Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



List of accolades received by Lagaan[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lagaan is one of the most influential film ever produced by Indian cinema. It won several awards and nomination. I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of it's award list. All kind of comments are welcomed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino was one of the huge stars of the era of silent films, and still a iconic figure a hundred years later. Hisreputation rests on his roles in fourteen films, including The Sheik (1921), The Young Rajah (1922), The Eagle (1925), The Son of the Sheik (1926). This list has been split off from the main Valentino article, overhauled, re-written and is now in line with MoS strictures. Any and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks SNUGGUMS; good comments and the article has certainly been strengthened because of them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Need alt text on all of them. They are otherwise appropriately licensed on Commons and of good, clear quality. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll add alt text, but it doesn't need to be added, although it is good practice. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • According to This, they do need to be added.— Maile (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That's one opinion: others may differ and it's not a point that is insisted upon at either FAC or FLC. Having said that. I'll repeat that I do intend to do this shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Now added - many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The class the stars fell on[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list now that all issues have been resolved from the previous review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - — Maile (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC), Calvin999, GagaNutella, IndianBio, SNUGGUMS

We've been working on the list for a while. However, we never came up with the conclusion as to who should be the one to nominate it. Anyway, the list is pretty comprehensive, listing down all of her notable songs. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Hoping for the best. -- Frankie talk 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Arsenal F.C. records and statistics[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A comprehensive list of Arsenal records and notable statistics, modelled on other football lists which already been promoted. All feedback is welcome, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Vuelta a España[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Vuelta a España was the third of the three-week cycling Grand Tours in 2015 and was a fantastic race, decided in the final kilometres of the final climb. This list is closely modelled after List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France, which was recently promoted to featured list status, and I think this is very close too. Relentlessly (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on style and structure. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Raveena Tandon filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Raveena Tandon is one of Bollywood's most popular actresses. She has received critical acclaim for portraying strong women in several films and has also won the National Film Award for Best Actress. Looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Seems odd to have some fields filled in, but others empty. Like "Director" field for some, but not all. Either way, should try to have increased standardization for maximum uniformity, throughout the page. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I have filled the table. Thanks for noting it, don't know how it slipped out of my mind. I was very busy so couldn't do it then.Krish | Talk 05:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks much better. Keep us posted here if you do any more filling in on the Notes sect. — Cirt (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


  • Too many missing entries in the table re: directors, roles. Referencing needs a lot more work as they don't act as source for all the info in the table. Leads needs more work on its prose.
  • "This was followed by a series of poorly received films which continued with her 1993 releases" Needs to be rephrased.I think you mean that the 1992 film was the start of her string of films that performed poorly at the box office. Unclear what poorly received means. By critics or commercial or both?
  • "In 1994, she appeared in eight Hindi films, most of them were commercial successes. Among these were two of the box-office hits — the action thriller Mohra and the romantic musical drama Dilwale". According to table she was in nine Hindi films in 1994. BOI source goes to 1991 not 1994. What's the source for most of them being commercial successes? The first sentence says most of them were commercial successes but the next one says only two were box office hits.
  • "Her other notable film was" Can't state that the film was notable, have to provide evidence why. Should avoid words such as as hit or flop.
  • "The later year, she appeared in " What does this mean?
  • In regards to BOI, we can't use their phrasing of what a hit is.
  • Source needed for her taking a break from her films because of marriage
  • Confusing to discuss a TV show she appeared in before marriage, right after a sentence saying she appeared on occassion on television after marriage.
  • For the cameo in Bombay Velvet, you need a source that summarises multiple critics not just two as it's POV.
  • Shab needs a source that proves it's filming.

Cowlibob (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Kerala State Film Award for Best Actress[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A state government award list based on National Film Award for Best Actress, an existing FL. I've not included the roles played by the actresses in the table as most of them aren't notable enough outside the film. Look forward to your comments and suggestions Vensatry (ping) 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • Support – Good work. -- Frankie talk 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Padma Bhushan Award recipients (1954–1959)[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

being one of India's most coveted civilian awards, I think the list should be presented in the proper format and with the encyclopaedic content. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies FL criteria. Looking forward to constructive criticism. With the success or failure of this nomination, I would decide to work on the similar lists for Indian civilian awards in the near future. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Blue Is the Warmest Colour[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Blue Is the Warmest Colour is a 2013 French romantic coming-of-age drama directed by Abdellatif Kechiche. It stars Adèle Exarchopoulos, and Léa Seydoux. This is a hopefully comprehensive run down of its accolades. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@GagaNutella: Thanks for the review. Have added see also, removed redlinks, changed to accolades. In regard to the other comments, the first comment is not grammatically correct. The sentence is about who she plays in the film, which is a teenager who falls in love with an older woman. The dates are day/month/year as this is a French not an American film so doesn't follow American convention of month/day/year in its dates. Having more information about references which include who publishes the work is encouraged on Wikipedia, having just the work or publisher is acceptable but not the only way that references should be. Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I understood the date format, I just said that because this is an English Wikipedia, but you are right. About the references, even I'm supporting your FLC, I think you should give a chance and use only one of them (work or publisher). Anyway, this list looks amazing. Great job!!! GagaNutellatalk 15:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@GagaNutella: Thanks. I have made the format uniform for all refs. It is the English Wikipedia but not the American English Wikipedia so date formats can vary per WP:ENGVAR.Cowlibob (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for being so understanding and honest. That's amazing! GagaNutellatalk 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2012 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The 2012 Tour de France, 2012 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 10 and 2012 Tour de France, Stage 11 to Stage 20 articles are currently up for GA. When I saw the 2015 equivalent to this get nominated for FL, I thought that by getting the 2012 list to FL the race could become a good topic. I have followed the comments on 2015, and both are almost identical in terms of the structure and tables. BaldBoris 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I nominated the 2015 list linked above, promoted to FL with BaldBoris' help. I've had a good look through this, trying to find something to quibble over, and I can't. I'm very happy to support it. One "nice to have" would be an additional image in the lead, perhaps this one. It's a really nice list. Relentlessly (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution[edit]

Nominator(s): Drdpw (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after viewing several history text timelines and after taking a look at the archived discussion of this article's unsuccessful 2008 "FLC" I set about revamping the page. There are now inline citations, more key events are noted, and more information given about those events. Also, the article now has a good introduction and helpful organizational headings. Drdpw (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maile

First of all, congratulations on the reformat. It looks soooooo much better without the table.

  • The images are fine, but there's a long stretch without any images. Any chance there might be some on Commons to add?
  • There are a lot of dates with no sourcing citation.
— Maile (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Maile. I have added a couple images and will attend to the citations (plus additional images) soon. Drdpw (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Square Enix video game franchises[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, video game list time rather than another sci-fi/fantasy awards list. This one's a bit unique- most game companies out there can't support a list composed of just the franchises they develop/publish, rather than the games, but Square Enix is a unique beast. And that's reflected in this list: the franchises are divided up between franchises developed by Square Enix (or formerly Square/Enix), those developed by companies that they've bought (like Eidos Interactive and Taito), and those that any of those parts published but didn't develop. Except that's a simplification- what do you call a franchise that was published by Eidos, who then bought the developer, and then more games were developed after Square Enix then bought Eidos? (Deus Ex) Or a franchise developed by an external company but published by Eidos, where Eidos owned the franchise rights, only to sell them off to the original developer? (Carmaggedon) And that's ignoring franchises where Taito publishes a manga, which then has an anime, and then has spinoff games- I've elided those, for all our sanities. Those will be in another list when I feel like shooting myself via google searches again. The point is that this list is an approximation of something we can't know for sure- what franchises does Square Enix actually own the rights to, as oppose to exclusive publishing rights to, as opposed to just having happened to have published every game in the series. Since we can't know, this list doesn't answer that question, but instead covers all franchises that Square Enix develops or publishes, past or present.

Those of you who don't spend time in video game articles won't realize how much of a surprise the "sales" column is: getting sales numbers in video game land, unlike movies and music, is like pulling teeth from a rhinoceros who only speaks Japanese- it's all scattered non-English sources that you have to dig for and pull together to get a number that even remotely approximates reality. If a franchise here is missing sales data, no sources exist anywhere that I could find for that data. Before ending this nomination, I'd like to thank Misconceptions2, who created the initial list and the first (slightly premature) nomination a month ago- I would never have willingly subjected myself to making this list, but they made it happen. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 03:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
I'll be back later. But please look at reference 87 that has an error message (at least what I see) "External link in |title= (help)". — Maile (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm back. Gaming is not my area of knowledge, so I'll say this looks good as far as what I can see. Except for WP:DTT - I don't see scope="col" and scope="row", and that seems to be stressed on FLC reviews. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66:: Fixed the reference error, seemed to confuse the wikilink with an external link. Also put in row/col scopes- knew I was forgetting something. --PresN 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - Happy to give you my support. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support First of all I would like to express my admiration for your efforts in sourcing the list. I have only a couple of suggestions:

  • You should format reference 87.
  • In note 1 I would suggest to specify as of when are the most recent numbers: "Sales numbers are based on the most recent available sourced numbers as of .......; actual total sales numbers...". --Gligan (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Did both, though I'm on the fence about the "as of" bit. --PresN 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Central Committee elected by the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)[edit]

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

Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1934–1939. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, --TIAYN (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please replace all symbols with their corresponding symbol template for accessibility, similar to what you did for the Star of David. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Thisisnotatest: They don't have corresponding template, and unlike the venus symbol and the star of david, these are random symbols which can mean whatever the editor wants.. There is no reason to templatize them. So why should I?--TIAYN (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Text says some of those symbols will likely be read aloud to blind people using screen reader software as question marks. Rather than creating new templates, you could replace those symbols with symbols that already have templates. Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Thisisnotatest: But this is what I don't understand.. You said to templatize the star of david because there could be some people didn't know what the star of david was.. OK, so another description was added. ... But these symbols are random; so "† Indicates that the individual died of natural causes" should be enough (and a person can read this to a blind person). --TIAYN (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need: I believe I said it wasn't accessible to blind people. The reason is that screen readers won't read it. But actually, I was thinking about it today, there's a larger issue. When it was just one symbol on that other page, the Star of David, which is well recognized for Jewish, that was probably okay. But now, this key is adding multiple symbols with meanings unrelated to their appearance. That's a lot of meaning for all people, not just blind people, to keep in their heads (or to scroll up and down and up and down) as they try to use the table. It would be better to replace the symbols with a brief word or two and just add another column to the table to contain that new word.
Abbreviations used
K "K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys.
All Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo.
Pol Politburo member.
Sec Secretariat member.
Org Orgburo member.
Pol(Cand), Org(Cand) "Cand" refers to "Candidate member"
The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism, shaped as that of a hexagram, the compound of two equilateral triangles Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family.
Natural Indicates that the individual died of natural causes.
Suicide Indicates that the individual committed suicide.
Murder Indicates that the individual was murdered.
Arrested Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat.
Removed Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee.
Expelled Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938.[1]
Elevated Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member.

List of reptiles of Bulgaria[edit]

Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, as with the first list in that series, list of amphibians in Bulgaria, I hope that a successful promotion would encourage other users to create or improve lists of reptiles/amphibians (and other animals) by country. As I have stated in the argumentation of the first nomination, while the lists of mammals and birds generally cover most countries, the lists of amphibians and reptiles still cover only a limited number of countries, which is surprising, having in mind the available information. I have implemented the recommendations, suggested during the nomination discussion of the List of amphibians of Bulgaria. Regards, Gligan (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The refs are a bit misleading. "The family contains about x species in y genera, of which z species occurs in Bulgaria.[ref]" where ref only refers to x and y but not z. pls move the ref location after the comma, and try to find some other ref for z. Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • dont use links in the section titles, and mention that Rhynchocephalia and Crocodilia are extant orders not represented in BG. Nergaal (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "there are no records since 193" should be there have been no. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • fix redling meadow lizard to Darevskia. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure, but I think the status ntoe should be linked more than once, or placed somewhere at the top of the list. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(intro should mention which of the species are threatened, since there are only like 5 of them. Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Please fix the color contrast in the table captions. White text on light blue is hard for some people to read. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like Anguis fragilis and Anguis colchica are seperate species now and both of them live in Bulgaria. --TnoXX (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have made an entry for Anguis colchica. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Review by PresN

Reviewing this list, since I reviewed the amphibian list (and I like to encourage these non-sports/music/film lists):

  • A couple times in the lead, you use a spaced mdash ( — ) to make asides. This should either be a spaced ndash ( – ) or an unspaced mdash (—). Or just a colon.
  • "The foundations of the Bulgarian herpetology" - "The foundations of Bulgarian herpetology"
  • In all cases but Cheloniidae, you start off with "X are a family"; only for that family do you say "Cheloniidae is a family". This should be consistent, in whichever direction is correct.
  • "recorded up to 1100 m altitude in Lozen Mountain" - this should either be on Lozen Mountain, in the Lozen mountains, or in the Lozen Mountain region, depending on what was meant; the capitalization/wording makes it hard to tell if the grammar is just off or if it's the proper name of a region.
  • "The lower course of the rivers Struma, Arda, Maritsa, Tundzha, as well as..." - should have an "and" before Tundzha, as that's the end of the sublist. Also drop that comma, since it looks like you're not going with the oxford comma anywhere else- so it should be "The lower course of the rivers Struma, Arda, Maritsa and Tundzha, as well as..."
  • "There are 73 species in 10 genera, of them two species occur in Bulgaria." - of which
  • "Widespread in the whole country" -> "Widespread throughout the whole country"
  • "Found in the whole country" -> "Found throughout the whole country"
  • Scincidae is the only family that you don't mention how many genera there are, any reason?
  • "There are 844 species in 118 genera, of them 12 species..." - of which
  • "except for the high mountains of souther-western Bulgaria" - "southwestern (or southwest) Bulgaria"
  • "Occurs in the Upper Thracian Plan, the Danubian Plane..." - should be "plain" both times, and I'll ignore the obvious snakes on a plane joke
  • "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights, Strandzha" -> "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights and Strandzha"
  • "Widespread in the whole country, up to 1600 m altitude..." - widespread throughout the whole country
  • "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights, Strandzha, the southern Black Sea coast" -> "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights and Strandzha, and the southern Black Sea coast"
  • "They include 329 species in 33 genera, of them..." - of which
  • Vipera aspis and Vipera berus have spaced mdashes again
  • The notes section should be spaced ndashes or unspaced mdashes, not spaced hyphens
  • Redirects that don't seem intentional: four-lined snake is piped to its latin name which redirects to... four-lined snake
  • I'd feel better about "The Reptile Database" being used as a source if there was a publisher in the ref or something that showed it was an RS, and not just some guy's pet project

That's it, most of the grammar things repeat a few times so it's not really that much. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Square Enix video game franchises FLC up above. --PresN 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. The review was indeed helpful, for which I am very grateful. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. --PresN 01:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft[edit]

Nominator(s): Grondemar 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) & Robert4565 (talk)

After 3.5 years away from Wikipedia, I'm back at FLC with another UConn-themed list: List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft. I'd like to thank User:Robert4565 for pulling together this list in 2014; I added prose I had left in my userspace from 2012 as well as new prose, and cleaned up the list with high-quality references. I based the list restructure on the existing college team in the NFL Draft featured lists, as well as List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft.

I believe this candidate fully meets the featured list criteria. Please review and concur if you agree. Grondemar 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I do too. Robert4565 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I believe the key needs to be split into three two-column tables and have column headings added to be accessible. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'll take a look and try to fix it this afternoon. Grondemar 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    After further consideration I decided to remove the key entirely and to incorporate the full name of the positions and links directly in the main list, more similar to List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft than the previous NFL Draft FLs. This avoids the challenge of making the key table accessible; it also should make it easier for the reader to go to pages describing the positions without having to scroll up to the key. Grondemar 00:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed, that solves the issue. I've struck out my comment. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks! Grondemar 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Slovenia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

When preparing this list, I have followed the example of the Spanish article which is already a FL. Checking the criteria:

  • 1 and 2 - I suppose this is fine. May require some language tweaks, I'll be happy if you point them out.
  • 3 - it is complete and cannot be presented as a part of another article, at least not in this shape.
  • 4 - tables work and are sortable.
  • 5 - all images except for one are on Commons, the one with Plečnik is free under the US law.
  • 6 - it is stable. Changes are expected when status of nominations change or more sites are added but that is about it.

Tone 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This list is only 3+5 items long. Not sure it should be a FL, since the +5 might not happen anytime soon. I suggest get this at GAN after reformatting to have a minisection on each of the currently listed 3 sites. I also suggest to remove "list of" from the title. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, however, FLs List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar and List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba are not much longer themselves. And Madagascar also has only 3 sites on the main list. Still, if this fails, GAN is an option, I agree. --Tone 19:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Those were promoted in 2010 and 2011. I am pretty sure that if they would have been nominated more recently they would have gotten more scrutiny about it. It is difficult to name something "list of 3 items" and be taken seriously. From my memory, shorts lists are delayed FL until they become somewhat longer, but in this case this "list" might never be longer than 3 entries. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I would add a slightly bigger location map to the list (similar to the one for WH in Cuba) --Smihael (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
400 -> 500 px. What do you think? I wouldn't go bigger than that. --Tone 19:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, 400px is better, so I've restored the original size and hope that we won't go bickering about that. --Eleassar my talk 07:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: well-written, meets all the criteria. --Eleassar my talk 07:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Review by PresN

Taking off my delegate hat to review this, with one caveat- this list is 8 items long in 2 tables, and as Nergaal mentioned that is a bit short; that said, I'm fine with it due to its status as one of a set (e.g. the "List of World Heritage sites in [country]" set). If this was a branched-off list such as a "list of accolades" list I wouldn't be okay with the length, but in this case it's cool, assuming the promoting delegate doesn't disagree. Anyways, review:

  • I'd change "Slovenia, following the declaration of independence from Yugoslavia, succeeded the convention on 5 November 1992." to "Slovenia, following the declaration of independence from Yugoslavia on 25 June 1991, succeeded the convention on 5 November 1992.", just to give a little more context.
  • "The first site [...] were the Škocjan Caves" -> was
  • "inscribed at the 10th session in 1986" -> "inscribed at the 10th UNESCO session in 1986"
  • "both of them being transnational entries" -> "both of them transnational entries"
  • "pile dwellings at Ig, within the Prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps in 2011, and Idrija, as Heritage of Mercury. Almadén and Idrija in 2012." -> "pile dwellings at Ig, part of the "Prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps" transnational site, in 2011; and Idrija, as part of the "Heritage of Mercury. Almadén and Idrija" transnational site, in 2012."
  • "Of these three sites, Škocjan Caves are a natural site" -> either "the Škocjan Caves are" or "Škocjan Caves is"
  • The table key is mostly unnecessary; the name and location and description is entirely self-evident from the name. I'd change the header to "In the following table, the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number, the year the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." I'd also personally put that as a note on the UNESCO column, but either way is fine.
  • Comments is a bad column name, because that's not really what's in there; I'd change it to "Shared with", drop "shared with" from cells that have that, and put {{n/a}} in the empty cells
  • Ig is missing a space in "iv,v"
  • "Two sites in Slovenia are listed, the pile dwellings in Ig, the northern group (kolišča na Igu, severna skupina), and the pile dwellings in Ig, southern group (kolišča na Igu, južna skupina)." -> "Two sites in Slovenia are listed: the pile dwellings in Ig, northern group (kolišča na Igu, severna skupina), and the pile dwellings in Ig, southern group (kolišča na Igu, južna skupina)."
  • "The area that developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising" -> "The area that was developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising", or "The area developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising", depending on what you meant.
  • That entire description needs to be rewritten; it's two sentences jammed together and it's confusing as to subject-verb matching. I'd go with "Ždrocle Virgin Forests in the forest reserves Krokar and Snežnik represent an outstanding example of undisturbed, complex temperate forests. They demonstrate the postglacial expansion process of such forests and exhibit the most complete and comprehensive ecological patterns and processes of pure and mixed stands of European Beech across a variety of environmental conditions."
  • Architectural heritage of Jože Plečnik description starts with a sentence fragment; revise into a full sentence.
  • The "Shared with" bit above applies to this table too
  • References are malformed; you're misusing the templates. You have UNESCO World Heritage Centre as the author of the refs, but they should be listed as the publisher, with author blank. The refs also need an accessdate. I think we can safely assume that archiving the refs is very optional for these citations, though.
  • Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the Alps is redirecting to lowercase p pile, no other redirects
  • If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Square Enix video game franchises FLC above. --PresN 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I will try to go through the comments this weekend. --Tone 10:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I recently came across List of England Test matches, which was a huge list of every England Test match, but was so big that it became pretty useless. I have condensed that page into the summary that it is now, and split the results lists down by era to hopefully make them more accessible. This is the first of them. The list is loosely based upon the similar Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results, which is a FL. As always, all comments, criticisms and nattering welcome! Harrias talk 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Thanks for your valuable input on the prose; I've updated the article now to reflect the suggested changes. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to support this now. Relentlessly (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Alamo defenders[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This list is part of the Battle of the Alamo series of articles. Karanacs helped with cross-checking of sources, an intrinsic factor in making this list as accurate as possible without original research. For some in Texas where a family tree might claim an ancestor on either side of the battle, knowing who was inside the fortress is personal. For academics and other "Alamoheads" (as they call themselves), it has been more of an obsessive quest for 179 years. Each generation brings new methodologies to archival research, to reaffirm or debunk existing names on the list, and hoping to discover yet another defender.— Maile (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment
  • I haven't looked at this in great depth, but one query. A casualty is defined as "a person killed or injured". But given that this list is split into casualties and survivors, are we to assume all those listed as casualty died? If so, shouldn't they be listed instead as fatalities? Harrias talk 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Done - Good catch. I changed all of them. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Review by PresN
  • Wikilink Texian the first time you use it in the lead, since you don't explain the term and then link it later in "Identifying the combatants"
  • You introduce Lindley simply as Thomas Ricks Lindley; at least mention that they're a historian or whatever, even if you leave the mention of their book until the second mention
  • "Determining exactly who was inside the Alamo has been an ongoing historical quest. It is likely there will never be a definitive list." - the phrasing here is a bit editorializing
  • There's a lot of inconsistencies in the Notes column between whether you're using full sentences or sentence fragments; not only should this be consistent (I recommend fragments unless you have a multi-sentence note) but fragments should not end in a period. The "He" you occasionally use is especially off-putting, since most times you refer to the person in that row by their last name instead
Will work on this tomorrow when I have more time. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Done — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • For sortable lists, you can't just link the "first" instance of something, because if you sort on a column which one is first changes. You'll need to link either everything or nothing in the Birthplace column
  • Denmark, Randers is backwards and redirects
  • Backwards city/states seems to be a thing you have; you should replace them with {{sort|state, city|[[city, state]]}} to get the sorting you want without having to flip the order
  • I find the split between this list and List of Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo, which is a subset of this list, kin of odd- shouldn't that one be merged into this one?
Well, no, they were never meant to be merged. The defenders list was created in January 2008, and is just that...only the ones who were armed and actively involved in the fighting. The survivors which Karanacs created in March 2008 and took to FL, was meant to be only the survivors and contains children and other civilian non-combatants. While I can't answer for Karanacs, it's clear she never meant the survivor list to be part of the defender list.— Maile (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I was in a hurry on a small screen and didn't realize that the survivor list included non-combatants. As such it's not a subset of this list, so never mind. --PresN 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There are some errors in footnotes- missing space in 3, odd period after the page number in 6, missing space in 15, mucked up dash in 23, period again in 38 and 56, 67, 70, 72, etc (ctrl-f for ".;" for the rest), missing space in 83, 93, 113, 115, 122, etc, and you're really inconsistent on if a reference ends with a period after the page number or not
I'll deal with this tomorrow when I have more time. I need to have a good look at all of them.— Maile (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I believe I've caught all this, and am never likely to forget this as a learning curve. You have a very fine eye. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • ISBNs are all inconsistent in your references- ISBNs should be (978-)1-4444-4444-1.
PresN - I need clarification on what you are saying. Are you saying they should all be 13-number ISBNs? Because not all ISBNs are 13 numbers - they just aren't. Even with the 13-number ISBNs, how the numbers are separated depends on where the book was published. In many, if not most, of the cases the ISBN numbers were taken directly from the book cover and is exactly like the publisher had them. I don't know about the parenthesis (978) you are using. It isn't inconsistency, unless I misunderstand you. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
They don't have to be ISBN13s; what I meant was that for, for example, in ref 2 you have the isbn as "978-1-55622-255-9": this should be "978-1-5562-2255-9". For ISBN10s, like ref 3, it should not be "0-938349-68-6", it should be "0-9383-4968-6". I'm looking it up now, and it seems like that's not actually a universal rule; that said, they should be consistent, and 1-4-4-1 was the way I was told was the correct pattern. I suppose you can pick whatever pattern you like best; it's a really, really minor thing that I would never consider opposing over, I just noticed they weren't consistent. --PresN 00:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the style on iSBNs, it's one of those things at Wikipedia that triggers different opinions on different articles/reviews. Just for the heck of it, I know @Mr Stephen: uses AWB to clean up ISBN numbers. If he would like to run that on this article, I would have no objection. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Happy to help. PresN:, the length of the fields varies, there isn't a simple 1-4-4-1 rule. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright, guess I was wrong, then. --PresN 13:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @PresN:, I believe I have addressed all the issues you mentioned. Thank you in particular for your insight on the notes section and the citations. That helped me reduce the overall size of the article, and helped make me a better editor in the future. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. --PresN 01:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agatha Christie bibliography[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Agatha Christie was a truly prodigious writer who turned out 73 novels and 28 short story collections, alongside plays, poems and autobiographical works. Best known for her crime stories, she invented a string of colourful and eccentric characters, including Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Parker Pyne, Harley Quin and Tommy and Tuppence Beresford. This list has been extensively re-worked to make it MoS compliant, fully sourced throughout and ready for FLC. Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – A model of its kind. I have tried to find something to quibble at, but can't. Meets the FL criteria, in my view. (I bet I'm the only reviewer you get here who has been running longer than The Mousetrap.) Tim riley talk 19:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Tim for your time and efforts in going through this - all much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, quite well done and well cited. Just too bad we couldn't get an interview with the Tenth Doctor about his impression of her works. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Cirt! Your thoughts and comment are very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Looks very well researched and compiled. One could say though that the infobox bibliography consists of a "string of colourful and eccentric colours" too though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Doc, for your time and comments - much appreciated! – SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good job, you certainly used your "little grey cells" on this one. Cowlibob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks Cowlibob: good comments and the article has certainly been strengthened because of them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by American Horror Story[edit]

Nominator(s): GagaNutellatalk 15:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on it for certain period of time, and after many edits and full revamping, I believe this list meets the criteria for featured list status.

Wonderful work. Support. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much Johanna. Your support, again, was very important! GagaNutellatalk 02:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Support – Good work. -- Frankie talk 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
All I have to say is thank you FrB.TG. GagaNutellatalk 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The only thing left I can find is to move TheWrap into the publisher field since it is not a periodical or book. Otherwise great job.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: I've just done. Again, thank you! GagaNutellatalk 00:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Brokeback Mountain[edit]

Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because after heavy cleanup, I believe that it meets the criteria. For those of you who don't know, Brokeback Mountain is a 2005 epic romantic drama film about the complex romantic and sexual relationship between two men, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist. It won the Academy Award for Best Director and controversially lost Best Picture to Crash. It received 77 wins and 143 nominations. I look forward to reading and responding to any comments! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support It looks great now. Great job! GagaNutellatalk 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent list.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob

  • No need for in addition. Just say Michelle Williams..... featured in supporting roles. This needs a ref too.
  • Done
  • "The film received its world premiere" -->The film premiered at the Venice…
  • Done
  • Too much detail about the box office. Just say how much it grossed at the end of its run on what budget.
  • Done
  • For the SAG Awards, just say "more than any other film"
  • Done
  • The last paragraph on the snub at the Oscars could be cut down a lot. Also it needs ref for "several critics". Can't use just two critics. The author of the work is of course going to be annoyed that it didn't win, no need to mention it. Overall it goes into too much detail better suited for the main article.
  • Take a look now. I could cut it down more, but that would be bordering on only showing one side… Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not enough to just keep adding critics, it's POV. Someone could add referenced people who thought Crash should have won and claim the opposite. You need to provide a reference where it's a summary of a lot of different critics opinions. It shouldn't be hard to find as it got a lot coverage back in the day for the "homophobia" claim.
  • Done. Added 2 refs and shortened the paragraph as a whole.
The views of one blogger, one "cinema fan", someone from a Community Center opinions are not needed. The other is a list of what critic's opinions of the "biggest Oscar shocks". Neither of the sources talk about it not being a ground breaking choice. Perhaps these sources for the homophobia aspect [[1]],[[2]].Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Jarhead film should be wikilinked as Jarhead.
  • Done
  • Hollywood Film Awards is missing closing of brackets.
"(also for Jarhead and Proof", Also in the Golden Globe Awards row ""A Love That Will Never Grow Old"(Gustavo Santaolalla, Bernie Taupin, and Emmylou Harris"
Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace Cinema Blend, Movie City News, Rockonthenet and Alt Film Guide references.
  • I tried really hard to find better sources than these, but I couldn't. Unless you can find some alternatives, should I remove them?
I'll have a look around.
@Johanna: I found an article from the Reading Eagle about Brokeback Mountain being named in the top ten for the African-American film critics society. Click here.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: Thank you so much! I incorporated these into the article. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Variety should be italicized.
  • Done
  • Alt text for image needs changing "Hilary Swank in 2010"!?
  • Done Bad copy-paste mistake… :)
  • Ref 9, 26,34, 39, 43, 52, 54 are deadlinks.
  • They're not, actually. They're just originals of links that were already archive
Fixed these for you. For future reference it's archivedate=, archiveurl= not archive-date=, archive-url=
  • Ref 6, 32 are redirects.
  • These links were already archived as well. These websites just redirected them to a generic page instead of a 404. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed these also. The USC ref redirected to the main page so there was no evidence of the nomination. I've archived the link for you.

Cowlibob (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Take a look now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Nikki Finke's article seems to be on not LA Weekly. Cowlibob (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You should change the reference as well as the publisher still is LA Weekly.Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite well sourced and well formatted. Nice background info in the lede intro sect, which helps provide some context and ground the reader in the subject matter. Good job and good luck, — Cirt (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Support – all of my craps have been dealt with. -- Frankie talk 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • These are outstanding awards/nominations not cited to reliable sources. Amanda Award nom, American Cinema Editors nom, Austin film critics noms, Vancouver film critics noms, Dallas Fort-Worth Film Critics awards and noms.
  • After some digging I found one for the American Cinema Editors and Dallas–Fort Worth Critics (both awards and noms). Removed the rest. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also many of the entries in the award are redirects to the organisation organising the awards so they should be changed to the organisation e.g. Austin Film Critics Association Awards, Chicago Film Critics Association Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: I don't know what you mean here. Could you specify what you would like it to read or link to? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Currently those above and some others just redirect to the article on the organisation who organised the awards because there is no dedicated article to just the awards. So just cut the Awards bit and just have it as the name of the organisation e.g. Austin Film Critics Association instead of Austin Film Critics Association Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

List of British Columbia general elections[edit]

Nominator(s): --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This article was previously promoted to Featured list status in December 2006 (and subsequently became part of a Featured topic in January 2007). However, earlier this year, in April 2015, this article was delisted as a Featured list due to its lack of inline citations, out-of-date referencing, and MOS-type problems with its table-lists (e.g. not adhering to WP:SALORDER, and antiquated table coding, etc.). I have spent the last few weeks attempting to resolve those issues, and I believe this article is now ready to be relisted as a Featured list, so I am (re-)nominating this article for Featured list status. (Most of the other Canadian provincial elections lists articles have also been delisted as FL's, outside of List of Alberta general elections which is still a Featured list, and I hope to fix those other articles, and renominate those over the next couple of months... But I am starting with the British Columbia article, as the one closest to being completely renovated enough for WP:FL status.) I look forward to working through this process. Thank you! --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just some drive-by comments, no time for a full review yet.

  • "This article provides a summary of results" is no longer considered appropriate for featured lists, nor is "The chart on the right shows", and "The table below shows"...
    • (Interlacing my replies here.) OK, I have eliminated that kind of language from the lede. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead should summarize the table, for example include sentences on any trends over the years, and referenced explanations. It needs to be substantially rewritten.
    • I have substantially reworked the lede. I doubt it's anywhere near "perfect" yet, but hopefully it's getting there. I based the first paragraph off List of Alberta general elections, but reworked the intro sentence so it's not just a "copy" of the Alberta one. (That intro sentence may be "clunky" as a result – if so, please let me know...) But hopefully the lede is at least more "professional" now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The second graph is missing the latest election results.
    • That second figure is a problem. I can't tell what it was worked up in, but I don't think it was Microsoft Excel. As a result, I doubt I can just whip up an "updated for 2013" version of that one that'll look similar to the way that figure looks now. Additionally, it seems wholly redundant with the article's first graph-figure. As a result, if there's no objection, I'd like to just remove the second figure from the article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Elections prior to provincial political parties" has a reference, but I can't find any of that information on page 6 as indicated.
    • OK, I hope it's OK to quote the source verbetim for the purposes of this discussion, but I'm going to do so (this is from p.6, as per the reference at the article):

      ...Before 1903 lines were drawn between Government supporters, grouped around the Premier, and the Opposition, grouped around one or more Opposition leaders. Candidates declared themselves as one or the other, or as Independents. There was no formal selection process for the most part so it was not uncommon for Government (or Opposition) candidates to be running against another Government (or Opposition) candidate... After an election, and not infrequently during the life of a Parliament, the position of Government and Opposition was often reversed. From 1871 to 1903 there were eight parliaments and fifteen governments; the seventh and eight Parliaments accounted for six of those governments. Allegiances shifted frequently depending on the issue, there was little to no discipline. In 1886 separate Labour candidates first appeared and in 1900 a Socialist candidate was nominated. The 1900 general election is also significant in that although the traditional division of Government and Opposition was still present, party groupings were beginning to play a role and it foreshadowed the election of 1903 along full party lines.2

      I think this section of the source pretty much confirms the first paragraph of the 'Elections prior to provincial political parties' section, as well some of what's asserted in the second and third sentences of the last paragraph in the lede. However, it's certainly possible that both of these can be worded better to align them more closely with the quoted text from the source, above. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The entire second paragraph of "Elections prior to provincial political parties" is completely unsourced, missing any wikilinks and needs to be written more clearly. That whole paragraph is painful to read.
    • I've added wikilinks for the premieres. (In terms of sourcing I'll see what I can dig up, and come back with what I find...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Full details on any election are linked via the year of the election at the start of the row" is almost tautological for any wikipedia user. And is written twice in the article.
    • You're right – I've removed that sentence. But, follow-up question: Is the phrasing "The table below shows..." in this section still acceptable language? Or is that also antiquated for FL's, and so needs to be reworded? --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely improved since it was demoted thanks to your efforts, but there is still quite a bit of work to get it back to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And, noted! --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Round two:

  • The lead is much, much better than before. Just a minor quibble: the last sentence is bit clunky, and can be fixed by being a bit more clear by writing something like ... "which won every election since 2001" or "all subsequent elections since 2001" or something like that.
    • I reworked the last sentence of the lede – I think it's better now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes better to scrap the second image since the information is contained within the first one anyway. The first one is good, but it would be much better if the grey background was white, but that's not a reason to oppose the nomination.
    • Yes – I put in a request to the original author to update that second figure, but have heard nothing back. As it is redundant to the first figure in any case, I have simply removed the second one from the article. As to improving the first figure, I think it was worked up in Microsoft Excel – I was thinking about trying to recreate it anyway to, among other things, get rid of the gray background (which was the default background color for graphs in certain versions of MS Excel...). I will probably be busy this week, but I will try to get to that soon... --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As for the table, I'm not sure if the explanatory paragraph is needed at all. Maybe it can be removed and the title changed to "Summary of election results", especially since the 1903 cut off is explained in the paragraph below and the paragraph above. The table looks good but can it be left justified?
    • I've left the intro paragraph in for now, but this particular question is an important one because if consensus is that these tables need no direct "intro text", that will affect all of the other Canadian Provincial election articles as well. So I wouldn't mind hearing from others for their opinions on this question... --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Oops – forgot to mention that I removed "centering" on the main elections table, so it is now 'left-justified'. Do you want the second (pre-1903) elections table also left-justified? – I'll admit: I prefer that one "centered" as it's smaller. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The paragraph under "Elections prior to provincial political parties" needs a bit of rewording. For example: "Until the 1903 election, political parties in BC had no official recognition" is needlessly passive. Can be written "Political parties in British Columbia had no official recognition until the 1903 election. The next sentence does not make sense. Can get rid of "however" and start with Some candidates.... "and were considered as "Government" candidates"..."whereas those not in support of the present administration were considered "Non-Government" or Independent." What is meant by "did not bear out"... that should be clarified.
    • Again, reworked this paragraph. Let me know if it still needs work!--IJBall (contribstalk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph needs to be rewritten to be more clear.
    • FTR, I'm still going to look for some sourcing for that paragraph – if I can't find adequate sourcing, I intend to just cut it from the article entirely. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking close to a support! Mattximus (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Round Three: Looks much better overall than before, I think my nitpicking is complete. If you do get a chance to change that opening graph, in addition to making the background white, I would also remove the horizontal lines as they weave in and out of the bars making it quit distracting. The only part preventing me from supporting is the unsourced last paragraph. It contains interesting stuff, but it needs to be sourced. Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an interesting stats page that passes all the FL?. Last time it failed because of lack of reviewer interest, which I hope will not be the case this time. Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment please fix all the SHOUTING in the references, there's no need to have the surnames of every player capitalised, even if that's what the website you're using does. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
done. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Technical comments Tournaments column doesn't sort properly. Use consistent accuracy for goal average. Make sure all player names include their diacritics. Don't use bold alone as a way to distinguish between players. Date format should be consistent from table to table. Why isn't the second table sortable? Why are you suddenly abbreviating country names without a key? Ref 2 doesn't ref the numbers in that table at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorts now. so you want a 1.00 instead of 1.0? You have an example where I missed it and it doesn't? Done. What date format are you referring to? Which column would you consider it to be necessary sortable (since it is a timeline table)? For brevity/clarity purposes as having the full names seems to clutter the table too much. Which table, the intro? Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The last one: TBH I did a manual count since FIFA doesn't really seem to have compiled an aggregate one. That is why I used ~ and >. I could put 20 links like [3] and [4] if you think that is better. Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll do a proper review once these issues are resolved, right now it needs a lot of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (1) "The 29 top goalscorers played for 17 different nations, seven players being Brazilian, and eight from Germany or West Germany." Looks like the actual numbers for Brazil and (W) Germany are 5 and 3 respectively.
Not sure where that error appeared from, but thanks for catching it. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(2) Can you please fix the sorting using the 'world cup' column in the 'top scorer by tournament' table. Once you sort it using one of the other columns, clicking the sort in the World Cup does not sort in the order of world cups.
Figured out what is happening. When you sort using the 'world cup' column, it now sorts as per the host country. So the Argentina 78 appears first, followed by Brazil 1950, Brazil 2014 etc. The column should be sorted according to the year of the competition - 1930, 1934 etc. Tintin 09:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the sorting with that column. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Few more quick quibbles before a proper review, I wish WP:PR was still functional these days....

  • Number of goalscorers[2] isn't referenced by [2].
FIFA seems to have switched the links quite a bit (so I have to go though quite a bit of other refs to relink them). I switched the used reference to something that is a list to all the WCs. I could change that to a note saying something like "see a complete list for 1930, ...., 2014 if you think that is more appropriate. As I've said above, FIFA does not seem to provide a compiled table (as of now), so all the counted totals are just that, manually counted (that is why I have ~ and >). Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
added "."
  • Respect diacritics.
I am not sure what you mean here. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
For players names, be consistent with diacritics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The only place I wasn't strictly consistent is in the FIFA titles that FIFA themselves use. Outside of the ref titles, all the names should be consistent. Nergaal (talk)
They need to be correct, not just consistent. Suker, Eusebio, (Rivellino needs to be spelt correctly), James Rodriguez, Oscar Miguez, Zidane.... to name a few. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Gave it another comb though the text. However, for the titles of the references I don't understand the rules. If a title used somewhere uses a different name spelling then it is considered wrong and should not be used when quoting the title itself? Nergaal (talk)
  • Goal average still isn't to the same precision.
I can change it, but to me saying 1.00 seems a bit strange. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Same precision please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "at least 5 goals" MOSNUM please.
I thought anything under 10 should be spelled out. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Uhhuh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
5 is under 10. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait, are you talking about the table caption? If yes, do the same MOS rules apply since tables generally do contain numbers? Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Date formats in the article like "1930-07-13" are just a joke, not easily readable by normal humans.
  • Three-letter-abbreviations for countries is bad, spell it out.
They are commonly used in FIFA broadcasts.
This is a Wikipedia article, not a FIFA broadcast. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 1+1?
Twice, there were two separate games played at the same tournament against TCS and Turkey.
That's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
You prefer "1, 1"? Because saying turkey twice seems weird to me. Nergaal (talk)
How does it look now? Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Publisher is FIFA, not
  • WP:DASH fails in ref titles, e.g. ref 31.
I think I fixed them. Nergaal (talk)
  • " " is ESPN.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have fixed most of the issues you mentioned, and left a few clarification questions for the remaining few. Any suggestions? Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, there are some things I can still see that need to be addressed.

  • The micro-table in the lead may be referenced by [1] but how? [1] just leads to a generic FIFA website page.
Do you think this is a RS? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You need to explain why goals in penalty shoot-outs are not included.
It is the sort of thing if you follow the WC you "just know" but honestly not sure how to find a ref why FIFA doesn't include in the stats. The best I could find is help.bet365dotcom/en/rules/rules-sports/soccer which is blacklisted. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I added a ref showing totals explicitly excluding shoot-outs. Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You have "2,300" then "1200", so be consistent throughout.
  • "edition" is very American, why not just use the name of the tournament, e.g. instead of "The top goalscorer of the first edition was" perhaps "The top goalscorer of the inaugural competition was"?
Inaugural competition sounds awkward to me but I changed to that. Nergaal (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Since then, only 22 players have surpassed this threshold at games " not clear, it seems that Stábile scored all his goals in a single tournament. This sentence is unclear.
He did score only in 1930. It appears he only played 4 games for Arg, those all at the 1930 WC. Is the current formulation more clear but not too awkward? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • " in 1954" Easter egg link.
There are a few links like this. You think I should just remove all the yearly links? Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been encouraged to remove them from GAs so as this is a featured candidate, yes, rephrasing it each time is the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed all the easter eggs. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "managed to improve on this record" clumsy, just "improved on" is fine.
  • " in only six games" POV. State the facts, don't apply POV.
He has the third best g/g average. Doesn't that count as "only"? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "at the 1970 edition" awful, perhaps, "in the 1970 World Cup finals".
Changed to just the year. I tried to stay away from repeating "World Cup" too much, and finals is a bit confusing as it could refer just the final game of each tournament. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "during Germany's win" Germany or West Germany?
  • " a total of " unnecessary.
  • "between 1998 and 2006." easter eggs.
see above
  • " Germany's Miroslav Klose would go on to" why relink Germany national team?
  • " Germany's Miroslav Klose would go on to" why "would go on", it's happened, speak in English.
  • "consecutive tournaments between 2002 and 2014" easter eggs.
see above
  • " Pelé with twelve between 1958 and 1970, and Jürgen Klinsmann with eleven between 1990 and 1998." easter eggs and unreferenced.
They are referenced in the table though. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So that's half-way through the lead, I'll give more feedback once these issues are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and as for player's names, I didn't mean the ref titles, I meant their usage in the article itself. Make things like (right) into (right) in image captions. spell Ernst Wilimowski correctly, explain what "Goal average" means (we know this, but why should a layman get it?), I'm also not seeing how the up arrow is adequately referenced, e.g. Tim Cahill's link doesn't demonstrate that he played for Australia within the past twelve months (and surely that will age really quickly, you need a different way of explaining this....) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely am completely unable to find the examples you see; I went multiple times and still cannot catch any missing/inconsistent diacritics.
e.g. Oscar Míguez should be Óscar Míguez, Zinédine Zidane should be Zinedine Zidane etc etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
At least the ones you emntioned I've fixed. I really have a hard time finding others so please let me know if I am still missing any. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I had absolutely no idea about the italics use but I changed it.
Fixed the Wilmowski name.
Added tooltip to goal average even though I find it extremely weird.
Well you could change the name to "goals per game" then. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Changed the wording to "have continued playing for their national team after the 2014 tournament".

Nergaal (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A few more thoughts on the next portion of the lead:

  • "with 9 goals" MOS says "nine".
  • Image captions which are complete sentences need full stops.
The only one that doesn't is not a full sentence. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I still fail to see how ref [1] verifies the information in the table in the lead.
Is this a RS so I can use it as a replacement? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if that's an RS, have you asked the football project? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
So I added a 100% reliable ref for all those up to 4 goals, but for 3, 2, and 1 I still have that one. At least one FOOTY user (Jaellee) "found no sign of user-generated content and I haven't seen anything else which would disqualify it". Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "90 players who have scored at least five goals, only five " per WP:NUMNOTES, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures".
I tried to redo the numbers per what I think the rules are. Let me know if I screwed up anywhere. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't repeat first names after the first usage of a player's full name.
  • "60 footballers came from " why past tense? Especially as several are still active.
  • "60 footballers came from UEFA (Europe), 26 from CONMEBOL (South America), and only four players" NUMNOTES again.
  • The lead is surprisingly devoid of references, e.g. where is inclusion in the all-star team referenced?
Unless I completely messed something up, everything in the intro that does not have a ref there has a ref in the tables below. You would prefer to double up the ref usage? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll repeat: where is the all-star team inclusion referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice catch. I completely missed that the teams were not in there. I added a somewhat detailed note with appropriate links instead. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I fixed or addressed all the concerns you have pointed out. Let me know what is there still left to be done. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes a reliable source? I can't see any evidence that it meets our requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked multiple times and I couldn't find any good ref for the All-Star team before 1994 so I removed the column entirely. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

AAA Mega Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list with @MPJ-DK: because I feel it meets the criteria. MPJ and I worked on it for the last few days, merging the separate list and the main article to nominate it for FL. All issues will be addressed by MPJ and I.--WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  • "which effectively unified International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship" => "which effectively unified the International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship"
    • "as well as the four number one contenders to each respective championship" - there were not four number one contenders to each championship, and the word "respective" is completely unnecessary. Change to "as well as the number one contender to each championship"
    • "which was called simply Mexican Heavyweight Championship" => "which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship"
    • "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA in Antonio Peña Memorial Show" => "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA at the Antonio Peña Memorial Show"
    • The date format for the general refs is different to that used for the specific refs
    • In the lead you refer to Mesias winning the "finals" but in the bracket this match is shown as the "final". I'm not sure what the correct US usage is, but regardless they should be consistent

Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll handle these shortly. They went by without my notice.--WillC 12:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: All concerns addressed.--WillC 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
One other quick point.....when you say "it is sometimes referred to in the English press", I presume you mean the English-language press, rather than the press in England......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed--WillC 17:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Governors of Arkansas[edit]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This was a featured list from September 2007 to this May, when it was rightly delisted for having an old format and poorly sourced information. After getting back into the governor list groove, I've taken the time to upgrade the format to include a term column (much superior to the previous style of percentages to indicate shared terms) and a portrait column (since we now have enough portraits to fill most of it out).

I also was bold and removed the living governor list (I can speak only for myself but I see this as excessive trivia that has no real world import) and the 'other high offices held' list, which I found to be difficult to maintain. It requires a bit of clunky prose, and ends up being a bit subjective. My personal rules were: Congressional offices, high executive offices, cabinet, district court or higher appointments, and ambassadorships. However, this would leave out certain things that people would be perhaps better known for, like commissioner of baseball or mayor of large cities. I will argue against replacing the living governor list, but I can easily go along with replacing the other high office list if people think it makes sense to keep.

Finally, the reason this was delisted: Data. Turns out that the best available sources on when Arkansas' governors took office disagree by a day or two for much of the state's history, so extensive verification and logical thinking had to be done to come up with the list as it is. Everything should be properly sourced now. Also, I discovered a new governor, Thomas Fletcher, which is not a sentence that often makes sense, but here we are.

It's been years since I've brought a list to FLC, so I expect my old standards are lacking, so I look forward to learning what new hotness I need to employ in this. Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that I'm also kind of doing this as a referendum; a new format has been brought to List of Governors of California and it includes things such as previous job, number of days in office, and the governor's birth and death dates and age. I don't like these; in order, they are subjective and not that useful (for Richard Nixon for president, would we say 'none'?); excessive trivia (it might just be me but I honestly don't understand why anyone cares); and irrelevant (their dates have nothing to do with this list. if someone wants to know them, the article is right there. including them is akin to including their wife's name, or place of birth). I seek discussion on not just this list, but it in comparison to that new format; if this list gets featured as it is then I'll work with the creator of the CA format to adapt it, and if this list doesn't get featured because of the other format being preferred, then I guess I'll stop fighting it. [And if this is absolutely the wrong place to have this discussion, please tell me where to take it. :)] --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Object: The party is indicated with color only, which is not accessible to blind or color-blind people. If you decide to add a visible R/D, make sure it has good contrast with the background, for example, a black letter R or letter D as text and a pale red or pale blue background. Or you could add a party column, the same as the California list. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • There... is a party column? --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Golbez, I believe they mean the red that indicates Republican and the blue that indicates Democrat. — Maile (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know what they mean. And there is a party column. That's my confusion. It's right there. Reads "Democratic" and sometimes "Republican". --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment For the record, those tiny "party shading" (half-)columns are standard practice at U.S. politics (e.g. Pres. and Governor) lists, and at some of the Canadian elections lists too, and I really dislike them strongly. It should either be a full separate column, with written "R" & "D" (or "Rep" & "Dem") labels, or we really shouldn't bother! So this isn't just a problem with this Arkansas Governor article, but with U.S. politics lists articles in general. (I think someone tried to fix this at List of Presidents of the United States a few months back, but got voted down IIRC...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a column. With labels. I'm very confused how people aren't seeing this. The color bars are simply for added illustration (and shouldn't have text over them). That way it's easy to see party control over time without having to scan for words. It also makes it easier to see Lt Governor parties, who don't get their own party column. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
What I mean by this is that it's not a separate 'Party' column with "R" & "D" labels included right there in the cells. I find the way this has been handled at the U.S. politics lists to be highly... inelegant. I understand that they've been this way forever, and there's a lot of inertial support for them, but I strongly prefer the way this is handled at, say, List of Alberta general elections or List of post-confederation Prince Edward Island general elections. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The rows used to be entirely colored. Then we went to the color bars. I find that more elegant than coloring in the party column, I don't like (and in many cases it runs afoul of accessibility) having text over color. I look at those articles and I want to split the winner column into one with a color bar and the party name. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That seems to me like it might be the best ultimate "solution" for these articles – move the party-colors "half-column" over to be with the 'Party' label column, rather that the awkward way it's currently included with the officeholder's name. But I'd better drop this here, as this discussion has less to do with this specific FL nominee, than it does with a discussion that maybe should be held about the entire "suite" of these articles... --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean!... OK, what I'm saying is I'd prefer that the party "colors" should be moved over to that column. (Something would have to be worked out for the Lt. Gov. column too...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Well that is certainly possible, though then we have the odd construction of color/party/color/name (due to lieutenant governor). Putting the color bar on the left gives people a quick look at the party before scanning to the middle of the table, and balances the color bars out. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

List of local nature reserves in Somerset[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I already have one FLC nomination of the national nature reserves in Somerset, which has three supports and I believe "reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". This is a companion list covering all of the local nature reserves in the county.— Rod talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The smallest at just 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres) is Wellington Basins where a series of small ponds and surrounding grassland and woodland which provide a habitat for grey wagtail, dipper and reed bunting." This sentence does not seem grammatical.
    • Reworded.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are adjacent to each other in Uphill and are sometimes treated as a single site covering 38.14 hectares (94.2 acres)." Uphill Hill and Walborough Common should be linked. Also the sentence is not referenced (here and in the descriptions of the sites). Who treats it as a single site?
    • As discussed above the MAGIC government mapping site treats it as one reserve, (see this map) while Natural England has two separate data sheets. I am unsure how best to present this.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • This seems to me a technical detail not worth mentioning in the main text - let alone three times. I would add an efn note to the two reserves stating that NE has separate details pages but one map covering both sites. I see above you got no response emailing NE. I find that surprising as they were very good at dealing with my queries about London and Hertfordshire and corrected a number of errors. (Others they never corrected, presumably because they were unable to get the information from the boroughs.) Perhaps you could try phoning them? You can get the area from this Somerset page, which says that Uphill is 17 hectares, so presumably the rest is Walborough. The page also says that Uphill is an SSSI. There is an SSSI called Uphill Cliff and you could check the maps to see whether they are the same. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I have tried to amend in line with your suggestions.— Rod talk 07:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
          • I don't think that is quite right. You need to explain that you are using a different source for the Uphill and Walborough areas and you have not referenced the last sentences in the descriptions. How about 1. Add at the beginning of note a "Unless otherwise stated," 2. Delete notes e and f. 3. Add one note to both the Uphill and Walborough areas using {{efn|name=x|. "The areas of Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are not given by NE as although there are separate information pages for the sites, the map shows them as a single site with an area of 38 hectares. The areas for these sites are based on Somerset site..., which states that Uphill has an area of 17 hectares, which leaves 21 for Walborough. Refs Somerset site and Magic map. 4. Ref for the descriptions Uphill Magic map, and for the statement that Uphill LNR and SSSI are largely coterminous the Somerset site. Does this make sense? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
            • I have attempted to edit following your suggestions, but could you take another look?— Rod talk 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
              • Comparing the LNR and SSSI maps, the SSSI is only half the size, 19 hectares, so partly coterminous might be more accurate than largely. It looks as if Walborough also covers a small part of Severn Estuary SSSI, but you may not think this is not worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
                • Changed.— Rod talk 20:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "This reserve covers unimproved neutral grassland" No change needed but I wish someone competent would create an article on neutral grassland. There is even a category for neutral grassland SSSIs!
  • "The dunes, west of the village of Berrow, has a golf course, and is a noted site". "has" and "is" do not agree in number with "dunes"
  • " A 200 hectares (490 acres) area was designated in 1952 as a SSSI." Presumably the 16.7 hectare LNR is part of the SSSI, but this should be spelled out.
    • Added.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The site includes beech trees up to 200 years old. There are also oak and hazel. It provides a habitat for birds including blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws and small mammals." This reads a bit awkwardly. How about "The site has beech trees up to 200 years old, oaks and hazels. Birds include blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws, and there are small mammals such as badgers and foxes."
    • Thanks - I have used your suggested wording.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "It includes the bath asparagus". This does not sound right to me. Maybe "Plants include bath asparagus."
    • Changed.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Chard Reservoir. Ref 19 appears to be a dead link as it goes to the Keep Britain Tidy home page. I would add that Chard Canal closed in 1868 to make clear that the reservoir has not been active for 150 years.
    • Archiveurl used. Closure of canal added.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "This reserve includes a hill fort dating from the Iron Age on Wain's Hill and Church Hill. It includes calcareous grassland, coastal scrub and woodland" Repetition of "includes". The second one could be changed to "has".
    • Changed.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The lakes are the centrepiece of the one mile long[44] nature reserve which includes dry woodland which has a ground flora including common bluebell, dogs mercury and twayblade." This is awkward with the repetition of "which". I would split the sentence into two.
    • Split.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think "rhyne" should be linked.
    • Wikilinked.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would add the list of Somerset SSSIs to 'See also'.
    • Added.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Another first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I think they are dealt with apart from the issue with Uphill Hill and Walborough Common on which I would welcome your thoughts.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Jakec
  • "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir"...should be "36.97-hectare (91.4-acre) reservoir". Use the adj=on parameter in the convert template.
    • Done.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • It still reads "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I had missed a "|" within the convert template.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also in the Chard Reservoir section, three consecutive sentences begin with "it". Perhaps rephrase and/or merge a couple of the shorter sentences?
    • Reworded.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be a comma after "Following the route of the Cheddar Valley Line" and also "Alongside the River Tone"
    • Commas added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Woodland and grassland support a range of bird species" isn't grammatically correct; should be "supporting" or "that supports".
    • Changed to "that supports".— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The grassy plateau of the hill fort is owned and managed by Yatton and Congresbury Parish Councils." should be referenced.
    • Ref added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • About half of the Berrow Dunes section is unreferenced.
    • Refs added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the Street Heath section needs a period.
    • Added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "There are a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." - try maybe adding an "also".
    • Added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I actually mant "There area also a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the clarification - got it now.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice that four entries don't have articles of their own. Can this be rectified?
    • Some of them (more than four I think) link to the geography sections of larger articles about parishes/villages. These are generally small reserves which I am not sure they would meet the GNG on their own but are a significant part of their locality.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay. As long as there aren't that many, and they do link somewhere, it's not a 5a violation. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 6 is dead
    • Linkrot fixed.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I still see a page saying only "This Account Has Been Suspended". It's now ref 5, titled "Ash Priors Common". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Archiveurl & archivedate added.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 14 appears to come from Geocities. Is it an RS?
    • I can't find another source for this so removed - not vital to the nature reserve.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 20 looks like a personal site. Is it an RS?
    • I'm not sure which one you are referring to as refs have been added and removed. Can you give hint as to which one this relates to?— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • It is now ref 21, " "Chard Reservoir Nature Reserve". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Replaced with a site from the local council.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

An interesting list, and I look forward to supporting once these are addressed. Would you by any chance have time to review Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tributaries_of_Shamokin_Creek/archive1? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments. I will try to take a look at Shamokin Creek.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

List of UK Album Downloads Chart number ones of the 2000s[edit]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been improving this article over the past couple of weeks, and feel that it is now ready for FLC. It's inspired heavily by the equivalent singles list, which was promoted to FL back in November 2013. I welcome any ways in which it might be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – all of my queries have been answered. -- Frankie talk 15:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Johanna

Hello! This looks like a very great list. Just a few comments (feel free to discuss these with me)

  • "The most successful artist of the decade was…22 weeks at number one with nine different albums." If possible, could this be sourced? Unless you think it's unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE, I would cite them.
    • I can't find any source that states this explicitly, but each individual week can be cited from the Official Charts Company. My thinking was based on WP:CALC, which says that routine calculations (such as adding up all the weeks that an album was at number one) don't count as original research. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "As of February 2015, the UK Album Download Chart continues to be published each week by the OCC." Why is this relevant to this article?
    • I dunno, it just seemed that, since I've devoted so much of the lead to discuss how and why the chart was founded, it might be relevant to discuss whether it's still being compiled today. If you think it's out of place, I'll remove it. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Should the "by artist" and "by record label" sections be cited?
    • Same kind of argument as above (i.e. WP:CALC). They just felt like the sorts of things that a person could reasonably expect to want to know from reading this article. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: This is a nicely compiled list. Once again, you can discuss any of these with me that you want. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review, Johanna! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

List of ant subfamilies[edit]

Nominator(s): jonkerztalk 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The ants are back. This list was previously nominated in July last year. It failed mostly because there was not enough of a consensus after more than two months, and it must be mentioned that a delegate and another editor were not comfortable with having a FLC based to such a large extent on open content (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License; please see the first nom for details). The list looks very much the same, but has been updated. jonkerztalk 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Support I still retain my support from the previous nomination and everything is up to date, especially with the genera. I do have one question though - If ants that lack a metapleural gland are excluded from Formicidae, wouldn't ants such as Camponotus and Polyrhachis be excluded as well, or is this statement only discussing Armaniinae ants? In regards to the issue of using open content, I do not find it really concerning if it's from a free source that allows its redistribution. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is only required to have evolved in a common ancestor (snakes and whales are both "four-footed", heh). I've tweaked the sentence slightly.
Makes sense, your changes look good. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments - supported last time, just a few small comments before I support again:

  • "but overturn others — and suggest" - this shoudl either be an unspaced mdash or a spaced ndash, but not the current spaced mdash.
  • " the most recently discovered subfamily.[4][1]" - reverse the order of the refs
  • "All were placed in the single genus Formica..." - this sentence runs on and on with commas- rework or (better yet) split into two sentences.
Reworded slightly
  • A little out of bounds for this nomination, but it's odd that this list says that Armaniinae is a subfamily that's sometimes the family Armaniidae but there's evidence that contradicts that, but when you click through to Armaniinae it redirects to Armaniidae and says that the consensus is that interpretation. (Then the Genera and species section reverses that again.) Seems like the two should match. --PresN 00:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand your concern. I had a discussion regarding this issue with another editor last year. It boils down to: 1) This list is based on AntCat's classification, which still treats the taxa as a subfamily. 2) As per LaPolla et al.‍ (2013), this taxa should probably not be classified as a true ant as long as fossils show no evidence of a metapleural gland.
However, listing the taxa as a subfamily in this list (along with the note explaining the situation) is imo better than excluding it, because a) AntCat is an authoritative source for ant taxonomy; cherry picking could constitute original research, and b) classifications change all the time, when AntCat updates their catalog, I'll update this article.

Support - happy to support again! --PresN 16:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! jonkerztalk 18:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • The first paragraph is largely quotation of the source. I see you mention its licensing terms at the end of the references, but does this allow quotation without inline attribution NIkkimaria? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, the publisher site says the journal is hybrid, meaning that some articles are published as open access and others are not. But since this particular article is listed there as open access, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for taking a look at this; Zootaxa does not make it very easy to discover which articles are open access and which are not. Can I mark this issue as resolved? For anyone who wants to confirm that the Ward article is OA, please see the third paragraph from the first nom.
  • Yeah, that is what I was trying to say for that specific article. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "In Bayesian analyses of multi-gene data sets Leptanillinae is sister to all other ants, while the poneroids form a clade that is sister to the formicoids, but this result appears to be confounded by data artifacts." I had to read this sentence several times and I am still not sure I understand it. Does it mean that the Leptanillinae are one clade which is sister to another unnamed clade of the poneroids and the formicoids? What are data artifacts? Presumably the relationships of the Martialinae are unknown?
Sentence rewritten with a more recent source
  • I would prefer a bit less on the history of classification and some information on the history of ant's evolution. When did they first appear? When did they radiate to their current large number of species? How were they affected by the end-Cretaceous extinction?
  • What does dorylomorph mean? Can it be linked?
There's no page for the dorylomorph clade (army ants and their relatives), but I've reworked the sentence.
  • I think it would be helpful to have the explanation of the dagger in the infobox as well as at the start of the list.
  • You mention that Brownimeciinae was Cretaceous. You might do the same for Armaniinae. -
  • "now only found in the Australian region" I think Australasian would be more accurate.
  • "predominantly aboreal ants" Do you mean arboreal? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Dudley Miles. I've addressed some of the concerns, more to come.

Comment on images: While I support the list to be promoted, I'll initiate an image review so we can confirm the images are fine to use. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review, Burklemore1. I'll ask the people on Commons.
Link: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Public domain photo used in a Featured List Candidate
Okay, I have looked at the link and saw the image is in public domain instead? If so, then this image review is in order with no problems. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the recent changes, all images have been checked and can be used in the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this!
No worries, best of luck on promoting the list! This time it seems to be going much smoother. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Thierry Henry[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney and Bobby Charlton are getting their highlights highlighted here, so why not good old Terry Henry? An absolute legend of French football, top scorer and second-highest appearances, this geezer needs to be recognised for his international goal-scoring prowess. Hence the list. Thanks, as ever, to those who contribute to the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • The caption doesn't need the word "has", given that he's never going to score any more
    • "He surpassed the previous record, held by Michel Platini" - I would make 100% clear that this is the goalscoring record, as the most recent stat mentioned was his number of caps
    • "He has scored more times against Malta" => "He scored more times against Malta"
    • "More than half of Henry's goals have come" => "More than half of Henry's goals came"
    • "More than half of Henry's goals have come in home matches, having scored 31 of his 51 goals in France" - the grammar is a bit mangled here, the subject of the sentence is his goals, so "having scored" isn't correct. I would suggest (also taking into account my last point ;-)) "More than half of Henry's goals came in home matches, 31 of his 51 goals being scored in France"
    • "The majority of Henry's goals, sixteen, have come" => "The majority of Henry's goals, sixteen, came
    • "Four goals in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup saw Henry" - goals can't see. I would suggest "A tally of four goals in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup made Henry the tournament's top scorer and led to his being voted the "tournament's most outstanding player".
    • Nowhere do you explain what the score column means, or the significance of the bolding therein. I understand it, but others might not......
Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks for those comments, each of which I have hopefully addressed to your satisfaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The intro seems fine, but it feels like it is missing mentioning his last international goal in 2009. Also, this might be trivia-ish, but he seems to have scored only once when France lost. Nergaal (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Addressed the first of your comments, the second I don't find particularly helpful since France were at their best during the time he played for them, so it would be seen as to attribute too much of that success to Henry himself to frame it that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
That could be the case. Just noticed that 123 and 51 do not have actual references. I am sure there is some FIFA website referencing the totals. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Ref 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Added it to the sentence "During his international career he played 123 games for France in which he scored 51 goals. " Nergaal (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ref 9 and 38 are missing dates and 42 seems to need "work=AFP". Nergaal (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    ref 9 has no explicit publication date that I can see, other two addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The link has "Last updated: 27/06/2012 11:57 CET" which seemed to me to be the date, but I might be wrong. Spot-checking other refs seemed to be fine to me so support for FL. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you please do me a favor and merge (use row-width=) the rows with multiple goals per game as was done in List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton? Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
No, there's little point as the row merges disappear once the table is sorted in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is that it looks much better/cleaner. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you think to be the point. I disagree. This isn't a process where I have to follow every single one of your aesthetic suggestions, thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
And here I was thinking that me choosing to be pleasant and constructive to you would generate the same type of attitude from you. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I've done nothing other than to say thank you but I disagree and that I won't be taking up every single personal aesthetic preference of your's. I think our positions are clear, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite

  • Should be consistent with FIFA/UEFA in the lead; they're sometimes included, sometimes not.
  • Can't help but feel the lead needs beefing up a bit.
  • I feel "No." and "Ref." would benefit from tooltips to explain what they stand for.
  • Per H:TABLE, "The first cell of a row is identified as a row header by starting the line with "! scope="row" |" instead of "|". This applies to the entries in the "No." column.
  • I think the text in the table would look better left-aligned, and would be consistent with the Rooney list.
  • Could a "Cap" column be included, like at Rooney?

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Miroslav Klose[edit]

Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Miroslav Klose, who crossed the Iron Curtain knowing only two words of German, is an unlikely legend of international football, even if his name does not conjure up as much romanticism as those of Pelé and Puskás. He scored on his debut in 2001 and ended his career on the biggest high imaginable, winning the World Cup. He is the top scorer of all time for one of the elite nations in world football, and the top scorer of all time in the World Cup, the most-watched single-sport event on the planet. Naturally, much has been written specifically on his goalscoring exploits rather than his career as a whole, thus this list is a topic of public interest. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • this needs a longer intro and a statistics section (i.e. goals per competitions and g# of games). Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, the lead is fine; a summary of goals and appearances per years seems to be what Nergaal is attempting to request. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man I think Nergaal may be asking for analysis of goals per competition or most common opponent against whom he scored, like you have on Rooney and Henry. I can put that in too. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead should at least briefly summarize the history section, like pointing out say when he became the top goalscorer, when he scored hatricks, most common opponent scored against, when he helped Germany win Euros and WCs, etc. I also think a small table summarizing how many goals per type of competition would be informative (how many WC, WC quals, Euro, Euro quals, friendlies). Also, his name should be linked in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments - as this has stagnated...

  • Perhaps Nergaal just wants the summary section merged in with the lead, as per Rooney and Charlton. TBH, don't care if it's clumped together or not.
  • "alongside champion Brazil's Rivaldo and behind Ronaldo"
  • I'd wikilink brace for the benefit of readers
  • "On 10 September 2008, in 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification", how about 'during the 2010 World Cup qualifcation stage'?
  • "in an 8–0 opening rout of Saudi Arabia at the Sapporo Dome", vague. Does this mean Germany's opening game of the campaign, if so state it succinctly.
  • "Klose added two more goals in German's victory" Germany's
  • "taking him to 16 World Cup goals, surpassing Ronaldo as the tournament's record goalscorer" → "taking him to 16 World Cup goals and surpassing Ronaldo as the tournament's record goalscorer"
  • Ref 6, 7, 8, 9 should be BBC Sport
  • Wikilink CNN on Ref 26, not 27
  • Fix dashes on Refs 25 and 33. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comments, all in all a pretty tidy piece of work. I have a few minor points:

  • "the remainder was the Lord Mayor of London" As there was only one "remainder" I personally think "other" would be a better choice of word than "remainder".
    • Done
  • "to the 15 July 1936" Should just be "to 15 July 1936".
    • Done
  • Could the Date of appointment column be made slightly wider in the first table so that the header fits on one line, as in the second list? It would be even nicer if the columns lined up between the two tables!
    • Done
  • The notes should all finish with full-stops.
    • Done
  • Use {{abbr|Ref|References}} to display Ref in the table header (and be consistent between the two lists whether you use the full-stop at the end: I prefer it without.)
    • Done
  • The references could do with expansion: and would be better written out as The British Monarchy and The Governor General of Canada. Similarly, could be Debrett's. The London Gazette articles need dates of publication. Harrias talk 20:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing this @Harrias: I believe I have addressed all of the concerns above (as per this edit). Let me know if I've missed anything. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Driveby comment - I would like to see some sort of navbox to connect all the RVO-by-monarch lists; it's not currently a quick task to jump from this list to the similar lists from other monarchs, and it should be. --PresN 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@PresN: Thanks for the comment—I've had a go at creating a template containing all the links. I haven't got round to creating all the articles and this project is very much a work in progress, so I've included red links too. Hopefully this makes navigating it easier. Any further comments would by greatly appreciated. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC).
Also, as I state above, I will not be around from tomorrow to the 16th, but I will be back and responding to comments thereafter. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

List of Washington Metro stations[edit]

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

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

  • Support. --Golbez (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Golbez: Please leave a more substantive review, or else your support may be discounted- bare supports look like the reviewer only briefly looked at the list. Very few nominations truly have no issues at all, and this is not one of them- a brief check showed that the Rail Connections column is sorting strangely (N/A is sorting under N). --PresN 19:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not going to close this one, since I never got around to it and your other nom now has ~2.5 supports, but in the future: @Ssven2, FrB.TG, and Vensatry: the rule of thumb for a second nomination is that your first has at least three substantive reviews ending in supports, and no ongoing reviews for a few days minimum. One support really isn't enough. --PresN 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude

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

Comments – looks good

  • Lead image needs alt text. In other images, alt text should simply name the ground.
  • In the table, you could add the actual dates instead of "no other matches to date".
    • The previous three such articles I've got to FL status all used this format, I'd rather stay consistent.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The footnotes are unsourced.

Vensatry (ping) 16:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

NWA World Welterweight Championship[edit]

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

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

  • @Grapple X: - Thanks for the fast feedback. The only one I am not sure of is the coloring of the NWA Mexico reigns - they are used to indicate who promoted the championship at the time. I get that NWA Mexico is the "new normal" now, but then I say that all CMLL reigns should be colored to indicate the difference. I use the colors to indicate when it is not promoted by the original company. If there is a general consensus that this should be changed I am okay with that. Side note, while this is an active championship the list is much more static than say a WWE championship list, the championships normally do not change hands as often in Mexico - with reigns often lasting over a year. I believe I correctly addressed all the concerns?  MPJ-US  16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, thought I had already come back to this. I'm happy enough to support this based on its current state. GRAPPLE X 08:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments from WillC
  • Lead
    • Box looks fine.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • "The Championship was inactive until just over a year later when the championship was used by Toryumon, making Dragon Kid became the first Toryumon-promoted champion it." to "The Championship was inactive until over a year later when Dragon Kid was made the first Toryumon-promoted champion."--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done, good suggestion.
    • "On June 22, 2011 Cassandro" - needs a comma.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done
    • "Karloff Lagarde and Américo Rocca" - infobox gives the latter two names--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Good catch.
    • Infobox says Great Sasuke has a one day reign as well--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I am not sure why Sasuke was in the info box, removed and back to two.
  • Title history
    • Sorting checks out--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I commend you on showing when it was in which promotion and part of the J-Crown. Good idea.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • There isn't an indication next to the current champion to show the reign is changing daily. Possibly use the cross symbol.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done and "+" symbol added to the legend at the top.
    • There is a link to vacant in the terms article on english pedia now.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Reigns by combined length
    • Sorting checks out--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • May not want to use addition symbol twice in the article, may confuse readers.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • To indicate days passed? I thought that was standard and it's the same symbol for the same thing isn't it?
        • I wasn't paying close attention. It looked like the symbol for NWA Mexico was an addition sign but I see the difference now. Ignore this.--WillC 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Footnotes
    • Coding works fine, they make sense.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Source for note 3 please.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Sourced Mephisto's weight and threw in the ref from his title win in the table after the note. Cannot put a citation inside the note, I tried but this should work?
  • References
    • Should make a external links section with the nwa website. Why isn't this included in the NWA template?--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I took some relevant external links off the NWA Article.
      • They were not in the NWA template because I did not pay attention to non-CMLL title articles. Listed now.
    • Sources check out as reliable.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Wrestlinglover: - Thank you for all the input, every little thing helps. I hope I have addressed all your concerns?  MPJ-US  04:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
        • @MPJ-DK: I didn't want it to fail due to lack of reviews, figured I'd help out.--WillC 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I must have forgot. Support --WillC 17:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Millennium characters[edit]

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

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

  • Support despite it claiming a third season exists, which is a vicious lie. --Golbez (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support continuing from the previous nom, based on style, structure and referencing. Couldn't find any major problems with prose that would make me alter my decision. Be sure to correct spelling of criticised → criticized as this is an American show. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    Amended, thanks. GRAPPLE X 13:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support well sourced and nicely put together. I would however, suggest reducing the size of Pounder's photo to match the size of Henrickson's, and perhaps adding one of Klea Scott. I also noticed a citation error on the page that needs attention. Best Regards. Drdpw (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately we have no free files of Scott or she'd have been a natural inclusion. I've changed the Pounder image to specify the same width as Henriksen's (170px). I hadn't noticed the cite error, but it was the result of two citations using the same name; I've fixed that now. GRAPPLE X 23:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Support – good work. -- Frankie talk 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Thanks again, Frankie. As always, your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support NapHit (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@NapHit: Thanks, NapHit. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias
  • "Drawn" and "Tied" need to be formatted as the rest in the Key.
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The Key also needs to make it clear what the result column signifies. It isn't clear that "India" being the "Result of the match" means that India won.
@Harrias: Vensatry asked me to change it to just the team's name. It was "India Won", "West Indies Won" etc. before. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is fine, but the Key needs to make it clear what it means. Harrias talk 06:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "86 runs.[13]Australia's" is missing a space.
Done. Added space. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "of the fifth and Test" I assume it's meant to be "fifth and final Test"?
Done. Written it as simply "fifth test". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "This is also the best match-figures" Given that "match-figures" is plural, should it be "These are.."? Harrias talk 13:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Ian Bell[edit]

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

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

  • Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias
  • Given none of his centuries were scored at neutral locations, it would be as well to remove references to neutral venues.
    Ok, was keeping the format similar to others just in case he does get a netural ton, but removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Could entry #17, or the column widths, be tweaked for it all to fit on one line?
    It fits onto one line in my browser.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Either add the "Ref" to the key, or use {{abbr|Ref|Reference}} to display Ref in the tables.
    Tool tip added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems superfluous to me to include "Balls" as well as "S/R" in the ODI table, but smeh.
    More is less? It seems a shame to delete the material since it's inoffensive and is often quoted (i.e. scored his 100 in X balls).... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It would probably be worth mentioning his international one-day retirement in the lead. Harrias talk 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    Done so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Harrias apologies for not getting back to you sooner, this has clearly dropped off my radar. I have addressed all of your comments, hopefully to your satisfaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Scotland national football team 1920–39 results[edit]

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

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

  • It's looking good now, but just one final comment. The by opponent and by season tables need to meet MOS:DTT as well. NapHit (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite

I think that would need to go to a move discussion, because it affects other teams with similar articles. Isn't there a guideline which suggests that natural disambiguation should be used where possible (i.e. avoiding the use of brackets)?
Yes, it would probably be best to leave the naming of the title until after this FLC closes. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Image is lacking alt text.
  • Tooltips for "Att." and "Ref."?
  • I'd agree with pipeing the scorers.
Agreed. I will put in an initial if there are examples of common surnames.
  • Also, I would unlink them after their first instance, as this column is not sortable.
  • Is it worth noting who scored the own goal in the match played on 12 April 1924?
  • The "Record by opponent" and "British Home Championship record by season" aren't referenced.
Reference added for the BHC results. I doubt if there would be a reference available for record by opponent by a specific time period. Remove, or is it just a case of WP:CALC?
Couldn't you use the three RSSSF refs you used for the results? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and feedback. Some comments above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • think it is worth mentioning that during this period, Scotland was listed among the top teams worldwide according to the Elo ratings. World Football Elo Ratings says it was #4 and #7 by decade. Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think it should be pointed out somewhere that Scotland had not played a single game from 1914 until 1920, and perhaps who were some of the notable players in this period (top goalscorers?). Nergaal (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


  • Second sentence of lead has too many clauses for easy reading.
  • Minor issue, you use FIFA in FIFA World Cup before you use FIFA on its own.
  • For sortable consistency, all goalscorers should be linked each time.
  • Grunewaldstadion is piped to Olympic Stadium (Berlin) which redirects to Olympiastadion (Berlin).
  • I don't see a need for the "Overall record" table for British Home Championship, it adds no value.
  • Ref 3 and Ref 8 need an endash in the title.
  • You could put a couple of images in the white space to the right of the two summary tables, brighten things up a bit.
  • Record by season table really only needs sourcing once, not every line.

Otherwise a nice list. P.S. I agree with the proposed page move as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions[edit]

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

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


  • Lead could do with an image
Still need an image. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "It features two theme parks,..." Is Aquatica not part of the resort?
According to this, nope; however, Wet n' Wild I better get on that!--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "opened to the public in..." in should be on
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Eventually, Universal filed a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws, an attraction that was based on the film." I'd be more specific as to why they filed the lawsuit, its intrigued me, so I'm sure more readers would like to know as well. Plus manufacture is not the best word, perhaps construction?
Per the previous sentence, "..several of the parks major attractions experienced frequent mechanical and technical problems, forcing the rides to close." Also, Universal sued the manufacturer of the Jaws attraction, not the construction company.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it worth including former rides on this list, seeing as some of them have their own wiki page?
Everyone has different opinions on this but IMO, former and current rides should have their own pages. It allows the respective articles to focus solely on one topic rather than dealing with two broad topics at the same time (if the two articles were combined).--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Separate lists is not such a bad idea, would be good to see both. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Consider adding a paragraph summarizing the types of rides that are in the parks to provide context to the table and go with the height requirement sentence.
@NapHit: I don't quite understand this. Remember, this is a list, not detailed information about the ride. Detailed ride information should go in it's own article. Also, there is already a column listing the type of ride that it is.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What I meant was just a few sentences stating that the parks consist of live shows, rollercoasters, dark rides etc. Just to give the reader a little bit more context. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:or - 45 of the 56 citations are Primary sources from Universal Orlando Resort. I see promise in the list, but I don't see how this can pass FLC with the majority of the sourcing being Primary.— Maile (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: Two other FL's have mostly primary sources, and though I know it is discouraged, there was no problem in those reviews.--Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't a part of those two . Sometimes things get past that shouldn't - it all depends on who does the review, I think. My opinion is but one. So, we'll see what anyone else has to say. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've added third party sources Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars  — Calvin999 16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I've tried making contact with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars multiple times on his talk asking him to revisit, as I've done all he asked, but I've had no response despite his online activity.  — Calvin999 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • SupportFrankie talk 10:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks.  — Calvin999 19:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Metra stations[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • I know how to add right-justified images and I can fix the lede regarding the proposed strats. If someone else who knows how to use {{Rail color box}} can figure out how to get a color box for the Kenosha Streetcar service, that would be great. Sportsguy17 (TC) 16:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pi.1415926535: Do you think you would be able to make a {{Rail color box}} for Kenosha's Streetcar system? I unfortunately am not familiar with the rail color box template and therefore do not feel comfortable making it. Once it is made, however, I can add it to the list accordingly I have added it to the list, but there is one small problem at {{Kenosha Transit color}} with the column that should display a sample of the color. If you can fix that, then I think all will be good and I think all of your feedback will have been addressed as far as I'm concerned. Sportsguy17 (TC) 18:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular reason for the rail color box text to be "Kenosha Streetcar Line" with the addition of a new redirect instead of using the existing "Kenosha Streetcar" redirect? Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lost on Belmont: As far as I'm concerned, no. I sort of realized my mistake on the redirect afterward. Feel free to change it accordingly though. Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I created {{KAT color}} before I realized you'd created the other template, and that's functional, but I'm also seeing their same display error. Weird. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: In that case, I think all of your feedback is addressed. I can add more pictures as needed, but I think for now, it's set. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm qualified alone to sign of on this, but it certainly looks good from my perspective. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds about right, I was simply making sure that all of your feedback is addressed. Since it is, I'll just wait for additional feedback from other editors. Sportsguy17 (TC) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "It is one of three of the Regional Transportation Authority's service boards." The Metra is a service board? Do you mean it is controlled by one of the RTA's three service boards?
  • I think you should give the total mileage of the system. Also, is any figure available on the percentage of commuter journeys by rail and car?
  • I would personally have preferred a paragraph on the history of the system to one on proposals which came to nothing. When did it start? What was the first line? How did the number of passengers grow?
  • It does not sound right to me describing the central terminuses as "inbound", which I would take to mean going towards the centre. How about "inner" and "outer" instead? (Or is this a difference between USEng and BrEng?)
  • There is a big gap between the line and station tables due to the vertically arranged images. Why not arrange them horizontally?
  • It is obvious, but for completeness you should explain the wheelchair symbol in the key.
  • A good list. These points are fairly minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of major opera composers[edit]

Notified: Adam Cuerden, WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Opera

While reading some FL-related talk pages, I came across a link to the old FLC task force, where I found this list. It fails to meet the modern FL criteria in many ways:

  • The lead is very short and it seems designed to make the reader go to other articles for background that may provide added context, instead of attempting to briefly summarize the background as a newer FL would. I'd expect a lead of three paragraphs or so for such a significant topic.
  • The introduction isn't much better than the "This is a list of ..." openings that have gone out of favor.
  • It doesn't appear that all of the content in the composer notes is cited. Often, there are cites in the note, but not at the end; it therefore becomes hard to determine if the cites are meant to apply to the content, or whether it was added after the fact.
  • In particular, none of the notes in the Female opera composers section appear to be sourced.
  • I'm unsure whether the method of determining consensus for inclusion by checking 10 major sources holds up to modern standards. For one thing, have there been any major opera history books published that deserve to be included in what the article calls the "sample" of sources considered? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would agree that this should be de-featured unless anyone wants to extensively rewrite it. The crux is the absence of any clear deinition of 'major', together with some confusion as to whether we are considering major operas or major composers. In addition to the points made by Giants2008, I note (amongst many other issues): John Gay is not a composer, and Pepusch a very minor figure (if Gay and Pepusch why not, e.g. Gilbert and Sullivan?); what is the point of specifiying a Mozart extract as being 6 mins. 49 secs., which could suggest to the uninformed that this is its authorized duration?; why Gershwin, Schreker and Pfitzner?; no male born after 1950; female composers listed very doubtfully qualify as 'major' composers, I'm afraid - perhaps better separate lists of male and female composers? The whole thing needs a complete rethink. --Smerus (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Death Cab for Cutie discography[edit]

Nominating this FL for removal due to the large amount of references lacking in specific areas. Seems to be a victim of not keeping up with rising standards since its promotion back in 2008. I've applied reference tags where necessary, but to sum up:

  • None of the release dates in the article provide citations.
  • 1 digital album is unsourced.
  • 5 extended plays are unsourced.
  • 1 digital extended play is unsourced.
  • 22 singles do not provide citation to prove they are singles.
  • 1 video album is unsourced.
  • All 16 music videos are unsourced.
  • 15 other appearances are unsourced.

Was unsure who to notify, as the main contributors all stopped maintaining the article as late as 2011. Azealia911 talk 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist per extensive referencing concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This is no where near the quality required to be featured. MaranoFan (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan filmography[edit]

Notified: Happyme22, Lionelt

I think this looks like being a victim of the rise in standards over the years. We insist on having citations for the tables now - and neither the film or televison table is supported by reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist too many unsourced roles. The "entertainment career" section is also unnecessary and contains needless details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men[edit]

WikiProject Film

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it doesn't meet current FL standards. Promoted in 2009. Sparse lead which doesn't adequately cover the topic. Table is not accessible. Numerous dead links. No infobox to summarise the awards. Original nominator has retired from the project. Cowlibob (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I might try to rewrite the lead and fix some of the references. I'm not good at the table so someone else has to do that part.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Post an update here when you're done. It's already looking better. Cowlibob (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I hope to be done with almost (if not all) of the improvements needed for the list to retain featured list status before October 18 (when I nominate 65th Academy Awards for featured list status). I'm now trying to replace the dead or questionable links at this moment. Schoolwork and lack of sleep may bog me down, so anybody is free to help out.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • All the dead links are replaced for now. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Rogovin 2009, p. 175.