Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FLC)
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, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a month or longer) and may be lengthened 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

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Metro (Minnesota) light rail stations[edit]

Nominator(s): BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I was very surprised that this list didn't exist at all so here is a list of all 37 current and 26 planned light rail stations in Minneapolis–Saint Paul's 13-year-old system. I've taken cues in creating this list from other FLs of light rail stations, most directly List of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail stations. Suggestions and input are more than welcome, especially in ensuring this list is accessible for all users. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Lugnuts and Khadar Khani (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded and polished the list, created by Lugnuts back in 2011. I am happy to have him as co-nominator. I think this list now meets the FL criteria so going to nominate this one. Review, suggestions and comments from any user are appreciated, as always. Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Row and col scopes needed for each table per MOS:DTT.
  • " at three different venues, including three outside " something not quite right here...
  • "he took five "->"taking five"
  • " at the Old Trafford," NEVER "the" Old Trafford.
  • Don't overlink "innings".
  • "As of 2017, the most recent bowler to achieve the feat was Sammy. He took seven wickets for 66 runs in his debut Test, against England in 2007.[5][1]" merge those short sentences and put refs in order.
  • Bowler names should sort using {{sortname}}.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Rambles - was just about to drop you a note about this nomination. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

List of executions by lethal injection[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this because it is a unique list that I believe meets featured standards. Freikorp (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rapido comments

  • Don't start lists with "This is a list..."
  • Age should be in the table.
  • "Executed for" column should either be unsortable or sort properly.
  • Could put table in its own section and add a few images down the right-hand side.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Two down, two to go. Currently working on ages then I'll look into images after that. Freikorp (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Ages column complete. Freikorp (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandvich18 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have taken care of the issues mentioned in this discussion and I believe this list is ready to regain its former featured status. I updated the lead, introduced a clickable skyline image, created new tables with images and coordinates, removed unsourced entries and added properly formatted references where needed. If it's necessary, I can also add alttext for images. This is my first nomination on Wikipedia and I hope to update all the "List of tallest buildings in ..." articles and standardize their structure. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just a bit of minor wording, featured lists don't start, or contain "This lists..." or "this is a list of..." or anything self-referential like that. It's somewhat tautological. A better way to start would be something like "There are x buildings over x height as of x year".
  • Also errors in the very first sentence. "67 completed high-rises, 6 of which stand taller than 492 feet (150 m), and 46 are over 60m". But 46+6 does not equal 67....
  • 33rd-tallest building in the United States needs a citaiton. So does "There are currently seven buildings under construction".
  • "4th in the Southeast " I think you should reference that you mean united states. Mattximus (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I wanted to make it clear that the first list is a ranking while the others are just lists, but I guess that's redundant; fixed. There's no error - 6 high-rises are 150m+, 40 (46-6) are 60-150m, and 21 (67-46) are under 60m (and are not listed here). I added references for the "33rd-tallest" and "seven buildings under construction" claims, and clarified that I mean the Southeastern United States. Sandvich18 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
No prob,
  • however that number in the lead should really match the number in the list, otherwise it's quite confusing.
  • Also "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings; they are listed in order of floor count, then alphabetically. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." should be placed in a note, linking to notes section (since it's just instructions).
  • as should " Any buildings that have been topped out but are not completed are also included."
  • The paragraph at the beginning of each section needs a ref (even if it's just copied from the lead).
  • Since 1909 needs an explanation (first building over x feet (x meters) tall?)
  • Why does the 8th tallest have a note saying 9th tallest? Lots of little details like this need cleaning up. Mattximus (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm really not sure about the first sentence, I don't think it's confusing at all... I would like to hear a second opinion. I moved the instructions to notes, added references to the sections (except the timeline, which is self-evident), and clarified the year 1909. Indeed, the 8th-tallest building in Charlotte has a note saying it is the 9th-tallest building in North Carolina, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Sandvich18 (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I can try to reword my concern. You have a list of 47 buildings, but your opening sentence in the lead says "there are 67 completed high-rises". Since the lead summarizes the list, the numbers should match. I'm not sure anyone would disagree with this.
  • Also you still have lots of little details to iron out before reaching featured list status. For example, the first link I clicked on was to check if the tallest was 228th-tallest building in the world, but the link said 230th tallest. Just for example. Mattximus (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nani filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This is my fourth attempt at a featured list. It is the filmography of the Indian actor Nani, one of the bankable actors of Telugu cinema currently. I look forward to constructive comments for this work of mine. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Image caption is a fragment, no full stop required.
Done Removed.
  • "After Ashta Chamma's commercial success" where is that cited?
Done Cited.
  • "The following year, Nani collaborated with filmmakers S. S. Rajamouli and Gautham Menon for the Telugu-Tamil bilingual fantasy film Eega and the romance film..." three uses of the word "film" in that sentence.
Tried rephrasing it. Hope it is better now.
  • "as a bankable actor in" not sure how encyclopedic this is.
Rephrased the line.
  • "Neethane En Ponvasantham" appears to have two "a"s in the fist word of the title.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed.

Thanks for the comments, The Rambling Man. Let me know if there are any other concerns i need to work on. Looking forward. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Thani Oruvan[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2015 Indian Tamil action thriller film, Thani Oruvan starring Jayam Ravi and Nayanthara. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members, especially Ravi and Arvind Swamy, several awards and nominations. It is my seventh attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome..  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • It seems odd to credit Mohan Raja as the sole writer in the first sentence, when the article on the film points to Raja working with Subha for the writing of the screenplay and dialogues. I would address this in the lead to prevent misintepretations as the information on Subha comes much later in the first paragraph.
  • Replace “and and” in the lead’s first paragraph with “and”.
  • I do not believe you need “a” in front of the descriptive phrase for Siddharth Abhimanyu.
  • The “Cat” in “cat and mouse” should not be capitalized.

Wonderful work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: All of your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Well written list, nothing really to complain about as per my assessment. Good luck! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47 and Pavanjandhyala: Thanks guys. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Madonna[edit]

Nominator(s): —IB [ Poke ] 12:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list along with Calvin999, because I believe it to be a comprehensive list of all the songs that American singer Madonna has released officially as a recording artist. Not only songs, it also includes music recordings by her based on poems as well as live recordings from her tours featured in any concert films. The list is structured according to the many List of songs recorded by XX featured ones in Wikipedia itself. —IB [ Poke ] 12:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment

What about those songs that she performed/recorded/covered in some tours or other media?. "Je t'aime... moi non plus", "I feel love", "Imagine", "La vie en rose", "Lela Pala Tute", "Nothing Compares 2 U/Purple Rain" or "Sagarra Jo"?. Somehow, they are songs with Madonna's voice. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras:, they were live performances and not recorded media. If you consider live performances then we already have List of Madonna live performances as a featured list already. "Je t'aime... moi non plus", "I feel love", "La vie en rose", "Lela Pala Tute", "Nothing Compares 2 U/Purple Rain" or "Sagarra Jo" are all live performances and are not credited to Madonna recording them separately. "I Feel Love", "Sagarra Jo", "Lela Pala Tute" are all listed as "includes excerpts" in the live album credits. "La vie en rose" we cannot include until we know what is the track list for the live version of Rebel Heart Tour album is. The only one we can include is "Imagine" as that was separately recorded and included in the live album I'm Going to Tell You a Secret. —IB [ Poke ] 04:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I would imagine that ALT text is need for the primary image in the lead. Make sure the other images have ALT text as well.
  • Something about this phrase (including duets and as background vocalist) reads awkwardly to me, as you are moving from the types of songs that she performs with other artists (duets) to her role on other artists' albums (background vocalist). Maybe if you add "as a background vocalist" to make the transition clearer. Just wanted to draw attention to this part as something about it sounded odd to me.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but who exactly is "Emmy"? Are they just a musical group? Do they have a Wikipedia page? I just wanted to confirm this with you as I was left a little confused by this part.
  • I would add the release dates for the films mentioned in the second paragraph. Same goes for A Gift Of Love: Music inspired by the Love Poems of Rumi in the third paragraph.

Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 TV series) episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As the title suggest, this is a list for the episodes of Transformers: Robots in Disguise, the sequel series to Transformers: Prime. The show's first season aired its 26 episodes during 2015 and the second one had 13 eps in 2016. Later that same year, a 6-episode miniseries featuring Starscream was aired. The show is currently on its third, and hopefully not final, season. I worked on this page mostly by looking at other F-episode-L like Avatar and Eve. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would recommend adding ALT text for the logo. I would also add a caption specifying what it is for an uninformed reader/to avoid potential confusion (i.e. writing The logo for Transformers: Robots in Disguise as the caption).
  • I added an ALT text; I hope it's good. But I'm not too sure about adding a caption. I've seen other episode lists which include the logo and none of them seem to have a caption for it.
  • Thank you. Makes sense to me. I will leave the caption part up to other reviewers to comment on; I am fine either way as I think the meaning and usage is clear even without a caption. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would move the information from the note to the actual lead itself, as the part about it debuting on March 14, 2015 is not necessarily accurate if it was released officially prior to this date.
  •  Done Though I might have to rewrite it to fit in better.
  • The bit in the note about Canal J needs a citation.
  •  Done
  • I am a little confused by the phrase (his Minicon pupils Slipstream and Jetstorm, and Windblade.). Are you separating Windblade from Slipstream and Jetstorm as he is not one of the Minicon pupils? If so, then a short descriptive phrase in front of Windblade may be helpful for context. A brief descriptive phrase in front of Drift may also be helpful for how he fits in the context of the series.
  •  Done She's not. I was hoping the comma would help distinguish her from Drift and his minicons. Added in a description about Drift as well as Windblade.
  • For the phrase (began airing in 2016), use the exact date.
  •  Done
  • You use the phrase "the Bee Team" in the third paragraph, but it is never made clear what this means or who constitutes the team exactly. Some context would be helpful here.
  •  Done Added that Bee Team is the name for Bumblebee's team. I guess for outside viewers the word Bee must be somewhat confusing.
  • Please include in the lead any information about the DVD releases.
  •  Done
  • Shouldn't the original air date for the first 13 episodes be December 31, 2014 according to your note as that is when they were first made available/shown? Just wanted to clarify this as the date listed could be correct, as it depend on how you define "air date".
  •  Done
  • Look through the episode descriptions and make sure that all of the cases of "they" are clear. For instance, in this phrase (While Bumblebee works to get Grimlock to trust them, they must work together), I have no idea who "they" is referencing.
  • In the "DVD releases" section, "Season 4 (2017)" should be "Season 3 (2017)".
  •  Done Crap, don't know how I missed that.
  • In the same section, I would remove "Region 2" if there have not been any releases made in that region.
  •  Done Though I'm hoping they'll start releasing them in Europe cause I'd like to buy some. :P

Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I will support this as I believe that all of my major concerns have been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Jared Leto filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been significantly reworked from its original state and now I am convinced it satisfies the criteria. Tables have been merged in order to show in a good way Leto's different activities. Earthh (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut

Introduction

  • Fixed.
  • "Leto premiered the documentary series Into the Wild in 2014 and played the Joker in the supervillain film Suicide Squad (2016)." – The re-direct on "Joker" needs too be fixed. What is a "supervillain film"? Do you want to consider changing this to superhero film?
  • Changed.

Films

  • The role column needs to be redone so the character names sort correctly; i.e. proper names of characters should sort by last name.
  • Done.

Television

  • Same sorting correction needed.
  • Done.
  • No names for the individual episodes of the series Leto appeared in are listed except for the last one. Why note keep it uniform and just say "1 episode" in the Notes column?
  • Fixed.

Music videos

  • Are all of these music videos for his group Thirty Seconds to Mars or are other performers involved? Either way some notation seems needed. Jimknut (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • All music videos are for Thirty Seconds to Mars, except for the last one, which is for Skrillex and Rick Ross (as part of the soundtrack for Suicide Squad). I don't know how to put some notation about it, do you have any suggestion? I looked at other FL about filmographies (David Lynch filmography), and I noted tables which show only titles of music videos without listing its performers.
Comments by Mymis
  • "...in Fight Club (1999), which polarized critics." -> What polarized critics? The film itself or his performance?
  • The film itself.
  • "His acting in the addiction drama won praise and raves.." -> Maybe "received" instead of "won"? And what is the difference between "praise" and "raves"? I'd just leave "praise".
  • Fixed.
  • "He also began to direct music videos for Thirty Seconds to Mars, with the first being "The Kill" (2006)." -> Maybe a bit more about it? At least a mention of how many of videos he has directed.
  • He's still directing music videos, I find it an information better explained in the article's table, don't you think?
  • "Critical response praised the film's artistry" -> Reads oddly. Critics praised the film not the critical response.
  • Fixed.
  • "After a five-year hiatus, Leto..." -> The source that you use says "a six-year hiatus".
  • Changed to "six-year hiatus".
  • "...in the critically praised 2013 drama" -> No source for that.
  • Removed the unsourced statement.

Mymis (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Jimknut and Mymis; sorry for the long delay in replying, I've been away for over a week. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It is still unclear what was polarizing about Fight Club by reading it. You instead could mention that it gained a cult status or something.
  • You could still mention something more about the music videos, now there is just one sentence, while the table takes up quite bit of space within the article.

Mymis (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

List of FA Community Shield matches[edit]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original version and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Lead image caption is fragment so no full stop required.
  • Isn't there a tournament style infobox that could be used here or do you think that's unnecessary...?
  • " champions of the Premier League and the winners of the FA Cup. " this is the current arrangement, as you expand later, perhaps you can make that clear here too?
  • Added "presently contested between …" in the first sentence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't mention that the FA in the title means Football Association, nor relate the trophy to that organisation...
  • Specified in the first sentence that they are the organisers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't think you need to link Canada.
  • Double is overlinked (and differently).
  • "runner-up finishes " feels like an odd turn of phrase for the losers of a one-off cup contest...
  • "The 2017 edition will be contested by Chelsea and Arsenal." probably needs a citation and worth just saying it'll be at Wembley once again...
  • Any thoughts on the criticism of the contest as reasonably meaningless? This article is mildly interesting in that regard.
  • Yes – I've added several refs to support that criticism and juxtaposed it with several historical moments in the final paragraph. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Brighton and Huddersfield need A's in their FCs in the summary table.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: thanks for your feedback; I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones[edit]

Nominator(s): Kingstoken

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the requirements, but also can be held as an example of how to format and organize any similar lists. Also, because of the diversity and number of award nominations received by Game of Thrones is not repeated with many other television programs. Kingstoken (talk) 11:55, 07 July 2017.

Comments by Mymis

Not sure if the article is not ready for FLC. Some observations:

  • Most of the article is simply unsourced. For instance, the entire first paragraph of the introduction, or any sentence that describes the meaning of a specific award.
None of the awards(won or nom) are unsourced, But I will try to find sources for the introduction for specific award shows. - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That is not what I said. First paragraph in the lead is completely unsourced. Most of the sentences that introduce each awards are also unsourced, for instance, "The American Cinema Editors presents annual awards for outstanding achievements in film editing" would need to have a reference. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Issue addressed, introductory paragraph now contains sources as do sentences describing each individual award Kingstoken (talk) 15:38, 09 July 2017 (UTC)
The intro still largely unsourced, including the first paragraph. And the source you added does not talk about David Benioff. Mymis (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I added more soures to the first paragraph, also plot/story does not need to be sourced anyway. Other stuff in the lead are already sourced in the body of the article. - AffeL (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Many and many inconsistencies. The names of the episodes should not be in italics. All episodes have separate articles, so all should be linked.
Will do, but shouldn't an article be just linked once? - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Very few episodes are mentioned more than once though. They definitely must be linked in each table of each award. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Issue has been addressed and corrections made Kingstoken (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Why there is so much attention given for Emmy awards? Why are they considered superior to any other award?? Almost the entire lead is about the Emmys. Fails MOS:LEAD.
The Emmys are considered as the Academy Awards/Oscars for Television. I would say close to 30 of lead is about the Emmys. - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
According to who? Why are the Emmys listed first in the article? And not Golden Globes or SAG awards, for instance? They are very respectable awards too. And a third of article is not about the Emmys, so why should the lead be? The lead currently very poorly summarizes the article. Why only actors/acting categories are mentioned? Most of the awards the show received are not for acting. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I moved the Emmy Awards down so that it's in alphabetical order like the rest. Will try to improve the lead so that it summarizes more than just acting. - AffeL (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Way too much information in the Emmy Awards section. Two thirds of it are shown in the table already, so most of the prose is very repetitive and redundant.
Do you want us to remove the repetitive stuff in the Emmy section or just trim it down? - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Most of it is in the table already. Could maybe leave some sentences about records that show set in specific years, as it is not shown in the table. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. - AffeL (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of the awards are over-sourced? Why do we need three sources for one Emmy ceremony?
One source is for wins and one for the nominations. - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
In many cases it's three tho. Some awards shows websites show both winners and nominations. In such way the number of refs could be reduced as there are loads already. It is not a necessity tho. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the over-sourced awards, some of the awards still have two or three sources, but that is only because it is necessary. - AffeL (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by Vishwaroopam[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2013 Indian Tamil spy film, Vishwaroopam starring Kamal Haasan and Pooja Kumar. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my sixth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • Can't we just limit the supporting actors to three or four? There are six entries at present, and each has a citation at its back. That does look something not alright.
  • Plot summary, if available, is advisable to be placed before the details about the technical crew.
  • No comments on anything in the second paragraph. It is fine.
  • "... Lalgudi N. Ilayaraaja and Boontawee 'Thor' Taweepasas received the award for Best Art Director" -- Why are you mentioning their full names again here?
  • Refs look fine, and anyways the one doing a source review would comment on issues if any.

Well written one, on par with the standards you usually exhibit. Let me know once you are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: All of your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that. Glad to support this nomination. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: Thanks, Pavan. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I would include a period in the caption for the photo as it is a complete sentence/thought.
  • I am uncertain about the wording of the first sentence. It makes me think that Haasan wrote and directly the film by himself, even though he wrote it with someone else. You address this in the next sentence, but it seems a little contradictory to say that he wrote the film, and in the next sentence say that he co-wrote it.
  • I am confused by the placement of the references in the sentence on the supporting role. Why not just put Reference 2 at the end of the sentence, rather than repeating it for only some of the actors and breaking up the flow of the content?
  • In the first two sentences of the lead's second paragraph, I would avoid repeating the name of the film twice (especially as a way to start the sentence).
  • Would it be better to move the last sentence of the second paragraph to the start of the third paragraph? The second paragraph appears to focus primarily on the release and commercial performance, while the last sentence would seem better suited for the third paragraph's focus on the awards and nominations for the film.

Everything else looks good. Wonderful work with this list. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: All of your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this. Great work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work on the list but I think you should link Haasan in the image caption and the currency sign only once. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47 and FrB.TG: Thanks guys. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. Frank, I have resolved your comments BTW. Can you guys also take a look at my other FLC too (Pavanjandhyala too)? Thanks again.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • "screenplay and dialogues with" by "dialogues" do you just mean "script"?
@The Rambling Man: Yes, but I am making it specific as screenplay is also part of the script. I have changed "screenplay and dialogues" to "script".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No need to abbreviate to RAW when you don't use it again.
  • Is caesium really spelled without an a in Indian English?
  • "A bilingual, made" missing "film" after bilingual here I think.
  • " was done by" reads clumsily to me.
  • "film had its release on " -> "film was released on"
  • "Recipients and Nominees -> nominees.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The rest have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Tove Lo discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the necessary criteria. The list consist of the discography of Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo, who became famous in 2014 thanks to her song "Habits (Stay High)". This is the second list I have nominated for FL; the first one was promoted months ago. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments just to get the ball rolling....

  • ".. two studio albums, one extended play, 18.." MOSNUM, either numbers or words, not both, for comparable items.
  • Opening sentence contradicts infobox.
  • Put (EP) after the first use of "extended play" and then use the abbreviation subsequently.
  • Link "certification" appropriately.
  • Release dates not referenced.
  • Release territories specific to those release dates not noted.
  • Nothing seems to be referencing the releases which didn't chart anywhere.
  • Refs 31, 32 and 64 appear to have been corrupted.
  • Allmusic -> AllMusic.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Glossary of bird terms[edit]

Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a big one. But if this passes you will have been a reviewer for the first ever featured glossary. I hope any reviewer enjoys the read. Take it on if want to learn what a cloacal kiss is and the related answer to the age old question: "do birds have penises?"; that pigeons blink but most other birds don't; that a bird's rump can be called a pope's nose and lots of other information you will be able to use every day in casual conversation and to lord over your bird-ignorant friends. I can't even estimate the time I have into this; maybe a hundred hours? Writing it – doing the research to do so – was like completing a college major. I wrote it with featured status in mind and was endeavoring for perfect sourcing for everything. There's a great deal of integration and cross-referencing between definitions. By the very nature of a glossary, comprehensiveness has to be viewed a bit differently than for a "regular" list article. It is impossible to cover every potential term because there are literally thousands. That being said, I've attempted to cover everything that should be covered, and I've included definitions for all the terms people suggested or thought should be included when discussed at Wikiproject:Birds. The criteria are in the lead and expanded by discussion at the talk page. As to the lead, it may be seen as a bit short. I have brainstormed a bit to try to think of what else I could include there (I also asked the question on the talk page) but have rejected everything I thought of as really asides. It's a glossary. The terms and their definitions are the content and the normal function of a lead to provide a canonical summary is a mismatch. But if anyone has a suggestion I'm all ears. All of the images are from the Commons (so no fair use review is needed).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

characterized by feathers and the ability to fly, but not all can fly. To me, "characterized by" suggests that it is a universal. Even if I am wrong, this impression may be shared by many. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Peter. Does this edit adequately address the issue?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Well enough for me, though I have added a comma to reduce a possible ambiguity, and corrected spelling • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead serves an acceptable and appropriate alternative function for a glossary. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Tables of content[edit]

The ToC after the lead has no numbers, which is appropriate, as there are no number entries, but all the other ToCs have a number section. Is it reasonably practicable to standardise this?• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this. All fixed and neater because of it. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

B[edit]

Beak: Would "snout" not be a better analogy than "nose"? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No. A snout is a wholesale elongation of the bone structure of the face itself, where both beaks and noses are autonomous projections from the surface of the face. To think of it in the reverse, a big human's nose is often called [analogized to] a beak; it is rarely if ever called a snout because it's just not a neat fit with one, grossly anatomically speaking).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, no nose includes a lower jaw, which is as far as I can see, a part of a beak. Or am I missing something? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Well of course we're not talking apples to apples. But snout does not work and would sound very odd, and nose doesn't, not only for the much closer anatomical fit (again grossly anatomically speaking) but because of the language use I also mentioned, that we often analogize this in the reverse (for human noses).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

C[edit]

Clutch: Awkward first sentence. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed and restated. I think all that was needed was removal of the trailing "in a nest", which is quite tacit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Crissum: The feathered area between the vent and the tail a/k/a the collective name for the undertail coverts. seems a bit redundant • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The first part of the sentence is topography location information. The second part if the sentence is the type and name of the feathers found on that identified external part of the body, which only an ornithologist or a preternaturally observant reader with eidetic memory from reading another entry would know solely by reading the first part of the entry. In other words, I don't think there's any redundancy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
"also known as the undertail coverts". or
"the collective name for the undertail coverts", are both clear and read well. Both refer unambiguously to the undertail coverts.
"also known as the collective name for the undertail coverts" diverts attention from the feathers to the name. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we were talking past each other. Breaking it into two sentences with "also" is fine, and done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
cryptic plumage: such as male birds in colourful nuptial plumage for sexual display, making them stand out as much as possible. Is this what the source actually states? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Access to this part of the book is now restricted. I have swapped it out for a different source and tweaked it to match this source's focus on such plumage making the bird quite conspicuous rather than "as much as possible".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
As much as possible is somewhat teleological. Better avoided. Current wording is much better. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Peter, this drives me to distraction when I watch many nature documentaries.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

D[edit]

diastataxis: The explanation is duplicated under "secondaries", but the bit about "twisting of the feather papillae during embryonic development" does not clarify it for me in either case. Possibly I am lacking in some essential background knowledge, but I would guess this will be the case for a large proportion of readers. Is it possible to briefly explain how the putative twisting could have this effect? Alternatively, does that part of the text actually explain anything to anyone? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Done, see edits and edit summaries here and here--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
dietary classification terms (-vores): Is food storage a feeding tactic or strategy? I am unsure, so leave it as a question in case someone has the answer.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I was not able to find any distinction in use, and found multiple interchangeable uses (as was my use). They are synonyms (as are broadly the plain words tactic and strategy). See e.g. here (the headline might make you think two things are going to be defined, but no, the headline is used to define the same thing by both words). Here they are being used interchangeably; so too here (PDF), in an article on birds titled "resource use strategies of wading birds", where both are used multiple times without distinction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Strategy, as I understand it, is the bigger picture, while tactics are more detailed, localised, and immediate. As in strategy being the plans for a war, and tactics the plans for a battle. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

E[edit]

egg: Same point about distribution of references. Currently all at the end. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

F[edit]

filoplume: description would be greatly improved by an image if possible. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I remember looking for one, and rejecting all (free ones) I found as rather useless, but I'll look again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. I've uploaded and added: Goose filoplume illustration-1895.jpg to the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
flange: The explanation unfortunately leaves me without a mental picture. An actual picture would be ideal, failing which, a bit more explanation. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The interlocking of feathers diagram associated with the entry for barbules should help (see figures 3 and 6). I've simply referred to it in a parenthetical for the flange entry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Is that what is referred to as "folded edge" in fig. 3? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
flanks: The explanation contradicts what I understand as flanks in other animals, being the posterior part of the sides, and not of the underparts.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I remember coming across a source that actually talked about the idiosyncratic use of "flank" in birds as compared with other animals. I'll see if I can locate and cite (maybe as a parenthetical).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. See Glossary of bird terms#cite note-195--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

G[edit]

gular region: The definition refers to :"the angles of the jaw" which are undefined. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
On the one hand, I think it's fairly straightforward. The angles of the jaw are where the back of the jaw protrudes under the skin (on you that would be just below and sightly forward of your earlobes). On the other, despite this, I used a quote because when I'm not 100% certain I can't paraphrase properly. Plenty of anatomy and medical books use the term, but none I found define it; all seem to assume it's obvious and tacit. I have looked and not found any source defining it further.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you add it without sourcing? Maybe do, in parentheses, the definition you just gave? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be original research? I know, we don't need to cite the sky is blue, but here I would be making an educated guess rather than observing the sky's color. Maybe I can post to the reference desk to see if some doctor can find a definition somewhere. It doesn't necessarily need to be bird related. It's an expression that would seemingly be true of any creature with a jaw.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Aha! Angle of the mandible linked to phrase.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

L[edit]

lores: For consistency should this not be singular? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Did this one earlier. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

M[edit]

migration: Multiple references clustered at the end. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I have added a new entry here (moult strategy), so it might need to be reviewed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: Excellent entry. I made a structural change for clarity and flow that removed some repetition, without any change to the information content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

N[edit]

nail: Would be improved by an image if available. There should be something suitable in one of these images at Commons which can be cropped for the purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I've cropped and used this image for the definition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

P[edit]

pileum: Why the specific reference to the Manual of Ornithology? is the term not used elsewhere? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This is in-text attribution for a direct quote. See also the edit summary that accompanied it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
pin feather: Explanation of the growth process is somewhat confusing. I don't follow the bit about lengthening helically. Is there some helical structure on a mature feather that I haven't noticed, or does it straighten out later or what? What happens to the growth plates? The barb plate is mentioned without explanation of origin. I guess that this is the central structure of a barb, and that there are lots of them - 1 per barb, and that each one differentiates into hooklets and cilia, but then where is the rest of the barb? What are the marginal and axial plates? where did they come from? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
prebasic moult: Description is OK until postjuvenal moult is mentioned, then I get confused. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
While you have to understand a number of concepts to understand the definition, I've read it a number of times, and I think it's rather clear. Can you read it again, and see whether you can describe further what you find confusing? In Humphrey-Parkes the moults after the breeding season have just one name, numbered 1, 2, 3... In traditional, the first subsequent moult has a particular name, and all subsequent to that one have another name, numbered 1, 2, 3...--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
precocial: " but still able to move" implies that others are not able to move? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an artifact of a dispute over the language to use in the definition (on the talk page), and it now has a Frankenstein's monster compromise to it. I will tweak.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
primaries: "friction barbules", and "lobular barbicels" are not defined or explained anywhere. The glossary seems a good place to do this. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. See entry for friction barbules. ("Lobular barbicels" is not a stand-alone term but just a description for lobe-shaped barbicels that friction barbules host.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
pterylae: Singular: pterlya. Is this a typo? I would expect pteryla following standard Latin. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you reversing something here? An "a" ending for the singular and an "ae" for the plural is standard Latin. Alga/algae, antenna/antennae, etc., and I know that you already know this because your use below shows you do—so yes, the singular of pterylae is pteryla, as this definition states. See further here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Not what I was asking. I think pterlya (sic) is a typo of pteryla. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
pterylosis: Spelling: "pterylya and apterylae". Is this also a typo? also appears to be suggesting singular pteryla(?) and plural apterylae, but the associated image seems to show more than one of each. Consider alternative "pterylae and apterylae". • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This one is a typo. I've added the "e".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
It was the extra "y" that bothered me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

S[edit]

secondaries: Quill knobs is not adequately explained by the link used. If there is no better link for the term it may be appropriate to define it in the glossary. It may not be necessary to do more than add an anchor and a note that it is defined here in one of the other definitions already in the glossary. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I grok you here. If all you mean is that links should serve the function of directing readers to a page that has more information (or why else link), and since you're right that the pennaceous feather article, where the links redirects, says little more about them, I agree and have simply removed the link. But you also imply that the term is not adequately explained in this entry for secondaries. Since it already says "...the ligaments that bind secondaries to the bone connect to small, rounded projections that are called quill knobs", I think you must think there's something more to them than that. AFAIK there isn't—that is an adequate definition for quill knobs, à la: "bumps on wing bones where feathers anchor" (source).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Good enough. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

V[edit]

vaned feather: They include the pennaceous feathers a/k/a contour feathers, and the flight feathers. If the main article on pennaceous feather is correct then flight feathers are pennaceous feathers, so it should read: "They include the pennaceous feathers a/k/a contour feathers, which include the flight feathers". • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. And actually it flags a deeper problem with the definition in that all pennaceous feathers are vaned feather and only pennaceous feathers are vaned feathers, but they are not used as direct synonym. "Vaned feathers" describes a specific property of pennaceous feathers. I have tweaked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to the etymology of pennaceous. This has a clear definition, which implies that vanes are what makes a feather pennaceous. This has a nice diagram showing not only the pennaceous and plumulaceous parts of a feather, but also the mechanism by which the hooked barbules interlock with the adjacent grooved barbules to support the vane. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

W[edit]

wing coverts: It is not clear what "inner" and "outer" are relative to in this definition. It is suggested that bow coverts will be defined, but they are not. Why are they in single square brackets? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Bow coverts are another name for lesser coverts. Thus, "[bow coverts]" was intended to indicate this for what it immediately proceeded, and I thought it would make it more clear to use brackets given the multiple uses of parentheses already in the preceding text (as an extension of the common convention to use brackets for nesting a parenthetical within another that already makes use of parentheses [like this]). Obviously it did not make it more clear for you. I have tweaked. As to inner wing and outer wing, as you can see from those links' existence, I have added a definition in the glossary for them (in a single entry), and have linked each of their uses in the definition for wing coverts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
wings: i) Each wing has a central vane to hit the wind, is a strange way to express it. Both "vane" and "hit the wind" do not feel like natural use of descriptive English for this application. So much so that I am at a loss to suggest an improvement. I am familiar with basic aerodynamics, but do not understand what this is supposed to communicate.
ii)soaring wings with deep slots—favoured by larger species of inland birds - "favoured" is a bit teleological. Can we find something that suggests that it is an adaptational advantage for the flight patterns which suit these birds' ways of life?
iii) by "capturing" the energy in air flowing from the lower to upper wing surface at the tips, does not actually explain anything, and could be left out without reducing real information value. If I remember correctly, wingtip vortices are the mechanism of induced drag, so reduce the induced drag and wingtip vortices might be better expressed as "reduce the induced drag of (or caused by) wingtip vortices". • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed and done. All of them were easily removed with no loss of meaning I could see, which tells you they were fluff. I've simply replaced "favoured with "common in".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
  • Status comment: @Pbsouthwood: I'm not quite done addressing everything above, I will get to it in the next few days.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be getting there. No rush, but let me know when you are done with this round. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I still have a problem with the use of "vane" for the skeletal structure of a wing. The bones do not comprise a vane by any definition I have been able to find. A vane is a relatively thin, flat or smoothly curved structure, usually stiff enough to hold a working shape under normal load. The whole wing, or the feathers in place on the wing, could be described as a vane, but the bones support the vane, without the feathers there is no vane. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley[edit]

I'm probably going to give many comments, but here goes.

  • The last part of cloaca should be sourced. Even if it is sourced somewhere else, nobody will take the time to search for it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking RileyBugz. Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
No can do. Every one of those cites verifies separate facts in the paragraph and removing any one would make part of the information unverified.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Do all four sources verify parts of the last sentence? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
If I may read into the question, it appears a prelude to asking whether I could place the sources next to each part they verify: yes I could (no they are not all needed for the last sentence), but if memory serves, the reason I did this was because it was quite a blend and I would actually need to cite a few of the four multiple times if I took that path. In other words, were I to do so, the four cites would become six footnotes or more in the paragraph. I believe it is fairly standard (even for featured content) to cite at the end of a paragraph where there is no direct quote or controversial material that is likely to be challenged.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that it would be much better if it were a blend. It allows readers (and editors, for that matter) to easily find, in a reliable source, what they want to know. It makes it much more annoying when you have to look through four sources. Also, for my featured content, you rarely see one citation next to another. And in all of the featured content that I have reviewed, everything is sourced in the "blended" way. Overall, the blended way is much better and the norm, at least as I see it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: I am a strong proponent of enforcing verifiability (with sharpened fangs, not in the milquetoast manner we have and currently allow, which is one of the chief reasons we now face a near bottomless pit of unsourced content), so, while there are multiple FACs where this has been discussed and found to be fine, anything that calls for more transparent verifiability goes with the grain for me and feels hypocritical for me to push back on. I will fold the cites into the paragraph (though probably not today).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
You understand my intention correctly. I am not fanatical about this, but I do think it is better over the long term to be as specific as reasonably practicable. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a typo. Fixing it now, thanks for noticing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment from N Oneemuss[edit]

Wow, this must have been a huge endeavour. Still, I can see how useful this could be for bird articles, and this list looks excellent on first glance, so well done for the great work. I've made a few small edits (mostly just things like punctuation); I have one question, and will have a closer look at this soon.

  • In the Contents (not the one at the top, but the rest), why are J and Y clicakble even though there are no entries for it? This is inconsistent with X, which is not clicakble. Also, the first Contents section has links to the Footnotes and Bibliography, whereas the others don't. Would it be possible to just use the version of the Contents found at the top of the page throughout the article (though the link to the top of the page should definitely be retained)? N Oneemuss (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking N Oneemuss and for the copyedit. This was my lack of familiarity with this less common TOC scheme. I didn't want to use the same one from the lead because it contains that extra line at the top, and doesn't have a link to "Top", However, I studied the template documentation and figured out how to do it. A decided improvement. Thanks for the suggestion!-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

List of cities in Nevada[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I am continuing my attempt at standardizing all list of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will be the 15th such nomination after 14 successful nominations (such as: Montana, Alabama) and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities in Nevada

I have modeled this list off of recently promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from N Oneemuss[edit]

This looks very good to me on first glance, but I do have some comments. Note that this is my first featured list candidate review, so if you disagree with my feedback then you're likely right!

  • I don't think that United States should be linked in the lead sentence, per MOS:OVERLINK (and WP:SEAOFBLUE). I would replace it with one link to Western United States.
    I think in this case it's important to link to the USA, since this is a geography based article, USA is really the parent. It shouldn't' affect WP:SEAOFBLUE since no blue would be lost (just replaced with Western United States). What do you think?
  • It does fall under WP:SEAOFBLUE because there are two links next to each other that look like a single link. Still, it only says "where possible", and your argument about United States being relevant to a geography article makes sense, so I think it's fine as it is (also, I notice your other featured lists have the same links in the first sentence).
  • This might be an American thing (I'm British) but I think the second sentence is missing commas. I would put them before "with", "but the" and "spanning".  Done
  • Again, possibly this falls under WP:ENGVAR, but "less" should probably be "fewer" because inhabitants are countable. Done
  • The repeated use of "are population category" seems a bit odd to me. Aside from being repetitive, I think it would sound better if something like "are part of population category" were used instead.
  • Does "in population category" work? If not I'll use yours, I have no strong preference.
  • Your version seems fine to me. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider linking wards and city clerks. Done
  • Again, I think there should be a comma before "which" in the final paragraph of the lead.  Done
  • The dates in the last sentence of the lead can't really go on their own; it should read something like "Carson City, which did so on March 1, 1875".
    added just "on" instead of "which did so on", would that work?
  • I think it does work, but it might be worth adding either a comma before "on" or putting the whole phrase in brackets, i.e. "(on March 1, 1875)". N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)  Done
  • I made one minor edit (fixing a capital letter).
  • I might be wrong, but isn't independent city Carson City's legal description (which would make the first sentence of the second paragraph wrong)? Or is that a different sort of term?
Yeah they are different terms, should I make it more clear? Independent means there is no 2nd tier administrative unit above it (no county or merged county), the legal description (is it a town, or city, etc.) is different, so in Carson city's weird case, it has no description.
  • I think it would help if you could make it a bit more clear, actually. It would certainly help non-US readers in my opinion. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmmm I tried making it more clear, but I think it ended up being more convoluted. What do you think of the wording: "Incorporated places in the state are legally described as cities, except for Carson City, which has no legal description, but is considered an independent city as it does not reside in any county".
  • I think that wording is pretty good. I don't think there should be a comma before "but", though, and I'm also unsure about the use of "reside" seeing as that word usually applies to people – how about "it is not located in any county"? N Oneemuss (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)  Done
  • The photo captions' use of the word "largest" threw me off a bit. I know that they have a heading ("by population"), but something like "most-populous" might be easier to understand and less repetitive. (Feel free to ignore this one, it's just my opinion).  Done
  • You don't need to write out Henderson, Nevada because the caption already says that it is in Nevada. Done
  • The table looks fine to me.
  • Maybe add List of counties in Nevada to the See also section. I know it's linked in the table, but that link isn't very obvious and the See also section would be a more natural place for it in my opinion. Done
  • I just noticed that per MOS:SEEALSO, the links in the See also section should be ordered alphabetically. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Done
  • Why does one reference have "in English" when none of the others do? It seems unnecessary to me, but either way it ought to be standardised. Done

Overall this list looks great, and once my comments are addressed I will be happy to support. Your project is very ambitious; I wish you the best of luck with it! N Oneemuss (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I haven't had time to address all of them but I've check off the ones I've tackled so far. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks N Oneemuss! I believe I've addressed all your recommendations above. A few points require your approval but other than that, thanks for the review. Mattximus (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I've gone through all of your comments and I only have one minor suggestion left (I did make one very minor edit to the list, adding a comma). It's just a wording issue though, so I'll support. Great work on this list! N Oneemuss (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Made that one change you suggested, and thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

International Dublin Literary Award[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A while since I've delved into literary awards but here's one that was featured at WP:ITN recently. It wasn't far off so I've done the spit-and-polish job. It's completely different to any other existing nomination so I've been bold enough to nominate it knowing that I can handle simultaneous nominations. Thanks to one and all for any effort involved in reviewing the list, all comments will be addressed as soon as possible. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2010[edit]

Nominator(s): xplicit 02:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria, and should be promoted as such. 2010 marked the first year of South Korea's national singles chart Gaon Digital Chart. The article is structured more-or-less like the FL List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011, the 2011 album counterpart. I look forward to the forthcoming comments and improvements. xplicit 02:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Compared to the other FL which deals with Gaon charts (List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011) has a larger lead, and talks about sales figures so that could be included here.
  • "Upon its inception," this appears to be unnecessary given you go on to say "became the first song to top the Digital Chart"

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest of my nominations of wildlife trusts, and is in the same format as the Herts and Middlesex and Essex Trusts, which are FLs. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


  • "action for wildlife": what action, to preserve wildlife?
  • The source does not specify. It would include volunteering at sites, and probably other things such as making people's own gardens more wildlife friendly, but I do not think I can go into detail as the source does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • By 1964 wildlife: comma missing?
  • "Each is independent and a member of the Society, which changed its name to the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts in 2004" This is two different concepts in one sentence. Suggest a full stop after society. Maybe "The Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves changed it's name to Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts in 2004 and operates as The Wildlife Trusts.[4] Each member of The Wildlife Trusts is independent... and then explain what independent means?
  • Looking at this again the wording was not quite right, so I have revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Those are my comments for the lead, otherwise it looks very good! Mattximus (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "and winter visitors" I think you mean "and in winter" to match "in summer"
  • I think the variation in wording reads better. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • washings from sugar beet, do you mean sugar beets?
  • Done. The source had beet and it looks right to me, but I see that the plural is more common. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • snipe, redshanks and sandpipers,... any info on which bird specifically?
  • Changed. The Trust is a bit random on which birds it supplies details on, so I have changed to ones for which the species is specified.
  • Graptodytes bilineatus, Dryops similaris, Gyrinus distinctus and Myopites inulaedyssentericae, might as well red-link these for now, like you have others
  • I am doubtful. The Trust name for the site, Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits, pipes to Limekiln Close and East Pit, and the description covers each part. It does not seem logical to link Limekiln Close and not East Pit. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Everything else looks good. Excellent work as always!. Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Changes look good to me Support. Mattximus (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from N Oneemuss[edit]

This looks very good.

  • "3,945 hectares" – conversion needed (I see there are some elsewhere in the article)
  • Is there a reason why you've converted it to square miles (everywhere else in the article, you've converted hectares to acres)? N Oneemuss (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think square miles works better for large areas and acres for small ones. The same argument might apply to hectares and square kilometres, but I do not have a feel for what is best for a reader who thinks in metric. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "an income of £5.1 million" – "had" is missing. Also, "the year to 31 March 2016" seems a bit awkward to me; how about "preceding" instead of "to"?
  • "had" added. "year to" is the standard term, and "preceding" would be unusual and confusing.
  • I would personally link Peterborough (probably at the start of the last sentence of the third paragraph instead of in the name).
  • In that sentence, I think that "but" would sound a bit better than "although".
  • The table looks excellent, but I have spotted a few things:
  • Coppicing should be linked in the first entry.
  • For the fourth entry, "it has nationally rare plant" is missing "a".
  • Shouldn't the redlinked scientific name in that entry start with a capital letter?
  • Would it be possible to have an update for note c? It's been four months now.
  • I think it is better left. The site is probably still closed, but I am not sure. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Great work; I will be happy to support after these comments have been dealt with. N Oneemuss (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. I still have one question (with regards to my first comment) but it's very minor, so I'll support. N Oneemuss (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Australian Cricket Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Mattinbgn (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Australian cricket again? I took this up from a load of great work by Mattinbgn (who I've taken the liberty of co-nominating) and polished it, twerked the sorting mechanisms and added some more lead material. As ever, I will work tirelessly to address any and all comments made here, thanking you in advance for all your energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi TRM, please find my comments below:
  • Lead
  • Table
  • Refs
That is all for now. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi TRM, I have made the spacing in the table consistent, added commas to the figures over 1,000 and corrected some of stats. Further things required are below:
  • Sorting for the high scores needs correcting (not out scores to come before those scores where the batsman was out)
  • Sorting for the balls, maidens, runs, wickets, best and stumpings needs correcting
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Inna[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all the required criteria; I followed the style of my previous featured lists. A previous nomination of this has been failed because of very few reviews, but I hope it gets better this time.

Comments from The Rambling Man[edit]

  • If Viva Comet Awards doesn't have an En-wiki article, I don't think it should be included here.
It has a Wikipedia page on Polish, so I think it is notable in a sort of way. Also, according to the Polish page, the awards gala appears to be important in the Polish music industry. Additionally, the prize is international and is presented by VIVA Media.
  • "she met native producing trio Play & Win and adopted " odd jump from born, brought up...
What information should I fill the space with?
  • "Eska Awards" appear to be called "Eska Music Awards".
Done
  • "Best Song in the Balkans from Romania for 2010 and Best Song in the Balkans from Romania for 2011" probably can avoid repeating here, "Best Song in the Balkans from Romania for 2010 and for 2011"?
Done
  • Elle Style Awards is linked from "Elle Style Awards România" but that page doesn't mention Romania at all. Is this varianet notable enough if it's not even mentioned on English language Wikipedia.
Same as with Viva Awards. It is the Romanian version of the award, compiled by the Romanian language version of Elle. The award also has the same nominations and stuff like that.
  • (if it stays) "at Polish Viva Comet Awards," needs a "the" in there.
Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I answered to your comments. Thank you very much for your time, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Any updates? Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I remain unconvinced by the arguments about Viva Comet and the Elle Style awards. If these aren't notable enough to have English Wikipedia articles, or even redlink to them explicitly, I'm not sure why they're notable enough for inclusion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Removed both awards. How does the article look to you now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Please specify if you support or oppose the nomination. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Neither at this time. As a delegate it's best if I keep my options open. You'd be better off seeking further review rather than worrying about me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2015 North Indian Ocean cyclone season[edit]

Nominator(s): — Iunetalk 21:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The 2015 North Indian Ocean cyclone season was a rather curious season. Despite the season being below-average in terms of cyclone activity, the Arabian Sea saw above-average cyclone formation with the bulk of cyclone formation occurring within the body of water (usually, the bulk of the activity occurs in the Bay of Bengal). Probably the most memorable aspects of the season were cyclones Chapala and Megh, which the Washington Post deemed as "twin freak cyclones" after them impacted Yemen and northern Somalia within days of each other. Chapala was the first storm to bring hurricane-force winds to Yemen in recorded history, and Megh was the worst storm ever to strike the Yemeni island of Socotra. Many of the other tropical cyclones in the season did not intensify much, though they brought historic flooding to Oman and the UAE (ARB 02), Gujarat (ARB 03), northeastern India, Myanmar and Bangladesh (Komen) and southern India (BOB 03) resulting in hundreds of fatalities in the region.

This article is the first that I've written in seven years, and as such I've based its structure and format off of some of the more recent WP:WPTC featured timelines, especially the Timeline of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. In addition to this, I've added the coordinates, which have been featured in some of the most recently created timelines for the project, such as the Timeline of the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season.

As a result, I believe that this timeline is ready to be reviewed here at WP:FLC to see if it meets the FLC criteria. — Iunetalk 21:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


List of songs recorded by Fifth Harmony[edit]

Nominator(s): De88 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this list has clear and detailed information regarding the group's recorded songs and the collaborators who worked with them. The introduction is abundantly clear along with the list which has several images to provide readers with visuals on who exactly wrote or produced their songs and a key to highlight the group's single releases and the like. De88 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • "i and formerly Camila Cabello, whose departure was announced on December 19, 2016" I would split that off, it's not the most important thing about the band, and probably isn't worth including (along with precise date!) in the opening sentence of an article about the band's songs.
    • I removed everything after "Cabello".  Done
  • Second sentence has too many clauses...  Done
  • "was ultimately released in 2013" why "ultimately"?
    • That was a mistake.  Done
  • "soaring hooks" sounds like a fan writing this.
    • Removed  Done
  • "Their extended play had four subsequent releases" confused me, perhaps "Their EP was subsequently released four times..."  Done
  • Abbreviate extended play.
    • This word is mentioned many times. Which one are you referring to? De88 (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Put (EP) after the first mention, and then use EP subsequently. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
        • "Their EP had four subsequently released four times" <-- I italicized this word and just wrote "extended play" any time it was required to mention it. Is that fine? I feel that saying EP every time is a bit informal. De88 (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
            • So you want me to replace every time the words "extended play" are mentioned with "EP"? De88 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
              • Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
                • I won't fight this. I think I fixed everything that was suggested on your comments. This is my first time nominating an article for a FL status. I am not sure what happens after the nominator fixes the article with the reviewer's comments.  Done De88 (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
                  • We'd normally expect to see reviews from three or four people, so we'll have to see how those go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What's "trap" in this context?
    • "Trap" is a music genre that sounds like a mix of R&B and hip-hop. I piped the word.  Done
  • "All in My Head (Flex)" small i for "in".  Done
  • "Mikkel Eriksen" etc are piped to redirects, pipe to article directly, or don't pipe at all.  Done
  • Make images consistent width.  Done
  • Emily Warren doesn't need pipe linking.  Done
  • Notes are unreferenced.
    • I cannot reference the notes, only put the reference next to it. Is that fine? De88 (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Notes can be referenced, please see other FLs for how to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
        • I used this article to guide myself as it is a featured list article and the notes are not referenced. De88 (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
          • That doesn't mean it's right. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
            • Shouldn't this be noted on their talk page? It doesn't set a very good example for a "featured list" article then. De88 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)  Done
              • There are thousands of featured lists, some of them aren't perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
                • If that is the case, then it does not deserve to have a featured list tag. Some users work extremely hard to get an article at this status and it seems unfair that some are flawless and others have flaws but are still within the same caliber. If it was me, I'd put a notice threatening to revoke the tag unless those comments are fixed. De88 (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref titles should use spaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens (see WP:DASH).  Done
  • Online refs should have at least a publication date or an accessdate, or both.  Done
  • Make publication and accessdates consistent in format, dmy or mdy.  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Zootopia[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Zootopia is a 2016 animated film released by Walt Disney Pictures which tackled racism and intolerance and received accolades including the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. This list gives a rundown of these as always look forward to all the constructive comments.Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Some drive-by notes:

  • Would it be possible to center the images in the infobox? They look weirdly left-justified.
  • Refs 28, 29, 54, and 56 lack accessdates.

Best, BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 19:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: Thanks for your comments. Centered the images. Added access dates for 28, 29. The other two are dead links which have archived links so access date would not be appropriate. Cowlibob (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • " 3D computer-animated buddy comedy adventure film..." a few too many categories for me here!
  • A few short sentences in the opening para of the lead makes for slightly clunky prose.
  • Does ref 4 really back up the fact the film received its global premier in Denmark?
  • Would clarify that $ is US$.
  • "the film won for Best Animated Feature" no need for "for".
  • "included the film in their list of the top ten of 2016.[9]" -> "included the Zootopia in their list of the top ten films of 2016.[9]"
  • Infobox and table will need updating tomorrow following Saturn Awards (I'm sure you're tracking that but just thought I'd mention it).
  • "St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association" why is Gateway included in the title of this group? It's a redirect and the source itself doesn't use the term.*Split the refs by "|30em" rather than "|2".

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed the above. I copied the genres from the parent article and have cut it down. Changed ref for premiere. St. Louis Gateway I think was the old name, have changed it. Cowlibob (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work as usual, my comments addressed, with thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Cowlibob (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Frank Worrell Trophy[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I was lurking around looking for a mini-project and stumbled on this little number. Some interesting stories, and a fascinating glimpse of how the world powers in cricket have swung since the 1980s. As always, thanks in advance to anyone prepared to take the time to review this, I will endeavour to get to any and all comments as soon as practicable. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Ref #8 "The Guradian", was that irony? (I'll post a full review later.) Harrias talk 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thankfully it didn't say "The Grauniad" but it was close... I've developed a kind of switch-character-typing-dyslexia as I've got older. That's a good example.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
More comments
  • Could you put a "[sic]" after the word 'every' in "Greatest Game every played with a ball".
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason that the table isn't sortable?
    Didn't see much utility in that, but sortable now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref #5 is missing the date of publication (the BBC list it as "last updated" at the top).
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref #8 is missing the date of publication.
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Given you linked Ashley Mallett in ref #17 and Peter Toohey in ref #20, might as well link Mike Selvey in ref #24.
    Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref #26 is missing the date of publication.
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Harrias talk 07:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Harrias thanks, I've addressed your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support cheers, great work. Harrias talk 20:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – nothing more to address; great list! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment from JennyOz[edit]

  • I'm wondering if we can actually get rid of the awful 'sic' re "ever" / "every"...
1. MOS:PMC says we can simply fix the typo "...trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment..."
2. Or, change the ref to one without the typo?
This in Trinidad Express is (nearly) the same piece by Tony Cozier. It uses "ever".
This ESPN one, which quotes Wellings in Wisden, also uses "ever".
NB The Trinidad Express Cozier article also verifies the other use of the ref, i.e., that it was the first ever Test tie but the ESPN alternative does not. JennyOz (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Jenny, thanks (and thanks for your tweaks), I've replaced the [sic] with a reference to the ESPN article. Ref 5 (in the lead) already cites the first Test tie so that's not necessary again. Hopefully I've addressed your concerns! Thanks for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for agreeing to the change, (and Wellings would have been happier too, esp as it wasn't his error originally:).
I'll have a last look through v soon. JennyOz (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi TRM, some of these are only suggestions. Some bits confused me so I may have got my wires crossed.

  • Refs
  • Ref 14 Rowland Ryder - author link?
  • Ref 15 Alan (Keith) Davidson - author link? - hmmm though it is "as told to" Brydon Coverdale
  • Ref 27 Croft, Colin (6 January 2001). "Australia deserve 50– success" - should be 5-0
  • Infobox
  • Currently includes most runs and most wickets but not most catches - is that because the 'most catches' parameter does not render? (I can see it appears not to for Suresh Raina in the template example Template:Infobox cricket tournament main.)
  • Yes, I added it but it doesn't render. Perhaps I'll take a look at the template later, but that's not really part of this FLC... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Photos
  • Add photo for Courtney Walsh?
  • Tables
  • Main table List of results
Series 5 1975-76 - on ref 17 LHS of page says results Aust 5-1 (6) but RHS doesn't include the first Test i.e., it only lists 5 of the 6 results
- perhaps swap ref in table to this one? (ie change from url: ...content/series/60457.html, to: ...engine/series/60457.html)
  • Summary of results table
First row "Tests", "Drawn" column tally includes the tied Test - should it have a double dagger?
  • Prose
  • 64-65 "Despite losing the first Test of the 1964–65 series by ten wickets, the West Indies recovered to win the third and fifth Tests to take the trophy back to the Caribbean." Is it me or is something wrong here? Seems upside down. WI won first Test by 179 runs, 2nd drawn, 3rd to WI, 4th drawn, 5th to Aust by 10 wickets. (And series was played in West Indies so WI "take the trophy back to Caribbean" is iffy. Should be more like: took trophy for the Caribbean for the first time?)
  • "The West Indies sole Test victory, at the WACA Ground in Perth..." - isn't clear it's talking specifically about 75-76 series, as previous sentence mentions 3 series.
  • 77-78 5th Test "The final Test saw the West Indies eight wickets down with more than 100 runs needed when the Jamaican crowds began to riot." - Ref 21 Peter Toohey Rumble in Jamaica says 8 needing 100, but goes on to say Holder caught behind before crowd started rioting. And this confirms 9 wickets lost. Still needing 111?
  • "For the 1994–95 series, Australia brought in a new coach and a new manager." - can't see a ref. This says ..."Bobby Simpson, now the Australian coach, ..." but he'd been coach since 1986?
  • The ref is in the table, I've reused it inline here now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ahhh... that's Jimmy Adams talking to Scott Oliver - it was WI (not Aust) who "brought in a new coach and a new manager". JennyOz (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 94-95 - Reiffel's quote "make or break for both teams" - needs ref This?
  • Other
  • Besides the first tied Test, there are a few FWT records at List of Test cricket records eg 1992-93 - Narrowest win margin by runs. Not sure if any worth mentioning - too prone to change?
  • Well I suppose I could add another section based on records, but I'm not entirely convinced that's needed, if they're really significant they're already covered, as you noted, in that existing FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Could consider though, inserting in prose that in the deciding final Test of 1992-93 series, Curtly Ambrose took seven wickets for a single run per here.

That's all. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz very much appreciate your review, thanks. I've responded to your comments inline and addressed them as appropriate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Glad you were able to decipher my notes! I fixed a few new minor typos rather than add them here. Please check. Last to do is per my new comment above re the "new coach" info. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
JennyOz, thanks again, I think I got that last one. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Thrilled to see this tournament and its players so well recognised and represented. Great job! JennyOz (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ivy discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies all of the required criterion and is well sourced and worded. Any constructive criticism and comments are highly appreciated. Thank you! Carbrera (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC).

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would rephrase "Additionally, the accompanying music video was Ivy's first video and was released in 1995." to avoid the repetition of the word "video".
Done
  • I would rephrase "to record Apartment Life, their second album in October 1997." as "to record their second album Apartment Life, released in October 1997." as the current phrasing could be read as their second studio album in that specific time period.
Done
  • All of the band's music appears to be available on iTunes so I believe should you add "digital download" to the first studio albums with additional references to support the new information. Same comment applies to the EP Lately.
I actually did not include "digital download" on the first two since the original release did not occur digitally, but for Realistic it did occur originally on cassette, CD, and LP... etc. I don't know if that makes sense or not. I've noticed how that's also how it's displayed on FLs like Madonna albums discography. Let me know. Carbrera (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC).

Wonderful work with this list. Once my comments are addressed. I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Aoba47 – I addressed your comments. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC).
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Comments from IndianBio
  • I'm confused by their single releases from the lead. Lately was their first EP, but its single was not released until 1996, so singles from their first album Realistic—"Get Enough" and "Don't Believe a Word"—was released first. The problem is that the prose here gives the feeling that "I Hate December" was the first single to be released while the table shows something different. I believe a copy edit and restructuring of this portion is needed.
Done
  • In 2000, Long Distance was sold in Japan --> Do we really need this info? I could have understood if it was only released in Japan, but it was released in the US also. Why don't we simplify it as "Their third album Long Distance was released in Japan in 2000, and the next year in the US".
Done – revised accordingly. Carbrera (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC).
  • In a joint venture between Unfiltered Records and Minty Fresh --> This is WP:OR because neither the album article nor in the lead there is a source that this was a joint venture. Multiple records can be associated with a project if the artist hsa signed to both of them, which seems the case here. Does not mean that it was a joint venture per say.
Done – removed. Carbrera (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC).
  • I am curious now, what is the reason that the band has signed/changed so many record labels? Their first four releases all have different labels so if we have that information it would be a good addition. —IB [ Poke ] 06:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
IndianBio – I addressed your first three comments in the list; thank you. Regarding your fourth one, I cannot find anything specific regarding their label switching, although I'm sure it has something to do with their lack of commercial success. They might have left Atlantic due to studio fire that occurred in 1997, but I can't say for sure and I don't think that piece of information would work well here. Thank you for the review. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC).

List of Enix games[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In 2003, video game developer Square and publisher Enix merged together to form Square Enix. We have featured lists on Square Enix games, Square Enix mobile games, Square Enix Europe games, and Square video games, but no FL for Enix games. Here to plug this hole (mostly) is this list: all 95 titles that Enix had a hand in publishing after its transition from publishing hobby programming contest computer games in 1985. It was very unpleasant to try to source minor early 90s Japanese-only video games, especially as their games were largely referred to as just "Enix games" even though they didn't directly develop them, but it's all there now. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Do we really need the fair use image? I don't really see how it aids understanding of the topic.
  • All caps in the titles of refs 75 and 78 need fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award[edit]

Nominator(s): Lizard (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've spent several hours working to bring this article to its current state, compared to how it was previously. I believe it meets featured list criteria. Lizard (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – This is a strong list that in my opinion meets FL standards. Good work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Benni McCarthy[edit]

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Benni McCarthy is South Africa's all-time leading goalscorer in football, and is widely recognized as one of the nation's best ever footballers. All reference to career achievements and goals scored are well sourced and set out in an easy to read manner.Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Comments from N Oneemuss[edit]

This list looks good but there are definitely a few consistency issues.

  • I took the liberty of adding the two sources you mentioned above to the note; feel free to revert if I misunderstood you or anything.
  • I'm not sure if the lead needs to say "calendar year"; I think that's what most readers would assume anyway (if you just wrote "year").
  • I'd link World Cup in the lead.
  • "Most capped" should be hyphenated, I think.
  • Maybe mention what position McCarthy played.
  • Maybe also link Burkina Faso and Cape Verde in the table.
  • The Venue column in the table has quite a few problems actually:
    • Some entries have the names of stadiums, whereas others have the names of cities. One (30) has both.
    • All the entries have a country given except for 9, which has a city.
    • No. 30 is the only entry with three pieces of information given. All of the above need to be standardised.
    • Also, how about Location as a name instead of Venue (not that I'm too bothered)?
  • The two goals against Turkey have the same thing listed in score, which is obviously wrong.
  • There's still a contradiction; if McCarthy scored two goals after equalling Bartlett's record of 29, then McCarthy would have scored a total of 31 goals, not the 32 mentioned in the article. If the note is correct, then the lead needs to be edited to reflect that.

That's all, I think. I will probably support once these comments are addressed (though I might take another look). N Oneemuss (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Response

Hi N Oneemuss, thank you for the comments and for adding the sources to the note. It is much appreciated. I have ticked off your first four points and the last two. I agree about the standardization of the venue column. I'll try and tackle that during the course of the day and get back to you. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The table has now been standardized as well. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Nice work. I still have a few comments though:
      • Maybe provide his full name in the lead sentence (I see from his article that he's called Benedict).
      • The final score in the match against Germany is wrong (check the source, it should be 2–4). I looked at a couple of other sources and the scores were all correct, but it might be worth taking a closer look.
      • Also, not all of the sources support all of the information in the row. For example, for goal 15, source 9 only gives the final score and that McCarthy scored; it doesn't mention the date (just the month), location or score after McCarthy scored. Source 6 is similar; it doesn't support the score that McCarthy made it, or the location of the match. These are the first two sources I checked, so it's definitely worth looking at the sourcing again. You could always add several sources for one goal if you had to. (Source 3 does support some of this, but not exact stadiums or the score after each of his goals.)
That's everything. Once these (and those of my earlier comments that haven't been dealt with) are addressed I will definitely support. N Oneemuss (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Second response

  • Fixed the goals against Turkey *properly* this time, as has been done with Germany. Is there a particular reason for Cape Verde and Burkina Faso to be linked, while the other nation's remain unlinked? I've also added his full name.
  • Re: location instead of specific stadium, the precedent seems to lean toward stadium names being used as is evident with Klose, Rooney and Torres. It's probably best to keep things uniform in this regard.
  • It might be tough going that far back but I will try and find sources that are that specific and get back to you. Cheers for now, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi N Oneemuss, just a quick one. The source in the the caption for the table, which serves sort of like an all-encompassing source, makes reference to the date, opponent, score and competition. Would this not be sufficient to address your concerns in the very last point? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Drive (2011 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bluesphere 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by the 2011 crime movie Drive. It's a real shame that no one even bothered to work on this list before. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe I have met the comprehensiveness criteria by gathering all the awards there is to this movie, as well as summarizing to the readers significant details of the accolades through the prose. This is the first film accolades list I've worked on, so hopefully this goes well. Bluesphere 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – Great job on this list! I also currently have an FLC nomination going here and I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it necessary to say "adapted screenplay"? Couldn't you say instead "Refn and written by Hossein Amini".
  •  Done
  • Wouldn't it be better to replace "United States' theaters" with "American theaters"?
  •  Done
  • "Brooks won [...] at the Florida Film Critics Awards and was nominated in the same category at the 69th Golden Globe Awards".
  •  While I changed the wording of the Golden Globe clause, I would leave the current wording of the Florida Film Critics clause as is, since it would have been the appropriate one for the link I provide; there's no article about the organization's 2011 awarding ceremony I could apply the wording you requested.
  • Again, "Mulligan won at the Hollywood Film Awards".
  •  Done

Those are the only problems I found with the lead section. The awards all seem to be in order and placed alphabetically. Unfortunately I currently lack the mental stamina to perform a source review. However, if they check out and my above comments are adressed I believe I could support the nomination. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, I believe I've addressed the concerns you raised. Bluesphere 03:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bluesphere: Alrighty then. The lead section is very informative, thorough and on the point. The mistakes have been fixed, the list is in alphabetical order, are dated and referenced. As stated, the references need to be checked by someone but besides that, I definately support this nomination.

P.S.: Regarding the Florida Film Critics Circle, I think I made a mistake and wrote Critics Awards instead of Circle up there. So don't worry about it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • For the following sentence (Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, and Albert Brooks feature in supporting roles), I would say "are featured" rather than "feature".

Great work with this list. I honestly could not find much to comment on for this list as it is already very good and has appeared to received pretty extensive commentary from the users above me. Once my rather minor note is addressed, I will support this. Hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Likewise, Aoba47! :)
  • Thank you for addressing my comment. I support this. Good luck with getting it promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • The comma in "as an unnamed, Hollywood stunt driver moonlighting as a getaway driver" should probably be removed.
  • The table shows three wins from the Austin Film Critics Association, while the infobox shows four. Are you counting the second place finish as a win? Maybe that's why I'm counting 30 wins and 79 noms, not the 31 wins and 78 noms from the infobox. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Quantico episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I think “upto” would read between if separate into two words “up to”. This is more a stylistic choice, but I am more familiar with it being two separate words.
  • There should not be a comma after the phrase “who also serves as an executive producer”.
  • The sentence about who directed the pilot episode seems oddly specific for the lead and I wold suggest removing it unless this fact is extremely notable for some reason.
  • I would combine the first and second paragraphs of the lead as the first paragraph is rather short, especially if you remove the final sentence from the first paragraph.
  • I am not sure of the value of the link for “New Agent Trainees” as it leads directly to the FBI Academy article and does not appear to provide much context to the term. The term is already defined in the text as “young FBI recruits”, and that seems like enough of a definition without the link. It also seems rather redundant as the FBI Academy is linked later in the paragraph.
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph is rather long and I would recommend breaking it up into two sentence as it is covering a lot of content.
  • The phrase “revealing various detail about their previous lives and later switched to one timeline” reads somewhat awkwardly to me. Maybe if you made the part about the timelines switching into its own sentence and giving it more context, or just revising this sentence to have it flow better.
  • There should be a comma after “while for the second season”.
  • I would say “the production moved to New York for its second season”. The word “for” seems more appropriate than “in”.
  • Do you think it would be beneficial to add some information on the awards and nominations for the show in the lead?
  • This does not need to be done for the FLC, but it may be helpful to make a separate template for the television show as there are several articles that would make one appropriate (this list, the main article, the lists/articles on the first two seasons, the future list/article on the third season when that does get made, and the article on Alex Parrish). Again, this is just a suggestion and does not need to be done for the FLC. Just wanted to note this.

Wonderful work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Aoba47: Done. Actually there was a template, which was recently deleted.Krish | Talk 05:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; after looking through the argument to delete the template, it makes sense to me now. I will support this; good luck with getting this promoted. Remember to keep this updated when new episodes come out in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Remove "the brightest of her class", it's not neutrally worded and looks unnecessary.
  • CIA cryptonyms --> CIA cryptonym
  • "Quantico's first season episodes was primarily shot in.." It should be "were" instead of "was".
  • Link Montreal
  • Movie Pilot --> Moviepilot
  • TV Line --> TVLine

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – Did some minor formatting changes but overall a very tight and compact list. Hope that if this gets promoted, the upcoming seasons are updated equally. —IB [ Poke ] 10:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Source review

All sources appear to be reliable and are archived in case we lose the original. I'll pass this source review for this list. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Support – Removed info about awards [1]; apart from that everything looks very good. It's quite early to have this nominated for FL but hopefully the article will be properly updated when new episodes air. Once a third season article page is created, I would suggest recreating the template. - Brojam (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Question – What, if anything, is meant to be sourcing the episode titles, directors, and writers? It looks like the TV by the Numbers refs only cover episode dates and TV ratings, not any of the other information. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Giants2008: This is how all the FLs are structured here.Krish | Talk 13:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that one might say that MOS:PLOT covers these details, but since I'm unsure (we haven't had a ton of episodes FLCs recently), I'm going to ask for extra input on FLC talk. Hope this is all right with you. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Giants2008: I don't know why all of these kind of dramas have to be associated with my nominations. My another nomination has plenty of supports, still taking million years to pass and now this. FYI, I am planning to leave this site after Monday for a whole year and I don't have time for a discussion. I think I can cite episodes to resolve your concerns but please check out my other nomination.Krish | Talk 20:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!: I'm not trying to cause any drama, for you or anyone else. I'm just doing spot-checks to make sure that the sourcing in FLs is being done properly. There aren't a lot of editors interested in doing this work, but it's important for the reputation of the project. If the community decides that this is an issue, it may have to be brought up in future FLCs as well; if it isn't, they will tell me that and I will strike my comment accordingly. The FLC talk discussion is here, in case you want to leave a comment before going on your break. Also, I responded to you at the Blanchett FLC with an update. Please enjoy the break and take care. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of sunken battleships[edit]

Nominator(s): –Vami_IV✠ 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the page has grown to its ideal size, is reliably cited, undergone both a Peer Review and the copyediting of other editors, and have implemented all suggestions of all editors that have previously reviewed this article. –Vami_IV✠ 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Mattximus[edit]

On the map, why are some battleships stars and others circles? Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not entirely know (nor did I know those were there). They seem to denote major clusters of sinkings, such as at Tsushima, but then don't do that for Jutland. I had designs to redesign it for a time while I was working on the article. –Vami_IV✠ 01:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Sunk and later salvaged seems to be a redundant table, is it not? I think the ships should be moved to the other tables. A note can be added that it was salvaged, but the other tables are all reasons for the sinking, so this one stands out as a sore thumb. Mattximus (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I am in this process. –Vami_IV✠ 03:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Golbez[edit]

  • The map being unclear is a big sticking point. I can't find any reasoning for the stars. If it's multiple sinkings, then why not Pearl Harbor? If it's scuttlings, then what's the star off Japan?
  • The note for the Arizona's condition should include it being part of a memorial; curiously, the memorial in Phoenix is mentioned but not the one on the ship itself.
 Done This is incorrect; the memorial at Pearl Harbor is mentioned, but it features more prominently now so no harm done. –Vami_IV✠ 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that... ok, so the first table is "sunk in combat." So we know what sunk them - combat. The "lost at sea" table, on the other hand, offers no clue as to why the ship sunk. I think a column here would be very useful. "Struck a rock," "collided with [other ship]," "ran aground," etc.
 DoneVami_IV✠ 00:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The "sunk and later salvaged" table seems problematic to me. Presumably, many of these ships could also belong in the other tables, like "sunk in combat". Maybe its rows should be merged into the appropriate tables, with the salvage/scrapping data added to the notes column?
  • The targets destroyed by specific bombs should include links to those nuclear tests.
  • Links to the scuttling at Scapa Flow should be added to each ship scuttled there; it currently only exists in a footnote.
 DoneVami_IV✠ 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Footnote c reads very strangely, like it was translated. I'm not sure it's even needed.
 Done Though, I added it as two supporting sentences where the footnote originally was. –Vami_IV✠ 12:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Likewise, I'm not sure what footnote d adds.
 Done Removed. –Vami_IV✠ 12:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Footnote g doesn't need the coordinates, they're already in the table.
 Done Removed footnote. –Vami_IV✠ 12:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Footnote h is good but the "Disputed" in the table should just give the range of deaths, so "950-1200" or something like that. Something that gives an idea of the scope.
 DoneVami_IV✠ 05:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Footnote i mentions a second sinking for the Peresvet; the article mentions it was redesignated Sagami and sank as that, but there's no mention in the article at all of Sagami. Shouldn't there be? Or did the refit made after salvaging demote it from being a battleship?
 Done A brief service history now constitutes a note placed in the battleship's "Fate" cell. –Vami_IV✠ 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Footnote k, see notes for footnote h.
 DoneVami_IV✠ 03:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Footnote l... the other entries in the table mention when someone was captured, so shouldn't this info be in the table? And wouldn't the people shot count as casualties?
  • Much of Footnote m - like it maybe being Suwo - would work better in the notes column rather than as a footnote, I think.
--Golbez (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

comments from auntieruth[edit]

  • several items in bib have no notes pointing to them (or I couldn't find them): Chesneau, Roger (2004) Preston, Antony (1982). Lyon, Hugh; Moore, John E. (also has no date). Allen, W.H (first one). Is incomplete citation.
  • Citation bot fixed some of the problems, with Allen, but the problems still remain of citations pointing to them.
  • I'm also a bit stuck on the map, and confused about the difference between those sunk at Scapa Flow and those scuttled there. Was there actually a difference? auntieruth (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • what is the difference between those sunk at Scapa Flow and those scuttled there? auntieruth (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am moving all of "Sunk and later salvaged" ships into their appropriate categories as per Golbez's comments. –Vami_IV✠ 23:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Map comment[edit]

I'm aware of the problems with the map, but I'm going to make that the last item I fix. –Vami_IV✠ 03:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.  :) auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

  • Seems odd to me to include ships that sank after striking mines in the "lost at sea" category, particularly Bouvet, since she was actively engaging Ottoman shore batteries at the time of her sinking. To add to the inconsistency, Petropavlovsk, the first entry in the "Sunk in combat" section, was sunk by mines. As was Hatsuse. And Yashima. And Regina Margherita.
    • I have moved the latter four ships into "Lost at sea" and will be looking at the pages for each and every battleship on the list for cause of sinking. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of the German battleships listed in the scuttling section were later raised and scrapped, thus they should be in the "sunk and salvaged" section.
    • "Sunk and salvaged" is being liquidated. The German warships scuttled at Scapa Flow have been moved into "Scuttled" with accompanying notes and citations (as a result, Gröner, p. 26 is veeeeeeery overused). –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Presumably the Russian ships sunk at Port Arthur, raised, and commissioned into the Japanese fleet should be listed in the salvaged section also.
    • See above reply. The Russian vessels sunk at Port Arthur have already been moved to the appropriate sections, along with a brief service history as necessary. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Lots of reference issues:
    • Citations should be formatted the same (i.e., either all short cites or long cites, all SFN templates or none, etc.)
    • Lots of harv errors with citations not linking to references
    • wrecksite is, I think, user generated
    • What makes this a reliable source?
      •  Done Removed citation –Vami_IV✠ 18:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Ditto for worldwar1.com
      •  Done as part of Part Two –Vami_IV✠ 18:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Same for battleship-cruisers.co.uk
      • Also removed. There is now a worrying shortage of citation for HMS Formidable and I do not have the books to look this up. –Vami_IV✠ 22:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • And forgottenwrecks.maritimearchaeologytrust.org
    • And burtonbradstock.org.uk
    • And worldnavalships.com
    • And naval-history.net. At this point, I should just ask for justification for any of the online references used in the list apart from DANFS and Combined Fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      • scapaaflowwrecks at least seems legitimate to me. I'll look into the other ones and likely make an effort to replace them. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Holby City[edit]

Nominator(s): Soaper1234 - talk 15:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating List of awards and nominations received by Holby City for featured list because I believe that, after extensive work, it meets the Featured List criteria. In my opinion, the prose is professional and the lead is engaging, with a summary of Holby City and what the article lists. It covers every aspect correctly, is within suitable length and meets requirements of the stand-alone lists. The list is easy to manage and navigate and complies with the MOS. The list is ordered by award and date, with section headings to enhance the reader's ability to navigate. The list features three images, which are all appropriately captioned and checked, and the article is not subject to any sort of edit wars or content disputes. This is my FLC so all comments are appreciated and very helpful! Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 15:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47
  • The following references are dead as shown by this resource here: References 6, 35, and 41.  Done
  • Please replace the infobox image with a non-free image. You can choose something related to the television show, as done with the 30 Rockefeller Center used for the 30 Rock list, or images of the one or two of the actors that were nominated repeatedly or received special/notable nominations, as done with the Jessica Lange image in the American Horror Story list. Just wanted to give you two different options. You can use this image here, 1, or move one of the actor’s images up to the infobox. Adjust the caption and ALT text appropriately.  Done
  • Numbers greater than should not be spelled out according to Wikipedia’s policy on numbers. For instance, fifty should be represented as numbers (I think this is the only number you missed in the list). - Greater than what?
  • Great than 10. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I also agree with The Rambling Man's comments above, and feel that they should be addressed as well.  Done

Wonderful job with this list. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I support this as all of my comments have been addressed. I apologize for the extreme delay in my response back to you.Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Aoba47. I shall work on the number issue shortly. Soaper1234 - talk 15:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Response

First of all, thank you The Rambling Man and Aoba47 for taking the time to suggest improvements. Sorry my delayed response; I shall begin work on the article now. Soaper1234 - talk 10:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Aoba47: I have searched for alternatives to the dead links within the article and cannot find any. Would the best option here to be to remove all deadlinks and the information supported by them? Soaper1234 - talk 10:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Well you can't have unsupported claims or dead links for FL I'm afraid, so unless you can find alternative reliable sources then I suppose you either keep these dead links in attempt to get others to find something and withdraw the nomination, or else remove the claims. You could always add those things you're removing to the talk page to see if others can help now or in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I would personally prefer to do that than withdraw the nomination. I shall move the dead links to the talk page for the future. Soaper1234 - talk 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I have moved all dead links and the information supported by them to the talk page, meaning no dead links feature on the list. Soaper1234 - talk 20:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Cate Blanchett is one of the best actresses of all time and probably the best of her generation. Her list deserves to be celebrated, much like her films and achievements. I feel it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2
  • The first two sources [1] and [2] don't really mention Paradise Road being her debut. Find another one that does.
  • "The following year, she garnered worldwide attention for playing Queen Elizabeth I of England in the acclaimed drama Elizabeth, which garnered" — Two instances of the word "garnered" in the same sentence. Please find another alternative. Also, find a source that says Elizabeth is acclaimed (even though I know it is) for those who may not have heard about the film. I would also consider splitting the sentence into two as it is quite long.
  • Write something about her role as Kate Hepburn in The Aviator such as Blanchett's is the only portrayal of an Academy-Award winning actress to have won an Oscar. Something like it."
  • "In 2007, she received both Best Actress and Best Supporting Oscar nominations for her roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and I'm Not There, becoming one of the few actors to achieve the feat." — Writing "Oscar" would seem informal even though the awards are known that way. so, rephrase it as "In 2007, she received Academy Award nominations for both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress for her roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and I'm Not There, becoming one of the few actors to achieve the feat."
  • It should be "[5][6][8]" instead of "[6][5][8]".
  • Do explain a bit about some of her stage work, particularly those that received recognition.
  • Source for Parklands is not there.

That's about it from me. I do recommend a thorough source review for the list. Krish, good job on taking an initiative to get Cate Balnchett's filmography and stage work list this far.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Done. Additionally, I have changed the lead significantly. Let me know if there is any problem with the new version.Krish | Talk 15:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No problems with me. I will provide a support now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • In the sentence about Electra, I would link the play in the phrase “the same name” part.
  • I would frame the phrase “opposite Geoffrey Rush” with commas as looking at it quickly makes it look like Rush won something.
  • Instead of “made her feature film debut with a supporting role”, I would say “made her feature film debut in a supporting role”. I think “in” is more appropriate in this context than “with”.
  • In the phrase “garnered her another Academy Award nomination”, I would specify what the nomination was for (it may be repetitive, but it is important to clarify that this is for best supporting actress).
  • This is minor, but I would say “this feat” instead “the feat”. The use of “the” just sounds a little weird to me in this context.
  • I am not sure where there is a “<” sign separating the references in the sentence on her 2015 roles.
  • I am not sure you would use the phrase “the former” following a list of three items; I have only seen that in lists of two items. I would just say the name of the film instead.
  • Wonderful job with this list. I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 13:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will support this nomination, and good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Hmm...

  • This is a long sentence which can be broken into two comfortably.
  • Is it really important to mention Rush here? If yes, can you please explain why?
  • Because he once was her frequent collaborator.Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Those critics awards were given by Sydney Theatre Company. Lovely. Now, instead of writing "...won her the Sydney Theatre Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress,..." can't we say something like "...won her the Sydney Theatre's Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress,..." to ensure simplicity?
  • There's an article for it, so why bother squeezing?Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Blanchett received worldwide attention for playing Queen Elizabeth I of England in the acclaimed drama Elizabeth (1998), which garnered her a Golden Globe and BAFTA Award for Best Actress and her first Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. -- Another long one which can be broken comfortably.

More to follow... ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • However, her other 1999 releases — the widely praised An Ideal Husband and the largely panned Pushing Tin — were unsuccessful. Two things.
  • When using em-dashes, please do not provide spaces before and after them.
  • The term "widely praised" is sounding vague. Please be clear here.
  • Really? But "largely panned" is not? Jokes aside, I have used this to showcase that a praised film sometimes also fails.Krish | Talk 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Galadriel or Gladriel? Read this line: " She briefly reprised her role of Gladriel in the The Hobbit trilogy (2012-14)."
  • A better alt comment would do.

Let me know once they are done. I will return after three days. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave three days and usually wait until they are done. But, given that the nominator has some RL issues and that the comments are already resolved, i declare my support. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 16:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments Support
  • I think the "notable" is really unnecessary in the Oleana entry.
  • Make sure that the use of "a"s and "the"s is consistent.
  • Please point out where exactly this problem is?Krish | Talk 07:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The awards, for instance: "won a Golden Globe and BAFTA", they should both have an article.
  • A comma after "During this period"?
  • "In 2007, she received both Best Actress and Best Supporting Academy Award" - Best Supporting Academy?
  • This paragraph uses the "Academy Award", a lot, really a lot. While I won't push it, but if you can find a way to minimise the use, that would simplify and elevate the prose.

Fine work Krish, this is one of best written introductions that I've read here. The first two paragraphs sure are. Good job. NumerounovedantTalk 17:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Year ranges now need centuries at both ends of the range, per MOS:DATERANGE.
  • Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Use en-dash for numerical ranges, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
  • Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "was a notable box office success" what made it more "notable" than other "box office successes"?
  • That is how media describes its success.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Television and music videos not even mentioned in the lead.
  • Where else one music video has been mentioned intge lead? Well, this is because she mostly known for her film and stage roles. Her television roles didn't have same amount of impact.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead needs to summarise all major aspects of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • She never had an extensive career in TV. I have modelled this after other featured lists. It's your POV.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." not really my POV. If you have a whole section of this list dedicated to TV, you should at least note it in passing in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No need to link Documentary, but if you insist, do it every time, the table is sortable.
  • Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Stephen Sewell is a dab link.
  • This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • As is Jonathan Kent.
  • This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Harvey Theatre, NYC" comma needed after NYC, and it really should be New York, rather than NYC.
  • This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "From playwright Timothy Daly. Production was remounted at the Sydney Theatre Company the following year" full stop required after second sentence. Check other notes.
  • This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Checkov has two h's.
  • This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The Spoils should be (song), not (single), to avoid the piped redirect.
  • Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Tri-City Herald is a work.
  • Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man:Done. As for last few lines, well, it that director section was added by an IP. So I removed it as this list follows pattern of other filmography articles.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
No, not "done". Please mark off each comment individually as you have missed some. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review

  • Ref 13 has all caps in the title that need to be fixed.
  • Ref 83 is a bare link and requires further formatting.
  • All of the references appear reliable enough and, aside from the couple of comments above, are well-formatted.
  • The link-checker tool doesn't show any dead links.
  • I don't see Blanchett's name mentioned in ref 60, (unless I'm missing it here) which is being used to confirm her role in the second Hobbit movie. Assuming I didn't miss the relevant part, you'll need to find another ref to fully support her role.
  • Ref 41 (Entertainment Weekly) doesn't appear to support the last name of Blanchett's character in Little Fish.

Of the 3 citations I spot-checked, I found issues with 2 of them (ref 65 checked out fine), which is somewhat concerning. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose – After seeing a few issues in my initial source review, I checked three more references: numbers 44, 50, and 67. Refs 44 and 50 don't give the last names of the respective characters, while ref 67 doesn't give the name of the director, or say that she was an executive producer. Sorry, but since I'm finding this much content unsupported by the citations, I don't feel comfortable promoting this list until all of the references are checked against the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Re-checked everything and replaced some of the sources. Now everything is sourced.Krish | Talk 12:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I checked several other sources—numbers 32, 40, 42, and 69—and spotted no further problems. The only other issue I saw was that there is a space between refs 4 and 6 in the third sentence of the second paragraph. Fix that and I think we can consider the source review passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Daddy Yankee[edit]

Nominator(s): Brankestein (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Brankestein (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note- this nomination was never actually added to WP:FLC until 5/25. --PresN 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Brankestein this FLC has received no comments in nearly two months, would you like to alert possibly some interested people or projects? Or review another list and ask for a quid pro quo review? Or would you like to withdraw the nom? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I would like to withdraw the nomination. Brankestein (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I still want to have this list nominated. Brankestein (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments/Oppose from Aoba47
  • The infobox image is not exactly great. It is not the best quality and the subject's face is covered by a microphone. I would image that this image would be more acceptable as it is a clear image of the artist and it shows him getting an award so it is even more connected with this list.
  • Please remove the reference to the artist's birthday in the first sentence as that is appropriate for the article on the artist, but not for this list.
  • Please rephrase the first sentence to make it match other first sentences of award/nominations FLs. Again, the first list is appropriate for the article on the artist, but not for this list. See List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio and List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga. The first sentence should be about the artist's awards and not a general statement about who he is.
  • Remove the statements about his birth and childhood as they are not relevant to this list. Also remove the final sentence of the first paragraph. This should be completely focused on the awards and nominations received by the artist and the sentences mentioned above are not connected to these ideas.
  • Add a link to Gasolina.
  • Add the years in which Gasolina and Barrio Fino were released. Same goes for Barrio Fino En Directo.
  • The spelling of "No. 1" is too informal. Replace it with "number one".
  • The entire second paragraph is focused on the commercial performance of the artist's music and seems more appropriate for the artist's main article and his discography. Remember that the lead should devoted to information on the awards/nominations.
  • The third paragraph is the only part of the lead that directly talks about the awards/nominations, when the list itself is solely about the awards/nominations. The lead needs to be completely rewritten to focus on the content of the list.

I can see that a lot of good work has been put into this list, but I have to oppose this as the lead is not structured correctly for this type of list and there is not enough focus on the awards/nominations (which currently only takes up the third paragraph). I would suggest withdrawing this, and rewriting the lead completely. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks a lot for your comments. I will rewrite the lead. Brankestein (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I do not mean to sound too negative with my review as I can tell work has been put into the list, but the lead should be restructured to follow other FLs on similar topics and focus on the actual content of the list (i.e. the awards and nominations). Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: What do you think about the lead now? I have been doing some changes and I want to know if it is getting better. Brankestein (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Great work with the revisions. It looks a lot better now. Here are some of my comments below:
  • I would recommend that you look closely at the descriptions for the award sections.
  • I do not believe you need the shortened titles for the awards (i.e. (or ALMA Awards), (or AMAs), etc.)
  • Change the "himself" in the table to "Daddy Yankee".
  • Please add sources to support the descriptions for the awards. See List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga for an example of this.

Hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for your advices. I changed every "Himself" to "Daddy Yankee", added sources for every award descriptions and removed the shortened titles, but I don't understand what you mean for "look closely at the descriptions for the award sections". Brankestein (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I meant that the descriptions for the awards should have sources, but you have added those. I support this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Sorry to bother you again, but would you like (if you want) to review the list and determine if it should be promoted to featured list? Brankestein (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I just finished my review with my last comment, and supported this for promotion. Remember that FLCs require multiple users to support the nomination and there needs to a lot of feedback before this is promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. Brankestein (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries. You can read about the process for the FLC at the top of the page. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Margaret discography[edit]

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The article consists of all her releases accompanied with albums/singles main charts. Everything is referenced. The lead includes the most important information about her releases. ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Please use a better description for the ALT text, instead of "Refer to caption".
  • I would spell out "extended play" out in the first sentence with (EP) in parenthesis following it.
  • I would identify in the first sentence of the second paragraph that "Just the Two of Us" is a collaborative album with Matt Dusk. You identify a collaborative album in the first sentence of the first paragraph, but it is odd that Matt Dusk is not mentioned in the lead at all, and the sentence (Her first two studio albums, Add the Blonde (2014) and Just the Two of Us (2015), were both certified platinum in Poland by the Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry (ZPAV).) makes the album sound like a solo album as you are grouping it with Add the Blonde.
  • The sentence "All three of them were released only into the Polish market (except for "Wasted" which was also released in Scandinavia)" seems rather silly (i.e. to see everything is one way except for one). I would say something along the lines of "The first songs were released exclusively in the Polish market, while "Waste" was also released in Scandinavia".
  • Please identify that "Cool Me Down" was a single from the re-release of Add the Blonde when you first mention it. It is a little confusing to say all of the bits about its commercial performance before identifying where the song was from.
  • I would try to condense some of the information on "Cool Me Down" as it seems to take up a lot more space in the lead than the other singles and has some undue weight issues. There also seems to be a lot of attention placed on Add the Blonde over the other two albums and her other work, which also raises concerns over undue weight issues.
  • Eliminate "In the meantime" as it is informal and does not add much to the sentence.
  • I would add an English translation for "Coraz bliżej święta".
  • Please identify where the promotional singles mentioned in the last sentence of the second paragraph are coming from. Are they from the re-issue of Add the Blonde, are they non-album singles, from other people's albums, soundtracks, etc.? I was a little confused by this part.
  • I would add a brief sentence mentioning the singles released from Just the Two of Us. Even though they did not chart, their existence should be mentioned.
  • Identify the release year for "6 in the Morning".
  • I do not see any information from the "Other recorded songs" section/chart mentioned in the lead. Same goes for the music videos. I would parts about this in the lead.
  • In Reference 17, do not put the title in all caps (even if it appears that way in the actual source). Same goes for References 49 and 55.

You have done good work with this list. My review is primarily concerned with the prose in the lead. While I have identified quite a few prose concerns with the lead, I believe that this can revised and made into an excellent FL. I will do another read-through once my comments are addressed. Hopefully, this FLC will get more attention in the future, as it would be a shame to see this archived due to lack of activity. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My magnum opus is ready for nomination. I started this about ten years ago, in a vaguely presentable form, but this rewrite, which has taken me about two years, is vastly improved:

  • The maps are much prettier ("baby poop brown" was a common term), and include the surrounding geographic context instead of floating in a sea of white
  • The maps are much better, with more standard text and better handling of other countries (and removing the "unclaimed territory" that continues to haunt me every time this goes viral)
  • The disputes are better handled/handled at all, separately, so we get one set of maps of "how the US sees itself" and one set of "how other countries see it".
  • Insular territories! These were a great omission from the previous one, when I was in the mindset of "they're possessions, not *part of* the country." But it doesn't matter - they should still be noted, as they are extremely interesting and important.
  • The CSA is now actually handled instead of a single lump change.
  • The maps on the page now chronicle the changes, instead of showing a snapshot of the country; this should make them much easier to follow, and are generally more useful to the reader. Snapshots are still available at commons, in the link at the top of the article.
  • This couldn't have been done without the amazing help of others, especially User:Jeff in CA, User:XavierGreen, and others whom I may have left out.

So, I now present it to y'all's mercy. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. If there are any questions or concerns i can help with going forward with the FL review, i am happy to assist.XavierGreen (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As I am sure it is for Golbez and XavierGreen, my assistance with this list is a labor of joy. Kudos to you! I too am glad to help with anything. Jeff in CA (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Clearly lots of work has went into this page, but there are quite a few changes that need to be made before it becomes featured. This biggest issues are that this list is not inline with the style of lists on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists). For example:

  • The lead is far too short for a list of this magnitude. Not done
  • The notes section should be made of notes, and located at the bottom of the page. Not done
  • I can give you a good example of why this is important. This note applies to only one entry: "Dates are given in local time. This only matters for some changes in the mid-Pacific. For example, Guam surrendered on the morning of December 10, 1941, which was December 9 in the mainland United States.", so why not add a endnote right after this one point, which links to the bottom of the page with other notes? This is the preferred style of wikipedia, so as to not overwhelm the user with trivia before even getting to the main list! I would use the {{#tag:ref format.
  • An excellent idea, but as I was doing it I realized we probably didn't need to specify at all. The date is not confusing, it's not like there's events on the previous and next days that we need to worry about it leapfrogging, so I removed it altogether.
  • There is no need to tell the reader to click on the image to view at full screen, this is implicit. In fact, any notes that tell the user what to do should be used very sparingly, and even then only in the notes section.
  • Just to expand here, you should never refer to the list itself directly, for example "This article includes", as that should be evident by the title/lead and redundant.
  • OK, but we have to communicate the rules of the list, otherwise people will be confused as to why things like Cuba, Berlin, and Attu are omitted.
  • I disagree, if you need to communicate the rules (beyond a legend), they should all be done after the table in a notes section, like every other featured list. There is no reason to have a completely new format just for one page. Mattximus (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no argument regarding "click on the image to view" and accept the removal. Just fyi, it is the second click (once at the Commons image view after the first click) that I found helpful in order for me to view the smallest, minute details of an image. Before working on this list, I was unaware (ignorant?) of that capability in Commons, because I had no need. It was an "a-ha" thing when I first wanted to get deep in the weeds.Jeff in CA (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The notes section is completely unsourced. Not done
  • Even statements like this: "the purpose of unorganized territory was to act as land for Native American settlement. " needs a source.
  • Yes, and not to be rude but I specifically mentioned that in my response, so I'm unsure why you're repeating it here. I've removed it, since it was difficult to source and ultimately unnecessary. --Golbez (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that having a row on "The State of Pennsylvania enacted a constitution, renaming itself the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" constitutes a territorial change... Not done
  • Then the scope of the page is more than territorial...
  • Probably right; if you have a better title, I'm open to it. I created the term "territorial evolution" out of whole cloth a decade ago.
  • The way I see it, a change of name is not a physical alteration of a territory, but it is part of territorial evolution. Just saying. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Some notes are not even needed at all "Due to the lower complexity, maps of the changes to the United States in the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, or northwestern North America include any disputes." If this is very important to a map, then the note should be on the map, not before the list.
  • Scrolling randomly I came across "The United Kingdom created the British Western Pacific Territories, including Atafu and Nukunono.", how does this related to the territorial evolution of the United States?
I can answer this, the inclusion of Atafu and Nukunono in the British Western Pacific Territories created the territorial dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over those islands. Prior to the creation of the British Western Pacific Territories, these two islands were not claimed by the United Kingdom.XavierGreen (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • If it said "The United Kingdom created the Confederate States of America, including South Carolina and Virginia," would you be asking why this is relevant? Earlier in the list, Atafu and Nukunono are explained, and now this is the earliest known date of their claim by the UK. Why were you confused? --Golbez (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would still be confusing. You would have to say the United Kingdom created the CSA out of x parts of the USA. Remember not everybody reading this is an expert. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • When the British claimed Atafu and Nukunono as part of the British Western Pacific Territories, it did not "create them out of x parts of the United States", because the United Kingdom did not recognize them as being possessions of the United States. Thus, the United States and the United Kingdom both considered themselves to be the owners of the same islands at the same time, and had parrallel administrations of their claims. This lasted until 1983, when the United States formally abandoned its claims to the islands and recognized them as belonging to the Government of Tokelau in the Treaty of Tokehega.XavierGreen (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That's all I can do for now, hope that's an actionable start. Mattximus (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm unsure what to do about the lede. Any suggestions?
  • The notes are more ... instructions/exceptions for the list. They belong at the top but perhaps could use a different name?
  • Thanks, not sure where that came from. Removed.
  • What in the notes section needs to be sourced? Apart from the definition of "unorganized/Indian" territory, which I'll work on, everything else seems to be either something that doesn't need sourcing, or is a negative, which are included to head off any confusions but themselves likely should not (and in some cases, could not) be sourced.
  • Any name change counts, especially since I referred to them specifically as the State of Pennsylvania in the opening entry.
Thank you for looking and for the review! --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to Oppose for now, there are serious MOS issues that would take quite a while to fix (not the least being a very short lead for a very long article, and an unorthodox note section). Also several points above remain, and I haven't even started reviewing the list. I'm happy to continue my review once the above changes are complete. It's an interesting article for sure, but it needs quite a bit of work to bring it up to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The intro is now longer, but the notes section (although in the correct place) is not in the correct format. Notes should be linked to the place in the article where they apply (as in all other Featured Lists with notes). Also you do not need to include lines like "To see snapshots of the layout of the country at any given moment, visit the Wikimedia Commons category via the box on the right." This does not follow the MOS for featured lists. Nor do notes like "The maps are" "this is a list of" and things like that. Think of them more like footnotes in books, explaining something that is perhaps a bit too trivial to include in the main table.
I can give you concrete example. "While the United States occupied Cuba for a time, it was not ceded to the United States after the Spanish–American War nor ever claimed by it." This should be linked to the place on the table where Spain ceded territory to the USA. I can't strike my oppose until these changes and the other outstanding ones above are addressed. This is a commendable list, however it's still a ways away from featured status. Mattximus (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, let's say I move the Cuba note to the relevant entry [done, by the way]. But how do I handle a note like "Descriptions of borders are of the idealized versions described in official documents, which usually differ slightly from the actual surveyed border in use."? Yes, Colorado is defined by these four lines, but the reality on the ground is closer to a thousand little lines with a thousand different angles between them. But this applies to every border description. I've removed the notes altogether (if someone's confused, they can ask - I don't need to be so proactive about fighting confusion) but I'm very curious as to any solution you may have for this issue. --Golbez (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm now very confused at what you did, it appears there are now no notes whatsoever, the whole notes section is gone. Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep! As I said, I've removed the notes altogether, since if there was confusion, someone can ask and we can work from there. But my question about what to do with the note about descriptions of borders. --Golbez (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Indian naval air squadrons[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk), Strike Eagle (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list. The list portraying the information about the air squadrons of the Indian Navy was created back in 2014, and has been significantly improved in November 2016. The article is well referenced with suitable citations from valid sources, and the images are appropriately licensed. The comprehensively summarizes the 21 naval air squadrons along with the aircraft used. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Link 'air squadrons' in the opening sentence.
  • Are short forms necessary in every instance?
Yes, they are. They are the part of the squadron names. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Are "SP's MAI" and "Brahmand" RS?
Yes, they are. SP's MAI is a fortnightly defence journal since 1964, and Brahmand is a defence magazine with a committed editorial board]. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Alt text missing from images

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I was browsing this list this afternoon and happened to visit the Tupolev Tu-142, which the list says is used by INAS 312 from 1988 to present. Visiting both articles says that the aircraft was decommissioned in March 2017, which the list does not reflect as it seems not to have been updated since November 2016. Is it possible that other squadrons might have decommissioned their aircrafts since November 2016 as well? — Iunetalk 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: @Strike Eagle: Sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to make sure you had seen my comment. — Iunetalk 14:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors[edit]

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it has now been developed to a point where it is comprehensive on the subject at hand, is neatly organized, and well sourced. This list is for the highly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe television series franchise (itself part of a larger media franchise), and with the article most likely to keep growing as the series expand, now felt like a perfect time to nominate, given the hard work various editors along with myself have put in over the years to make the list it is currently. Please leave any comments or concerns, and I (or another highly involved editor of the list) will do our best to address them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Psst- you didn't transclude this nomination. --PresN 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: Thank you! Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments epic.

  • I would restrict the TOC, who uses it anyway, so we don't have all that whitespace immediately after the start of the article.
    • I don't think we should limit the TOC, because users should have the ability to jump to each introduction heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • DIsagree. Have you ever found one example of someone who uses the TOC? The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • WP:READERSFIRST. How can you make a blanket statement like "who uses it anyway" (which I assume was a questioning one) and think all readers do not use the TOC. I for one do on many occasions, so that there disproves your statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Could use some citations in the lead, e.g. " began airing on ABC during the 2013–14 television season"...
  • " in 2018." avoid easter egg links like this.
    • How so? If earlier in the sentence/paragraph, we link the network shows to the television season article, the logic would follow through for the cable/streaming shows. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Linking just the year is an easter egg. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Again, how so? Per WP:EASTEREGG, a reader will be expected to be taken to an article about [Year] in television for the year links, given context. It won't be a surprise for them. An EGG link in this case would be something like this: "Netflix [[2015 in American television|released]]..." Readers would not be expecting to end up at the 2015 in American television article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Clark GreggM [4][5]" loads of these, no spaces before refs please.
    • No spaces if you look in the wikicode. Byproduct of {{note label}} I believe, not our end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay, well that needs to be fixed before I could support this. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • How is the proper implementation of a template used on over 10,000 articles going to prevent the passing of this for FL? If you have an issue with what the template does, please take that up on the talk page of that template. But don't let that be a hinderance for this article when myself and the editors of this article don't have any control on what the template does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention ABC in the lead but not Netflix, yet there's a whole table of Netflix actors.
    • Netflix is mentioned in the lead, first paragraph: "Netflix's Marvel series began in 2015 with..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Some responses above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose clearly no appetite to work collegiately here. I was trying to do you a favour by reviewing it but I'll leave it to others now. Unwatching, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss each point with you, but you leaving the discussion after I've made two responses isn't working collegiately. We can't do that if only one of us are bringing something to the discussion, and because you felt I was unwilling to work with you is a weak reason to oppose the nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For the issue regarding the TOS, you could try following the same pattern done with List of Alien characters. I believe that would be a perfect compromise as it would keep the information already in the TOS, but make it leaner and take up less space than its current version.
  • @Favre1fan93: I would actually say that this is my only real concern about this list. I highly respect The Rambling Man, and he/she is a much more experienced user/reviewer than myself. For me, I do not take issue with the links to 2018 (just make sure you keep up-to-date on this) and I understand the issue with the wikicode and I do not take issue with that either as it is consistent throughout the entire list. I would just suggest changing up the TOS as done in List of Alien characters as that would be appear to be a good compromise to me if that makes any sense. I will support this once my only comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Aoba. I will consider the horizontal TOC implementation. I still don't feel having it vertical is an issue. And even if the horizontal one is implemented as with the Alien article, a {{clear}} would still be needed for the pictures used, which would still have whitespace (though yes, slightly smaller than currently). And implementing the horizontal TOC, though parenthesis are used to distinguish subsection, I feel it is harder to follow the flow of the article than in the vertical position. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Adamstom.97 Do you have any thoughts on using the horizontal TOC? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with all of Favre's comments so far, and hope everyone remembers that this is a discussion that everybody wants to be cooperative with. We just want the best result for the article. If we are talking about Template:horizontal TOC, I just did a test to see what it would look like and it seems to bunch all the links together in what seems like quite an unreadable way. I'm sure it would be appropriate to use this for some articles, but considering the nature of all the subheadings here (lots of long "Introduced in ... season X") I think we would be doing a huge disservice to our readers here, as I do think the TOC is used by many readers (I myself definitely jump to specific sections if that is where I want to go). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If there was a way to better control how the sections appeared in the TOC horizontally, I think I would be in more support of doing that. But looking over the documentation of Horizontal TOC, it doesn't seem to allow much adjustments. And I don't think {{TOC limit}} is an option either, because we only have level 2 headings, albeit a good amount of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the discussion. I completely understand your point about the TOC. I just wanted to try to help by offering some ideas. I will actually support this nomination. I actually did not have any major issues with the TOC as it stood originally (I could see the use of a TOC to readers). I am not sure how it looks on mobile as I primarily access Wikipedia through my laptop, but I think everything is fine for promotion, at least from perspective. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. I hope your nomination gets more traffic and feedback in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments Aoba. FYI, here is how the site looks on mobile, which you can always look at for any article, by clicking "Mobile view" all the way at the bottom of a desktop article. I'll try to look over your FAC as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response; I always wondering if there is a way to see the "Mobile view" of an article or a list so I greatly appreciate the link. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Argento Surfer
I think the image for Krysten Ritter stands out in a bad way for lighting and angle. Is there a good reason for using it over, say, File:Peabody's 'Marvel's Jessica Jones' Night (27139382503) (edited).jpg? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The file you linked to is a much newer upload and I personally have not checked in a while if new commons images existed that may be a better fit. I'll add in the one you suggested over what was there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Cool. I can support this nom. The TOC and template issues seem trivial to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and comment! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Golbez
  • Could we have maybe an N/A column, with a rowspan maybe so there's not a hundred N/As, for the seasons preceding the introduction? In fact I've gone ahead and added this for the non-Netflix shows, but leave it up to y'all if you want to continue it for the Netflix ones.
    • I understand the intent of this but have issues with it overall. First, "N/A" would not need to be used; the grey cell is enough. As for "rowspaning", I don't feel it makes much difference over having individual rows. Also if we do it as you suggested for before first appearances, but then not for after, it would look disjointed in my opinion. So I think as is, is okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • But it wouldn't make sense to do it after; doing it before is because, well, it's impossible to appear in season 1 if your first appearance was in season 2. (Of course, now I wonder if we even need the table divided into 'introduced in' tables. It's obvious when someone was introduced.) --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why do some characters have multiple names listed? For example, Blair Underwood and Matthew Willig.
    • Blair Underwood portrays Andrew Garner, while Willig portrays Garner's alter ego, Lash. Per formatting in the character column, Underwood is first, with a break line indicating Lash. So the same is done in the season column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • The table needs to do a better job of explaining this, especially since Quake does not have two names, and Lash only has one name in one of its seasons. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Many of the citations are "X will be in this show". These are all predictive citations. Is there any chance that these can be condensed to ones that only say "X was in this show"? Descriptive, rather than predictive? Quick example: Scott Glenn as Stick, the only citations are, in order: "Glenn joins cast"; "Glenn returns"; "Glenn confirmed." In other words, all made before the actual show aired. I'd much rather have a source saying after the fact that they were on the show, rather than three sources saying they will be on the show.
    • I understand this, but if the predictive listing doesn't change from what did actually occur in the season, does it matter? If it had, the source would no longer have been used in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • It matters because it's sloppy and inherently inaccurate. We have no source saying if it changed from the season, so the article doesn't know. Let me paint a scenario: Person A and Person B are both said to be in an upcoming show. Person B drops out. But we have a source saying "Person A and Person B will be in this show!" So now an editor might reasonably ask, why isn't Person A listed? And you might say, because they weren't in the show. But there's no source for that. All we have is a source saying A and B will be in the show. It doesn't make sense to then require a second source, which weirdly wouldn't even qualify for the text, to then say that, no, that previous source was wrong, because B didn't make it to the show. Predictive sources should be replaced with reactive sources where possible (and presumably it's possible). --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The tables get very tall; by the end it was easy to forget what show/season went with which column. Perhaps the header should be added to every section?
    • I'm not opposed to adding these in, but maybe not necessarily after every section. @Adamstom.97: your thoughts on doing this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering that there is near-zero overlap between the casts of Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter, having the columns arranged this way - which does make sense chronologically - makes for a very broken up table. You get no sense of continuity of characters or actors, and outside of one character from the movies, Dum Dum Dugan, there is zero overlap in casts. I think it might make sense for the ABC table at least to bunch Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter together. So, 5 seasons of Agents of SHIELD, then 2 seasons of Agent Carter, then Inhumans. This would get rid of all the skips in between columns.
  • Now, I also see the argument of keeping them chronologically in order, like the film lists. But the difference is, due to the differing time periods of the shows, there is virtually zero overlap in the casts. So the pros are outweighed by the cons. If there were healthy interplay between the shows - like you see in the Netflix shows - then sure, go for it. But with the ABC shows there's zero overlap, so we shouldn't treat it like there could be. I understand why you're doing it this way, but I think the situation of the ABC shows indicates that it could be done another way.
  • Another option is to give each show its own table in the ABC section. That way you don't get anachronistic with the column order, but you fix the fact that the three shows have zero overlap.
    • I can also see reasoning behind this. But if we do change, I feel it should be across the whole article, not just the ABC series. Adam thoughts on this too? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • But the Netflix shows do share a common time period. For example, Rosario Dawson plays the same character in three of them; Carrie-Anne Moss is the same character in four. There is literally zero overlap in the ABC series, apart from, as mentioned, two movie characters. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A few 'better source neededs' or 'citation neededs' to be dealt with.
    • The "better sources" are passable, but overall we prefer to use season press releases (which should be released in late summer). If you'd prefer we remove them until then, I can do that. "Citation needed" was taken care of (just the one yes?) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
That's all. --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Golbez: I've responded to each of your points. I've also pinged my colleague Adamstom.97 who works with me on this article to get their opinions on some of your points. And just so you know, I think both of us are on and off Wiki for the time being, so we'll both try to make timely responses as best we can (in case it has been a bit since we last did). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I am against the big row-spanning in the tables. I understand the thinking there, but I feel it draws too much attention to itself and can also be a bit confusing by removing what I would consider to be guidelines from the character to the actor, showing readers who goes with who. As for splitting up into individual series, I have also been considering this recently due to the increasing size. If we do decide to do that, then I agree that we should be consistent throughout the article, and in that case we would have a lot of tables just for one or two columns (for now, at least). So I'm not exactly sure on that one. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't overdo the push for consistency. The ABC series and the Netflix series are very different beasts, and should be treated as such. No one is going to be confused. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I still agree with Adam that I don't think the big rowspan grey cells is any better than the individual rows, especially since it is used after first appearances in many cases. So the formatting would be disjointed. A reformatting of the article by having individual series tables, or grouping differently in single tables, isn't out of the question for me yet. I'd just have to create a mark up of it, to see if it seems more feasible to present as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Golbez: My apologies for finally getting around to answering some more here. Per a discussion I had separately with Adamstom.97 (link here), I reformatted the tables as I believe you suggested, which can be seen in my sandbox here. Firstly, Adam and I both agree the Netflix section should not be reformatted as such, but did agree we could probably split it to be series/seasons from 2015-2017, and then start a new table for 2018 onwards (much like the "Phases" sections on the sister List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors article). I am a bit more open to the reformatting of of the ABC series, but we would like to keep a similar formatting for the entire article, and in my eyes formatting by series for the ABC ones, results in what I consider "dumber" versions of the more extensive lists at List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters and List of Agent Carter characters. Please let us know if you have additional comments on this, and any other remaining thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

Notified: RGloucester, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Regrettably, I no longer believe that the list of British prime ministers can be held to such a high standard for much longer. When the list was first nominated for removal as a featured list eight years ago, the page looked rather radically different (and in my view, a much finer sight to see than the present revision that I take issue with). Indeed I have edited the article frequently over the past year or so, but the thing that has continued to bug me for quite some time are the cells within the table listing the policies and achievements of individual prime ministers. It's a largely subjective part of the table, rather cumbersome and pretty unpleasant to look at. Until that issue is reviewed, I honestly think that continuing to include this list among Wikipedia's best works is preposterous.--Nevéselbert 19:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused why you're bringing it to FLC, given that you seem to be the primary editor nowadays on it? Why not just have a talk page discussion, or boldly remove them yourselves? I'm not seeing any such discussions on the talk page, or attempts in the history. I personally like them and think they add some interesting context assuming they're sourced, though the modern PMs get a little out of hand on length, but I can understand disliking the subjectivity involved in picking the comments. --PresN 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I can see why this was nominated. Those long "notes" section are unreferenced and do feel kinda random. They are interesting though. The strange structure of the table does make it rather confusing to read, I wasn't sure that clicking on the date under the dates linked you to the election. Little things like Blair has 3 ministries in one link, but May has 2 ministries in 2 links, seem to be everywhere. I'm on the fence about this one. Mattximus (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes I am the primary editor, that is correct. And I have tried my hardest to improve the article without being too radical, as I hear that it's rather taboo on Wikipedia to dramatically overhaul a featured article without a broad consensus. So coming here and having the article examined for its worth before going about attempting to gauge consensus seemed to me like a rather sensible strategy. I should note that the article is rather stagnant nowadays if you forgive my edits, and considering the fact that the article has changed dramatically since it was elevated to the pantheon of featured articles in 08, I felt it would be more orderly to come here first. Had the article not been a featured one, I probably would have expressed myself on the talkpage. In regards to the notes, I cannot but reiterate that I find them utterly unaesthetic; and as Mattximus has rightly pointed out, they are also pretty random and unsourced. The list of Presidents of the United States has a much cleaner layout in my opinion. To those who want to learn more about the policies and achievements of individual prime ministers, there are plenty of links (e.g. biographies and premiership articles) that should be of help. Regarding the ministries, yes the situation regarding that is slightly complicated and hard to follow if one is unaware of the guide at List of British governments, and there is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Blair ministry as to whether that article should be split into three separate pages.--Nevéselbert 19:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Eminem discography[edit]

Notified: WT:WPMUSIC

  • As indicated in the lede, the Bubbling Under peaks need to be changed from 1xx to "did not peak on the Hot 100, but reached xx on Bubbling Under".
  • Most of the "other charted songs" charts don't appear to have charted. They are also unsourced.
  • "Guest appearances" has multiple unsourced entries.
  • "Music videos" is completely unsourced.

The previous FLRC in 2014 dealt with sourcing issues that appeared to have been taken care of. The article has changed significantly since then. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 08:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Delist, I'm not even sure why there is a music videos section in a discography page... but primarily it is the sourcing issues, and I suspect there may be some need to bring it up to date. Mattximus (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

List of regicides of Charles I[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Biography

This article sadly no longer reflects an article of good standing. Problems include, but are not limited to:

  • Addition of large-scale unsupported information (much of the "Others exempted" section)
  • Terrible formatting on the "Scottish Act of indemnity and oblivion" table (even the title has been poorly done)
  • Inconsistent citations in the notes section
  • Inconsistent citations in the lede

There were problems of WP:OWNership shortly after the list went through its FLC, and I see no point in trying to rescue this from someone who has stated that the featured process "is of little interest to me as I believe the process is broken in many ways". - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but there's also been zero discussion on the talk page to try to resolve this. Now, I'm just as familiar as anyone with the idea of giving up because you know what kind of people you're dealing with, but ... I dunno, it just seems weird to me to recommend a removal without at least token discussion on the front. Could the formatting be cleaned up, the inconsistencies be addressed? Yes. But, on the other hand, those issues pervade the article, not just the new list. I'm not well-enough versed in this to know if the new information is worthy or not, so... a spiritual Agree on my part. At least someone should care. --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It's such an interesting list, are you sure that the citations and table cannot be brought back up to standard? Is anyone working on this article? Mattximus (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "McCarthy, Benni". National Football Teams. Retrieved 17 July 2017.