio album → Japanese band Superfly has released...

  • Sales (JPN) → Sale (Japan) (hmmm...I think so!)
  • Ref. → {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}} * <tt><nowiki>{{Reflist|2}}{{Reflist|30em}}

That's all! 42.112.232.105 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

'Band' implies multiple members, but Superfly has only a single member at the moment, so I don't know if that's really appropriate! I've made all of the other changes. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Cartoon network freak
Lead

*discography of Japanese musical act -> discography of Japanese rock group

Superfly releases music in several genres, and I'd need additional sources for the genre.
  • three compilation albums -> three compilations
  • 'Compilation albums' is the category listed at the side, so it should be consistent!
  • twenty-seven singles -> 27 singles
  • All of the numbers in the prose should be a consistent style (either figures or written in full), and as there are many small figures it's better for these to be written out.
  • Superfly began as a musical unit formed in 2003 by vocalist Shiho Ochi and guitarist Koichi Tabo and signed with Warner Music Japan in 2007. -> Superfly debuted as a musical act in 2003, being formed by Shiho Ochi and guitarist Koichi Tabo. Afterwards, they signed to Warner Music Japan in 2007.
  • Debuted implies a label and a release, which didn't happen for five years later, and I don't think we say "being formed by" when talking about bands, only like geological processes and things like that, but I've made the sentence a little bit shorter.
  • Tabo removed himself from the band's line-up in 2007 during promotional activities for their single "I Spy I Spy", finding it difficult to work as both the band's songwriter and guitarist. -> Tabo leaved the band's line-up in 2007 during the releasing process of their promotional single "I Spy I Spy", finding it difficult to work as both the band's songwriter and guitarist.
I've simplified that part.
  • Tabo remained attached -> However, Tabo remained attached
Done.
  • Superfly, composing -> Superfly, with it composing
Tabo is a man, and "with him composing" doesn't sound right to me.
  • for the unit, until -> for the unit until
Done.
  • sing the theme song for the Misaki Ito-starring drama Edison no Haha, entitled "Ai o Komete Hanataba o". -> sing the theme song for Misaki Ito-starring drama, Edison no Haha, entitled "Ai o Komete Hanataba o".
Already changed above.
  • The track became commercially successful in Japan, with it being eventually certified Million for digital downloads by the RIAJ.
  • The band's debut album Superfly (2008), released three months later, debuted at number one on the Japanese Oricon albums chart. -> The band's debut album, Superfly (2008), was released three months later and debuted at number one on the Japanese Albums Chart.
Done.
  • saw continued success -> saw continuous success
Removed.
  • their releases between 2008 and 2013 -> their subsequent releases
That means all later releases, but White only got to number two.
  • on Oricon's albums chart. -> in Japan
There are two major charts in Japan, Oricon and Billboard, so it needs to be clarified.
  • certified Double Platinum -> certified 2x Platinum
All the numbers in the prose should be consistently written in full or consistently use numbers, so 'Double Platinum' is probably better!
  • Superfly has -> Superfly achieved
Done.
  • song "Wildflower" -> song, "Wildflower"
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Further comments (@Prosperosity)
  • The headers are not correctly used, nor is the article sorted in an appropriate way, use Hilary Duff discography as an example as to how we use headers in discographies.
  • Done.
  • Remove all appearances of "(JPN)" in the tables, they're unnecessary.
  • Done.
  • RIAJ don't release sales; these sales are sourced from Oricon. But otherwise, done.
  • The release dates of albums (compliation, DVD...) need to be accompanied by an iTunes or JVC link to prove their release (see Inna discography).
  • They are; the Oricon link for albums and singles positions features a detailed list all of the original release dates, meaning additional citations for this data isn't necessary. For all releases not included in the link, I've already included additional citations.
  • The songs need to be accompanied by an iTunes or JVC link toprove their release. (again, see Inna discography as an example).
  • As above; but with additional sources for non-physically released singles.
  • The translations of singles are unnecessary.
  • Not according to WP:MJ's advice on using Japanese script in lists. Can you explain why this is not necessary for an article dealing with a non-English topic?

Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback.

Comments

Lead
  • Looking at MOS:FOREIGN I believe the Japanese song titles such as "Ai o Karada ni Fukikonde" should be in italics
  • Speaking of, may I suggest that each song title has the English translated afterwards ("Yada-Yada" in English) or something to that effect.
  • Not sure what "certified Million" means for download - is there perhaps an appropriate link?
  • RIAJ should be spelled out the first time it's used
  • NHK should either be spelled out or at least specified that it's a Japanese tv channel.
Table
  • The Extended Plays list really sticks out as having a totally different format. why is that?
  • Also there are a lot of non-"Discography" in the list, is that normal in articles labelled as "Discography"??
Sources
  • Barks - Reliable source as per WP:RS?
  • natalie.mu - Reliable?
  • Spaceshower.com - Reliable?

This is the first Discography list I have reviewed so I don't know what the standards are, but in general it looks good, close o FL. MPJ-US  02:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. It follows the same format as four similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL and one which currently has two supports, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support meets the criteria, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club is one of the 18 member clubs of the English County Championship - This needs to be sourced
    • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Added another source since the one which you'd added doesn't quite cover the '18' claim. Vensatry (Talk) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "the current club was established in March or April 1841" - Do we have any other source which clears up the uncertainty?
    • Not that I can find, but on reflection I don't think the specific month is important so I have removed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Nottinghamshire team have played first class, List A, or Twenty20 matches at eight different grounds. - Is it worth clarifying that Trent Bridge is the only venue to host T20s till date?
  • Although the notes look like being obvious claims, I'd suggest you to source them for the sake of reference completeness.
  • Link Hachette UK, BBC, and BBC News accordingly.

Vensatry (Talk) 17:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, meets the standards. Vensatry (Talk) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback.

Comments

Lead
  • "and has competed in first-class cricket from 1841" - Should this be "since 1941" since it looks like they still compete in first-class cricket?? same with List A and Twenty20??
    • No, 1841 is the correct date, Notts have competed in first class cricket from 1841 to the present day, not sure what the confusion is....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry "1941" was a typo on my part. When I read the "From 1841" I read it as past tense, that they no longer played first-class cricket, but that is not the case from the table. MPJ-US  21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Table
  • Confused by the sort order of "no other matches to date" what is the sort criteria?
    • Where they have only played one match at a given venue, "no other matches to date" sorts as the date of that match -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Alright that works for me. MPJ-US  21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • At first glance I thought that Trent Bridge was no longer used either since it has a date in "last", technically what you have is the "most recent", I don't know if it would be worth noting the difference for that Cricket ground?
    • Well, technically speaking that was the last game at the ground until the next one.... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Remaining sorting etc. looks good.
Sources
  • CrickeArchive is cited repeatedly, is that a Reliable source?
    • Absolutely. It is edited by Philip Bailey, author of "The Who's Who of Cricketers", chief statistician and records compiler for "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack", and generally regarded as one of the pre-eminent cricket statisticians of his generation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Excellent, I am good with that.
  • The other sources look good to me.
Notes

Nothing in the notes are referenced in the lead - I did not realize that the cricket grounds had hosted other teams etc. to ensure the lead covers all major aspects would it be worth putting in a sentence or two around this? Not a deal breaker, just from doing GA reviews the "all major aspects" criteria is something I've been paying attention to.

This is a very good list, only minor comments that I am sure can be addressed or explained, MPJ-US  01:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

With the added sentence I think we've got it all covered for me. Support  MPJ-US  21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Source Check by PresN
  • Formatting looks good, though ref 30 is missing isbn (978-1-119-99656-9)
  • Consider archiving your online refs, so that they don't get messed up by linkrot
  • Checked refs 2, 6, 16, 30 - all good
  • Source check- passed --PresN 19:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Inna discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is well written and reliable. I also followed the style and structure from Alexandra Stan's discography, which got two supports so far.Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheFame08: All done. Thanks! --Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Look good now! TheFame08 (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Delegates, take this thread into account if you end up making a decision on this FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment

  • Romanian singer Inna has released four studio albums, one of which it was reissued => "Romanian singer Inna has released four studio albums, one of which was reissued"
  • As she is Romanian, that chart should be listed first in each table. Did none of her albums chart at all in Romania? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done! Actually, Romania hasn't got an official album charts. However, Inna's first two studio albums got certified Gold in Romania, but as far as I know certifications can't be included without a chart, can they? All the best! --Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Procedural comment – Actually, I count only one support at the Alexandra Stan discography FLC right now. That's not the "substantial support" for the first FLC needed for a second nomination, per the FLC instructions. This should either be taken off FLC until that nominiation runs its course, or the Stan discography should be archived. Which would you prefer? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Actually, Azealia 911 stroke his oppose on Alexandra Stan's FLC. In reply to your question, I would prefer to archive Stan's discography FLC. Cheers! Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I'll remember to close that tomorrow when I get a chance. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a look at this.

Lead

  • The image needs an alt text. This is a requirement for FAs and FLs. It's good to know for the future.
  • Quickly, the track gained worldwide recognition, reaching the top twenty of the charts in most of the countries it peaked. change it to "reaching the top twenty across multiple charts. I'd normally add worldwide at the end, but that's already stated at the beginning of the sentence.
  • "Amazing", one of them, managed to peak at number one on the Romanian Top 100, while "10 Minutes", another one, marked the fourth time in a row that Inna reached the top ten in France. I don't like the "one of them". Instead, try "One of these singles was amazing, which reached the number one position on the Romanian Top 100". After 10 Minutes, the "another one" isn't necessary.
  • Her next studio album, I Am The Club Rocker, was launched in 2011. For this project... I don't think you can launch an album. You launch campaigns. Change launch to released. Also, while project is fine, I think it's better just to simply state what it was, and it's an album.
  • "Tu şi eu", the record's third single, ranked at number five in Romania, while "More Than Friends", a collaboration with Daddy Yankee, peaked at number seven in Spain... Change ranked at number five to peaked at number five.
  • Particularly, the record was released under the name of Body and the Sun in Japan. This entire sentence can be removed and be replaced by footnote D.

Albums

  • This is more of an aesthetic thing, but I like moving the refs for each album to the release date. Not necessary though.

I'll take a look at the refs tonight, but once those issues are cleaned up, I think I can give this a support. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: All done! Thanks! Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: All done. Happy new year! --Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving them but please keep in mind that FLC quotes: "Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". Anyway, now that my comments are addressed, I am ready to give my support . -- Frankie talk 13:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! BTW, I have undone the striking of your comments. --Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support from an IP - Looks good! 1.52.124.206 (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Happy new year! Face-smile.svg --Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but this looks like another weak support without much behind it, such as a statement that the article meets FL standards. It's fairly unusual to have two at one FLC, but it looks like the case here. If we could get a couple more reviews from experienced editors, that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • "one of which was reissued" not sure this is really essential in the lead, note it in the albums section.
  • "four ... 22 ... " MOSNUM.
  • "certified Gold" link "certified" appropriately, and not sure the Gold needs to be capitalised, etc.
  • "singles featured from her " no need for "featured".
  • "fourth time in a row that Inna reached the top ten in France." well according to the table, "Love" didn't chart in France.
  • "Her next studio album" be specific, perhaps "Her second..."
  • I Am The Club Rocker appears to be called I Am the Club Rocker.
  • "commercially successful throughout Europe" it charted no higher than 36 and only 76 in her native Bulgaria. That doesn't constitute "commercially successful throughout Europe" I'm afraid.
  • Party Never Ends redirects back to the list article so unlink it.
  • "available for purchase" do you mean she "released" it?
Yes I do, but "released" has been already mentioned multiple times.
  • "Tu şi eu", the record's third single" in the table this is described in English rather than Bulgarian. It also appears to be the second single, not the third, or is the ordering in the table not chronological?
Fixed it
  • It also suggests it was released in 2012.
Yes it was, but it is still featured on Party Never Ends
  • More Than Friends appears to really be called More than Friends.
  • "for streaming four" -> "for being streamed four"
  • "Following this, Inna released her self-titled fourth studio album in 2015.[A] The album's first single, "Cola Song"" according to the table, the first single from her self-titled album was "Diggy Down".
  • "number eight on the Spanish Singles Chart" you've already mentioned Spain twice prior to linking this chart. Suggest you link it first time.
  • Bel (VI) and Bel (Wal) both link to the same article.
Yes, because they're compiled by the same provider
  • Any reason SPA isn't ESP if NLD isn't NDL?
  • "Party Never Ends 2" redirects back to this discography so unlink it.
  • Not seeing 913 in Ref 6.
You have to log in to Oricon to see the sales.
  • Is it Wow or WOW? Be consistent.
  • I Need You For Christmas seems to be "for" Christmas.
  • "List of music videos as lead artist, with director" should be "director(s)" per the table.
  • Only notes that are complete sentences need a full stop.
  • Non-English-language references should have a language added to them, e.g. 43 is French, 40 is Italian, etc.
  • Look for WP:DASH fails, i.e. spaced hyphens should be en-dashes, e.g. the titles of refs 102 to 105.
  • Is it "WOW Biz" or "Wowbiz" - be consistent.
  • Antena 1 is a dab link.

So, after a quick run through, it's a clear oppose from me based on the sheer volume of issues needed to get this up to a half-decent starting point for a Featured List. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, All done! Sorry for the delayed response. Yours sincerly, --Cartoon network freak (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WCW International World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a short list but a complete one, on a topic I found particularly intriguing. I feel it meets the standalone criteria as it's niche enough that giving it a full treatment in any conceivable parent article would be unduly focussed. The list is based on other FLs within the subject area, and the text has been copyedited by Baffle gab1978, though any criticism on either is welcome. GRAPPLE X 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "Over the title's history, eight championship reigns have been shared between four wrestlers" => "Over the title's history, eight championship reigns were shared between four wrestlers"
  • "Rick Rude held the championship the most often, with three title reignsis reigns" - something seems to have gone a bit haywire at the end there......
  • "the shortest reign of eight days; while Rude" - either lose the word "while", or change the semi-colon to a comma. Either is correct, but what is currently there is not
  • Fixed all three of these. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Lex Luger was chosen as the successor to Flair's WCW World Heavyweight Championship......Masahiro Chono was appointed to hold his NWA championship" - Flair did not own either championship, also it doesn't read quite right to say that Chono was appointed champion, because that makes it sound like he was simply awarded it (I realise that in non-kayfabe terms he was technically awarded it, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at). I would re-word this whole bit as "Lex Luger was chosen as the next WCW World Heavyweight Champion. This championship would remain active throughout WCW's existence until the company merged with WWF;[3] Masahiro Chono was chosen to win a tournament designed to crown the next holder of the NWA championship"
  • Amended. I found it tricky trying to remain as non-kayfabe as possible without being explanatory to the point of condescension but I think the suggested change works well. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's better now, but "Lex Luger was chosen as the next WCW World Heavyweight Champion, which would eventually be carried throughout WCW's existence until the company merged with WWF" kinda makes it sound like Luger held it for the whole of that time. How about "Lex Luger was chosen as the next holder of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, which would remain the promotion's primary title throughout WCW's existence until the company merged with WWF"? BTW sorry for taking so long to reply, I forgot I'd commented here. My bad :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No problem, it's a volunteer effort after all. I made the suggested fix. GRAPPLE X 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "The latter championship became the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship, and was renamed when WCW withdrew its membership of the NWA in September 1993" - I think this vastly over-simplifies the situation, also it sounds like one day the NWA title simply became the International title, for reasons unspecified, and after that WCW withdrew from the NWA. I think you need to say a lot more about how WCW had "control" of the NWA title but got into conflict with the NWA board over who would challenge for it, resulting in WCW withdrawing. You then also need to say that because WCW physically retained the Big Gold Belt they needed to come up with a title for it to represent, so dreamed up the International World title.
  • How does "As a result of WCW withdrawing its membership of the NWA in September 1993, Flair's NWA World Heavyweight Championship no longer carried the NWA name, but WCW retained the physical belt they had used to represent the title. This belt became the WCW International Heavyweight Championship." sound? GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ric Flair was the first WCW International World Heavyweight Champion; he already held the title when it was renamed." - the title was not renamed, the two titles are separate. I would re-word this whole bit to "Ric Flair was the first WCW International World Heavyweight Champion; he had defeated Barry Windham for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship in July 1993 and held it at the point when WCW withdrew from the NWA two months later."
  • The physical title itself was renamed, was the intention there--as in, the big gold belt now carried a new name, which is why I've referred throughout to a "renaming". Flair didn't win something new, but the strap he carried was now being referred to as a newly-named championship, and although it's seen as having its own lineage the way this was accomplished was simply by the company calling it something new. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "For a brief time, the championship was not officially named" => "For a brief time following WCW's withdrawal, the championship which Flair held was not officially named"
  • Reworded. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • When sorting by no., the vacated "reign" jumps to the top. It needs to appear in the appropriate place
  • Fixed. Now sorts as though it's #7. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In the table you again refer to the NWA title as being renamed, which didn't happen. The note against the first reign should be changed to "Flair was the reigning NWA World Heavyweight Champion and became the first holder of the new title when WCW withdrew from the NWA"
  • As above, this simply refers to the point when the "big gold belt" started being called by the new name. I reworded it to stress that the strap itself was the thing that was renamed though. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Three refs from Wrestlings-Titles.com - I don't think this is the correct title for the site
  • Fixed. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry, but I just spotted one more thing. "Masahiro Chono was chosen to win a tournament designed to crown the next holder of the NWA championship.[4] As a result of WCW withdrawing its membership of the NWA in September 1993, Flair's NWA World Heavyweight Championship no longer carried the NWA name...." - I think you need an extra sentence here to clarify that Flair returned to WCW and won the NWA title once again, because you talk about Chono winning it in the tourney but then jump to Flair holding it in 1993 and it's doubly confusing for the uninformed given that you previously talked about him holding it in 1991........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
    Reworded to show he had won it again by then. GRAPPLE X 11:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - all seems good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback. This is a wrestling article I have not personally edited except for perhaps a minor stylistic fix in the past so I believe I can give unbiased feedback

Comments

Lead
  • Two sentences back to back mentions "from 1993 to 1994", the second mention is redundant.
    Removed.
  • Works for me
  • The second paragraph in the lead, starting with "The championship originated" seems unclear to me and to me does not adequately explain that WCW made up the title to replace the NWA World Heavyweight title when they withdrew from the NWA.
    Tried clarifying it a little further, to show that they needed to do something with the belt itself.
  • That's better
Overview
  • "This match caused a back injury to Rude, which at the time was thought to be career-ending", makes it sound like Rude returned to wrestling later on, he did not though.
    Clarified that he retired from in-ring work.
  • Works for me
  • "now-vacant" should probably be "then-vacant", past tense.
    This is past-progressive tense, but I've changed it anyway.
  • Lol I have never been past-progressive before ;-)
  • "The last change of hands booked for the title" - I know what you want to say but this is a clunky sentence I would consider revising. In fact that whole last paragraph does not read well at all with run on sentences and convoluted prose.
    I've given it a pass over to trim sentences and be more direct.
  • Yeah definitly better
  • I think that a final note on the belt design being carried over into the WCW title and later the WWE version might be an interesting final note.
    I'll see if I can turn up something reliable that directly says as much, this is a good idea.
Table
  • Why is there a title over the table? That is not standard for wrestling title lists
    I use the title function for tables consistently; it was recommended in an old FLC as being beneficial to screenreader users.
  • That's not in the other wrestling championship lists, part of being a featured list is to be internally consistent with similar lists, this is not though.
  • It's a minor difference, the format of the list itself (the same tables, the same content in the tables, etc) is entirely consistent with the overall field of wrestling championships. I'd be reticent to remove something that aids readers just to bump the uniformity from 90% to 100%, to be honest.
  • Hey I respect honesty, and as a big wrestling championship list guy I can honestly say that I don't like the inconsistency, MPJ-US  23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That's fair enough, but it is required by the manual of style. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The — under "Days held" sorts odd when you keep clicking the sort arrows - it's between "Less than 1" and 8?
    I think the oddity lay with one of the "<1"s, but these now both sort as "0.1" so everything sorts in order.
  • Works for me
  • The notes section should be left aligned
    I've had to force this with some div code, which is a bit messy under the hood, but it looks okay.
  • Works for me
  • The color for the vacated line does not match the MOS, the vacated color is "e3e3e3"
    I matched the row to the exact colour the column and row cells are rather than adding a third colour; anything conveyed by the colour is also conveyed textually so it's within MOS.
  • For the Pro Wrestling tables the entire row is a different color, including the — at the beginning. Vacant having the same color as the general number row is misleading, it's calling out something is different. This is also a matter of being internally consistent with other wrestling championship lists.
  • Removed the colour, so the vacant reigns are the same as the standard ones; should no longer be calling the row out differently to the others.
  • that's actually worse IMO, the dark grey indicates that something out of the ordinary happened, a break in the lineage. MPJ-US  23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wasn't that already being accomplished before? GRAPPLE X 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • List of Combined reigns should be sortable
    Added sortability; I had originally left it off as both columns were already listed in the same order they would sort regardless but I guess now it can be viewed descending and ascending.
  • Works for me
  • List of Combined reigns also has a non-standard title
  • Again inconsistent with other title lists
Sources
  • Are there no other sources for the table than wrestling-titles.com?
    I'm sure there are, I just stopped looking after the first one.
  • Well thats... erm... reassuring? Not sure.
  • I didn't see the need to add additional sources if it was already covered; if you feel that doubling up on the references is necessary I can look for more but everything mentioned is cited.
  • Don't mind that, just being a smart all.

The list portion is more or less there, the text needs a little work but nothing that cannot be overcome.  MPJ-US  02:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: I have responded to or addressed most of your comments; still researching one of them. Thank you for having a look at this. GRAPPLE X 12:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Grapple X: - Looked over the article, have a few things I still don't agree with.  MPJ-US  00:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Linkin Park[edit]

Notified: Gary, Milk's Favorite Cookie and WikiProject Rock music

Promoted to FL status way back in 2008, this list doesn't meet the current standards of sourcing. Several awards sections have no sources at all. The "Billboard Decade-End" section has been unsourced since 2010. Skr15081997 (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delist too much unreferenced content, and some of the awards are missing descriptions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist Many of the awards are missing references, particularly in the latter half of the list but elsewhere as well. It has not been well-maintained, as there are several dead links. When it was originally promoted to FL many years ago, it was a much shorter list: [1] They've either been nominated for a lot more awards since its promotion or the original expanders did not include a lot of awards. Either way, this is far from being a featured list anymore. In addition, the referencing formats are incorrect. Johanna(talk to me!) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

List of ICC World ODI XI cricketers[edit]

Notified: Jpeeling, WikiProject Cricket

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets FL criteria. Being a 2005 nominee, it certainly fails to meet criteria needed to be a FL. Major updating and more reliable sources would be needed for this to meet FL criteria.Will211 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Can you clarify? Apparently the World XI haven't played since 2005 so what needs updating? What more reliable sources do you need above ESPNcricinfo? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've done some tidying on this list now; mostly making the table accessible and fixing the sorting a bit. Harrias talk 19:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - nomination is nonsense, the article is up to date and the sourcing is impeccably reliable. I see no issues with this list at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Chris, I am struggling to understand why this list has been nominated for removal. No reason to delist. NapHit (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – The reasoning is very vague. I don't see why the article has to be updated. Thanks Harrias for polishing the article. Vensatry (Talk) 12:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – there's no need of updating here. There are enough refs. Satisfies FL criteria. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)