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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



List of number-one Billboard Rock Songs[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Each time the Rock Songs chart is mentioned in an article, it's always linked to this page. Given how heavily linked this article is, I figured it should look nice. This was originally meant to be just a quick cleanup, but I figured might as well go all the way with this list.

This is my first FLC, and first Featured nominee on Wikipedia. Hopefully I didn't miss out on anything necessary for FL's, but if I did, I'll gladly input it into the list. BTW, this list was HEAVILY reliant on the List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s article. Like, seriously reliant, just look at the two articles. If this is a problem, I'll try and work to make them different. Finally, since this is a list that will most likely go on forever, I do plan on maintaining this list for as long as I'm on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking your time to look at this list! Famous Hobo (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • There doesn't seem to be any independent sources that discuss the topic of number-one songs on this chart in any detail, just Billboard itself. The only third-party source referenced gives some background on what the chart is but otherwise only mentions a songs that made this chart but did not go to number one. So in that sense, it doesn't seem to meet the requirements for stand-alone lists, thus failing 3b of the featured list criteria. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
That is true. But what about List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s or List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006? They rely solely on Billboard for references. Technically, since this is about a specific type of chart, I don't see why using that same source as a reference. I guess I could find individual sources from other websites for each week, but that seems a little absurd since they'll say the same thing. Don't get me wrong, if I need to do that, I'll do it (it'll just take forever). Famous Hobo (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Wrestlinglover
  • Lead
  • List of number-one songs
  • Statistics
  • By artist
  • Songs by total number of weeks at number one
  • Notes
  • References

List of power stations in Sri Lanka[edit]

Nominator(s): Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The page shows the most comprehensive list of power stations in Sri Lanka, something that is [oddly] not found on a single source anywhere on the internet or offline. The list is rich with content, referencing, pictures, and a map. I believe this should pass FL. Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Padma Vibhushan award recipients[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a list of India's second-highest civilian award recipients. I believe its written with the neutrality mentioning the refusals and returns of the coveted award. Looking forward to constructive criticism. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
  • DODs of posthumous wins should be mentioned. Maybe in footnotes like how they are done at Bharat Ratna.
  • Also, instead of using the Template:Dagger, can you insert the symbol "†"? The purpose of having a symbol along with colour coding is that it should help colour-blind people. But the template doesn't allow you to copy the dagger symbol and Ctrl+F it. This direct use of symbol will allow Ctrl+Fing for lazy guys like me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara is a 2011 film about self discoveries of three friends during a trip in Spain. It is the recipient of several National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards and other major Indian awards. As this is for featured list, I am expecting constructive criticism from reviewers and I will take care of them in its entirety. Hoping for the best. -- Frankie talk 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Support — Fixed a few minor issues myself. Can't see much ado about this list. Well done, Frankie. Keep up the good work.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Questions: As per criteria 3b, why can't this list be reasonably included as part of a the main article at Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara? The main article is less than 50kB and this list, including the lead, is about 22kB and lead would not be required if it is part of main article. And why is NDTV Indian of the Year notable enough to mention? They seem to be giving awards in different possible categories every year. Sometimes the "Entertainer of the Year" goes to a film and sometimes it goes to a person. Some year they give "India's Heroes" and then no heroes are worthy the next year and some "Daughter of India" is given. Awards by media houses should be gauged properly before giving undue importance in an encyclopedia. They at many times tend to be just promotional get-together of friends and family utilizing their in-house resources to satisfy our "GNG" requirements. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how a film with over 34 awards can be merged to its parent article as it, including the infobox and the third paragraph, will clutter the the ZNMD article. Besides, I have seen worse cases where they have been successfully promoted. -- Frankie talk 11:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You wouldn't merge it along with the infobox and few awards are already mentioned in the main article. The FA E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial also has 34 awards; but that's wins+noms. And what is the limit for forking it out? Do we have a fixed number for that? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea about the required size as I have worked on a few film accolades list, but The Dirty Picture's and its accolades size are almost the same. Nevertheless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very good justification so I will leave it on @Giants2008, Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and PresN: to judge whether or not this list is content fork. -- Frankie talk 13:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair. I have no experience of creating any featured content or awards-lists. So let them decide. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Given that there are over 60 noms and over 30 awards here, and that such a table was not present when the main article became a GA, I think there's enough here to justify a separate page. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Giants for the clarification. @Dharmadhyaksha: You may continue your review if you wish to. -- Frankie talk 18:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any other comment as NDTV one is also removed now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

  • "...written and directed by Zoya Akhtar". It should be "co-written and directed by Zoya Akhtar", as the co-writer is Reema Kagti. You can mention her name also, somewhere.
  • Delink ensemble cast, as it looks unnecessary.
  • "..featuring as the leading ladies." It should be "...featuring in supporting roles."
  • Authorlink Raja Sen and Mayank Shekhar.
  • You can elaborate the plot synopsis by adding that they explored themselves while overcoming their problems and insecurities. As self-discovery is the main theme of the film.
  • Wikilink the author at ref 22.
  • Publisher of ref 24 should be youtube, per ref 28. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The publisher of the latter is YouTube while the former is a video footage posted in YouTube.
Thank you for the comments, which were quite helpful, and have been addressed. -- Frankie talk 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Its in good shape now, all the best. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone naming[edit]

Nominator(s): Jason Rees, Typhoon2013

So me and Jason were recently just talking about bringing the article: Tropical cyclone naming to the FLC and I agreed. It sure does meet the criteria. Well, this is a list of names for tropical cyclones in each different basins and I believe it is important, especially for meteorologists. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to reiterate here I feel that Tropical Cyclone Naming meets the criteria for a Featured List as all names are sourced and the sections have an appropriate summary that is sourced. I asked Typhoon2013 to co-nominate it with me as he has had almost as many edits to the article as me.Jason Rees (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Bowman Creek[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm bringing yet another one of these to FLC, following my other similar successes at FLC. For those who don't know, Bowman Creek is a 26-mile-long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Luzerne and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania. It's also a regionally famous trout stream and many of its 26 named tributaries are also very high-quality trout streams. In short, it's a pretty pristine stream system and I was fortunate enough to photograph most of the tributaries during the height of autumn colors. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shakib Al Hasan[edit]

Nominator(s):Aftabuzzaman, Vensatry (Talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My first fifers-list (of a player's) in a long time. Aftabuzzaman created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied up the table a bit. Vensatry (Talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Whiplash (2014 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Whiplash is a 2014 drama directed by Damien Chazelle about a jazz drummer fighting to survive in a studio band led by a tyrannical conductor. The film received many accolades especially for the performance of J. K. Simmons in the latter role. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Support about the Academy Award, I didn't see that article is FL, so it's fine to me! By the way, I have a FLC, and I would love to read your comments. It would be great if you'd review Gaga's awards list! GagaNutellatalk 13:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think one is allowed to have more than two open nominations. As this is your third, the other two being this and this one, I think one of these should be taken care of. -- Frankie talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I don't think there is a rule preventing more than two if so could you point me towards it? All the FLC says is you shouldn't open a second one until the previous one has gained substantial support and concerns are resolved so it follows that you could open a third one if the second has gained enough support. Cowlibob (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The whole point of the rule is that there shouldn't be any more than two, to improve the odds that all FLC contributors will have the opportunity to have their articles reviewed with our limited resources. Having three FLCs open at once is pushing things a bit, and is the sort of thing the 2 FLC rule was designed to prevent. If you want, you could address the remaining comment at the Blue is the Warmest Colour FLC, which is close to a promotion that would leave 2 of your noms open; otherwise, I suggest taking this off FLC until one of the other lists is promoted. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thanks for the clarification. Blue is the Warmest Colour accolades list now has 4 supports with everything resolved. Cowlibob (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support excellent work on an excellent film. All my comments have been resolved. If you could review my Lost in Translation accolades list, that would be great. Johannatalk to me!see my work 23:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

NASA space-flown Robbins medallions of the Apollo missions[edit]

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers a lesser known aspect of the space program and the realm of space-flown memorabilia. Considered numismatic in nature (specifically exonumia), the practice of creating mission-specific space-flown medallions began with the Gemini Program and have been a part of the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and International Space Station missions. All but the Gemini program flights have been struck for NASA by the Robbins Company.--Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by note: I kind of take issue with the article title; it is very specific about "Robbins" "Apollo" missions, but the list itself has a big section on the Gemini non-Robbins medallions. I get that you're cutting off the list before the Skylab/Space Shuttle medallions, but the name doesn't match what you have here. And the Robbins bit is unnecessary; you're really talking about the "official" medallions, which were made by Robbins for the Apollo missions, but that's covered by the "NASA" qualifier. Maybe NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions? --PresN 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Pres- Thanks for the drive by comment. I understand what you are saying. There are a few issues with the name change. There were other medallions (odds and ends) that flew on one mission or another and the regulation of those objects was not well documented. The reason Gemini was included in a list about Robbins medallions is based on the near complete lack of information about their origin, minting process, etc. which would make them virtually impossible to stand alone in a list/article. I suppose the "NASA" qualifier could cover the legitimacy of the Robbins and Fliteline medallions. With respect, I'd like to hear from another reviewer or two about the potential title change, but if there is a consensus for it, I have no issue making the change. Thanks again.--Godot13 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


  • The name of the article sounds a bit fork-y. Any alternatives you could think of to make it sound more impactful to a wider audience?
    • I don’t think it resembles other existing titles in the space program but I’m happy to re-work it in conjunction with some of the concerns raised below (mainly about expanding the scope of the list).
  • Why are provenance entries hidden in footnotes?
    • They can be spelled out if you prefer.
  • I think a hidden legend for provenance would be useful for non-specialists. When I think of provenance I think of who manufactured it not who received it.
    • Provenance for collectibles and artworks generally denote the prior ownership of the object. In the case of these medallions, provenance accounts for a significant amount of the value. Also, I’m not quite sure what a hidden legend is…
  • same for flown/struck
    • Again, not quite sure what a hidden legend is…
  • what is "Fliteline"?
  • "It is unconfirmed" => "it is unclear"?
    • Fixed
  • intro does not discuss at all the first two sections, and they are not very well represented by the title.
    • I will work on expanding the intro to include them. As for the title, removing specific reference to Robbins opens to the door to several other short-lived medallion ideas that never lasted longer than a flight or two, but I’ll give it some more thought (per above).
  • at least two medallions are golden, and it is not obvious why
    • Two of the Fliteline medallions are gold-colored because the images were significantly better than any of the available silver-colored medallions for the same missions
  • how come some were auctioned? maybe the auctioned value could be mentioned in the table?
    • All were auctioned. There is a brief section discussing collecting and auction results but I didn’t think it was wise to put a single value for a particular mission medallion as factors like condition, auction year, and provenance significantly affect the value (double or triple the price), and therefore it may not be representative of the prices in general. Nergaal- Thanks for taking the time to make comments, other than those items I said I would address, please let me know if my answers are satisfactory.--Godot13 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Rugby Union World Cup hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Following on from the 2015 Rugby World Cup, I've decided to tak it upon myself to improve this list. After cleaning up the list I now believe it meets the criteria and is ready to be scrutinised by the community. One question I do have of reviewers is whether drop goals should be included in the list. Four players have scored a hat-trick of drop goals during RWC matches and I'm not 100% sure whether they should be included. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, my comments have been addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


  • I think the definition of a hat-trick needs a reference in this case, as I do not think it is very obvious why dopgoals should count
    • I don't think a reference is necessary, the terms of hat-trick are defined in the lead. I also don't see how its not obvious why drop goals would count. If a player scores three in a match it's a hat-trick by default. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Currently, the hat-trick article specifically refers only to tries. By your rationale penalty takers would get hat-tricks essentially every game. Right now your definition looks like OR. Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think 4, 5, and 6 should be changed to T4, T5, and T6 to be more clear; maybe change D to D3 for clarity
    • Again, not sure this is necessary, as the key states what the markers refer to, so should it be clear. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • You do realize that right now they look like they are references?
  • have colors for D and T entries?
    • I don't see the benefit of this when the D and 4,5,6 etc indicate which is which. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "multiple World Cup hat-tricks" => two WC ht
    • Done NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • the table feels unreferenced
    • It's referenced by the two general refs NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • No it is not. The the reference refers strictly to tries/drops, not to 2+1 or 1+2 scenarios. And you can easily explicitly put the reference link in the |+ line of the table
  • "Of the Six Nations and Rugby Championship teams, only Italy have failed to score a hat-trick at the World Cup." maybe something like "All but Italy of of the 10 teams in SN or RB teams"
    • I think it reads fine the way it is NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Someone not paying attention to rugby would not know that there are 10 teams in the tier 1 competitions, which is what the current sentence is implying
  • rm "Other than the Six Nations and Rugby Championship teams," and add "are the only OTHER teams"
    • Done NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "feat in the same match" maybe mention the year it happened
    • Done NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • not sure about including "two of Ellis's team-mates, Eric Rush and Jeff Wilson, also scored hat-tricks in this game"
    • Don't see anything wrong with it, it's not normal for three players to score three hat-tricks in a single match, so I think it's worth a mention. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Nergaal:, I've responded to them all. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WCW International World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

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

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

Older nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by Lost in Translation (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after extensive revamping and extending the article's scope, references, lead, infobox, and the like, I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Lost in Translation is the second feature film from Sofia Coppola, a comedy-drama about the one-week-long relationship between an aging, lonely movie star (Bill Murray) and an intelligent recent college graduate in an unhappy marriage (Scarlett Johansson) in a Tokyo hotel. It won 67 awards and was nominated for 109 total (including the wins). Thanks to any willing reviewers in advance! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Support It looks great now. Congrats! GagaNutellatalk 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Georgetown University alumni[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 23:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is quite comprehensive of the Georgetown University alumni that are notable and/or have Wikipedia articles about them. Additionally, the alumni are sorted into sections by field and each section is alphabetized. Each section's table is sortable by name, school, and class year. Each alumnus/alumna has his or her own corresponding citation to a reliable source. The lead section introduces and explains the list and gives a succinct description of Georgetown alumni as a whole. There is an identifying image in the lead section that is salient to the list with an appropriate caption. There is a legend that explains the sorting and listing of individuals. The See Also section links to other related Wikipedia articles. For these reasons (and in comparing the list to other featured college alumni lists, such as List of Dartmouth College alumni), I believe the list meets the FL criteria. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Ergo Sum 23:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Disclosure, I am close to the general topic, but my edits to this article have been limited. My only recent concern here was some dead links, but they seem to have been fixed. It is intentionally on par with other college alumni articles that are FLs, so it seems this deserves the recognition too.-- Patrick, oѺ 16:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Giro d'Italia[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the final Grand Tour teams and cyclists list of the 2015 season. I have already nominated List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Vuelta a España and List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France for FL and both have passed; I've also recently taken the main race article to GA-status. This list is closely modelled after the other two lists, although the sourcing for the Giro is a bit harder! Relentlessly (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Fantastic work. Kudos on improving all the Grand Tour related lists for this year! NapHit (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Support I can't find anything that I'd change with the list. Good work again. Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The "by team" tables seem to be a bit redundant. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal, I do know what you mean. They are, however, present in all the other equivalent lists, e.g. the two linked above. I see it as reflecting the difficult thing in cycling where riders are both riding for themselves and as part of teams. Relentlessly (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, but it doesn't seem to add much beyond what is in the big table. Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I know what you mean: there is a level of redundancy. It is a well established convention, however, and I think it is informative. Do you have any other comments, Nergaal? Relentlessly (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

João Sousa career statistics[edit]

Nominator(s): SOAD KoRn (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it presents a comprehensive list of João Sousa's statistical achievements during his career. Sousa is widely regarded as the greatest Portuguese tennis player ever. The list's development was influenced by other similar pages, including a featured one. I thank you in advance for your feedback. SOAD KoRn (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Parutakupiu:

Disclaimer: I've contributed to this page with 11 edits prior to this nomination (out of 17 edits in total), mostly copyedit-related chages.
  • Section headers should not be wikilinked.
  • Section "Top 10 wins" should be renamed to "Wins over top 10 players" for clarity. Similarly, "Singles Grand Slam seedings" should be "Grand Slam singles seedings".
  • In the Davis Cup results table, the wikilinks should be on the tournament round instead of the date.
  • Ref. 14 is not a dead url but the news article no longer exists.

Minor issues that you can easily address, SOAD KoRn. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Parutakupiu. All issues were addressed. SOAD KoRn (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Just one more: is the {{Performance key}} template under "Performance timeline" necessary, when you have the abbreviations table in the beginning of the page? The only thing in that template that is not repeated is the note saying "To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated either at the conclusion of a tournament, or when the player's participation in the tournament has ended.", which you could add by yourself to the section. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I never thought about that, to be honest. It's a template used in nearly every tennis player articles, but you're right, it's duplicated in this case. It doesn't make sense to keep it. I only kept the last phrase. SOAD KoRn (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The few issues I spotted have been addressed and this list seems fit for promotion. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

List of submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film[edit]

Nominator(s): Poon (Talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This list provides a overview of the submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. I look forward to the helpful comments on how to improve it. =] Poon (Talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Comments by Birdienest81
  • News sources whose titles are not italicized (i.e. BBC News, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, etc.) should be moved from the works field to the publishers field since they are not newspapers, books, magazines, etc.Yes check.svg Done
  • I'm not sure if using the film's poster is considered fair use in this context. The director's photo might be more appropriate in this case.Yes check.svg Done

More to come soon

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Birdienest81 =]. I will help to resolve it and check whether the image can be used or not. Feel free to leave more comment. Poon (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Comments by Cowlibob
  • Table needs rowscope and colscopes for accessibility.
  • Main image needs to be changed as I don't think the film poster will meet fair use. Director's image can replace it.Yes check.svg Done
  • Ensure that all the info in each row is supported by the references. Including language of film, title, original title, director etc.
  • PDF refs need page number where the info is found
  • Sorting needs fixing in the table. e.g. "A Few..." should be sorted under F not A. "The Circle" should sort under C not T. The and A should be ignored for sorting.
  • Director(s) should sort by last name of the director in the table.
  • Ref 33 is dead.Yes check.svg Done Cowlibob (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you =}, Cowlibob, I will try to resolve it. Do feel free to leave more comment. Poon (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Robbie Keane[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hot on the heals of Healy's list, I present the other Ireland top international scorer list. As always, your time and energy in contributing to the process is much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Me again! I am almost tempted to tell you: just transpose most of what you have on Healy's page to this one and you're fine. But, I'll follow common featured candidacy protocol instead and give you my (non-copyediting-related) comments:

  • The lead image does not have alt text.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To be consistent with the table layout in Healy's list, I'd center-align the content in the "Cap", "Score", and "Result" columns.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Add to the "Statistics" section hatnote an explanation of what the "Score" column indicates.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move the statistics source citation tag to the end of the caption of each table.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that I look at it: why not adding also the also appearances to the by-competition table? If you do, don't forget to update the caption accordingly.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If possible, wikilink (at least) the first instances of the newspaper/website and/or publisher parameters in citations, as they appear on the reference list.
    Colonies Chris will just unlink them in due course though... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref. 7 has some problems. Also, can you format ref. 8 with a citation template?

I think it's better to let other reviewers post their comments before attempting some copyediting on the lead. That's it for now. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Parutakupiu Ok, addressed or responded to your comments above, thanks for taking the time again to look at this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I've also performed a quick copyediting of the lead and tweaked the format of a few references. Please, check if the changes are OK for you. Nonetheless, I'm happy to support this candidate. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


  • From an image review perspective both images are properly licenced though the lede image still has no alt text.
    Alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Citations look fine with Checlinks though several BBC links are redirects but they do preserve the link, so are only a very minor issue that could be easily fixed. I fixed citation 7 that had errors.
    Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally I would prefer to see many fewer wikilinks in the tables, per WP:OVERLINK even though repeated links are permitted they really don't help the reader understand the topic; 22 Lansdowne Road and 44 Dublin links is just too much. Even just linking the first instance where there are multiple instance would be so much better IMHO.
    I understand the concern. I am just trying to be consistent, not just internally, but across similar articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's about all I can offer you but I like it. ww2censor (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


  • "in which he scored a hat-trick against the Faroes for the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification." for the doesn't read right to me, perhaps during?
    Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ref 9 is not formatted properly, no accessdate. Also can it be considered a reliable source?
    I don't know, it was there before I edited the list and uses a template {{NFT player}}, it isn't needed so I've removed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments, both addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to Support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

60th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1988 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • And the big five go to? And I've heard so much complaining about Cher getting an award I am surprised it isn't covered in here. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nergaal: Done: Added the major winners in the intro. As for people objecting to Cher's Best Actress win, that is a point of view issue that will not be covered due to Wikipedia:NPOV.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Johanna
  • "(commonly referred to as Oscars)" why is this necessary? It's also a bit of a disruption for me…if you want to refer to them as Oscars at some point, put it closer to the top. That's just my opinion.
  • In your refs, you seem to include the owner of the publication, a field that I have never seen before? Is this generally accepted and standard?
  • I would add something about the ceremony's negative reception in the lead, as it does make up a substantial part of one of the later sections.
  • After you list the major awards, there's a space that shouldn't be there.
  • "He previously won a Best Picture award as co-producer of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Who was the first person to achieve this feat?
  • Done: Added Olivier reference.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "In view the 60th anniversary of the Academy Awards," I'm not sure what you mean here, and it's clearly grammatically incorrect. If you mean "Because it was" I'm not sure what the hiring of Goldwyn, Jr. has to do with it.
  • I'm not really seeing anything in the sources that says that Chase was hired directly by Goldwyn.
  • "Despite the Writers Guild of America refused" it should be "refusing"
  • Done: Changed refused to refusing.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "the three head writers for the telecast" should be a comma before and after the names of the writers.
  • Done: Added commas.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, how were you able to access ref 27 (the USA Today source)?
  • I obtained the information using ProQuest NewsStand available through the Los Angeles Public Library's online database (only library cardholders can access the database, unless you know of a local library that provides acceess). According Wikipedia:SOURCELINKS, "The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL."
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Like the multiple awards and nominations tallies, I'm assuming that your observations about the nominations of top 50 box office films are standard, implied across sections, and not OR, right? That's not meant to be a patronizing comment--I'm just making sure. :)
  • If you can't find any mixed or positive reviews, that's fine of course, but I would remove the "most" from media outlets.
  • Done: removed "most"
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of the verbs you use to describe the commentary are a bit questionable in terms of POV, in my opinion. I particularly don't like "whine" and, to a lesser extent, "bemoan" and "lament". "Complain" is fine, but for the others, I would tend towards words like "criticize", "denounce", or "comment negatively", as they are more encyclopedic IMO.
  • Done: Changed negative sounding words to more neutral verbs as per previous nominations. According to Cowlibob, we have to be as passive as possible irrespective of the negative or positive content.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: This looks like a very good article! As you can see, I just had a few prose comments. The tables look great and it's well on its way to becoming an FL! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Johanna: Thanks for the feedback. Right now, I have school-related work to do, but I'm addressing your comments one at a time.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "became the eighth film to win Best Picture without any acting nominations" when was this achieve last? "a dull and anticlimactic atmosphere" should be probably be put in quotes. Also, might be outside the scope of the current nomination, but did anybody suggest that "a dull and anticlimactic atmosphere" might lead to decreased viewership the following years? Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

World Fantasy Special Award—Non-professional[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, back again with the 8th World Fantasy Award list, and #34 overall in our perpetual FLC series of sci-fi/fantasy award lists. This list is the counterpart to the recent FL World Fantasy Special Award—Professional, and acts as the non-professional "other" category of the World Fantasy Awards, covering your editors of non-professional magazines, heads of hobby fantasy publishers, and general amateur contributors to the Fantasy literary field. If you saw/reviewed the Professional list, this is basically identical with different names/contributions. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • "..and one of the three most renowned speculative fiction awards.." I assume this is meant to read "and are one" – if not, it certainly reads oddly the way it is.
  • "..fields related to fantasy that is.." "fields" is plural, so it should be "are", not "is".

Other than that, I really can't see much wrong with this. Harrias talk 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • It was meant to continue on from "critics have described it as"; now has an explicit "as".
  • Fixed.
--PresN 17:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, that first one does make sense when read like that, but it is more obvious now!
  • Support, a good solid list, you obviously know what you're doing! Harrias talk 17:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Hawkeye7
  • Looks good to me. The only comment is have to make is that it makes no mention of the objections that some winners expressed over having their home decorated with a bust of a racist like H.P. Lovecraft. As I understand it, the prize was changed two weeks ago so the paragraph is out of date? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: I don't want to go too into it in the individual category lists, and instead go deeper into it in the main WFA article, but I've adjusted the text (+ new cite) to say that they gave out Lovecraft busts through 2015, and going forward they'll give out something else, as yet unannounced. --PresN 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't you say why they decided to change it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: I didn't want to (though it's pretty clear why they did, the title in the citation makes it plain), since the WFC actually carefully didn't say why they dropped him, but I've now added that there were a lot of complaints about his pretty appalling racism. --PresN 19:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Wrestlinglover
  • Lead
  • Winners and nominees
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Elvis Presley filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk about a guy who needs no introduction, Elvis Presley inspired a generation of musicians. His film career began with great promise, but soon became little more than a profit gimmick for both his manager and the studios. The bulk of this list was created by an IP many years ago, but was in need of being brought up to Wikipedia standards, which I believe I have done. Within the lead, I've endeavored to explain how the promise turned to disappointment for Presley. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – now that everything has been taken care of, I can gladly endorse it. Good job! -- Frankie talk 13:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and guidance. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now

  • "other cast members" and the TV listings (except for the specials) aren't necessary.
  • As for photos, just the Jailhouse Rock publicity shoot will suffice.
  • No need for his military service; that belongs in his main article.
  • There is nothing on the levels of critical or financial success his films had
What I've check above was taken care of. Per what Frankie linked above, there is a consensus that budget and box office do not belong in a filmography. I've looked through Julia Roberts filmography, Ronald Reagan filmography, Charlie Chaplin filmography, James Cameron filmography, Amy Adams filmography - there doesn't seem to be budget and box office (financial success) in them. I don't see "critical success" in these either, unless you are talking about winning an Oscar. Elvis didn't win awards for his acting. I think what you're asking for here really belongs on the articles for the individual films. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Awards not withstanding, what I mean is include whether critics liked or didn't like his films. See Madonna filmography for a good example. I should note that the link FrB.TG gave pertains to tables, though, does not say anything against including box office figures in lead's prose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I understand what you mean, but I don't see that in the Featured Lists I've linked above, or in any number of others. I still believe that kind of information belongs in the individual articles for the films, and is otherwise covered in the Focus on movies section of his biography article. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just remove all the TV listings prior to The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis since talk shows and radio shows aren't supposed to be listed in filmography articles (unless hosting them), and this will be good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me make sure I am clear on your concerns. You are asking that talk shows and radio shows be removed. Well, there are no radio shows, so that takes care of that. Hy Gardner was a televised interview where Elvis and Gardner were the only people involved, not exactly a talk show, but I think it fits into what you are getting at. The Teenage Dance Party was a local version of American Bandstand. The only clip I've ever seen about that, is where Elvis and Wink are talking about a ring Elvis has donated for auction, and maybe that's all Elvis did there. So, maybe on a technicality that's something you are referring to. The other shows were musical variety shows with Elvis as the entertainment, no interviews involved, same thing as the Frank Sinatra show. Those shows have been out on DVD for a long time. I question whether or not anything but the Hy Gardner and Wink Martindale should be deleted. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Televised interviews and variety shows don't really belong either. What sets the Sinatra show apart from those is that it was a television special. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Just so we get everything in a row, so there is no later question about this. I will delete what you ask, if you can provide links to policy or guidelines that back this up. This being Elvis, I can see later edit wars, maybe even during this process, if there is nothing to substantiate this. — Maile (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking through WP:FILMOGRAPHY, it seems only films, TV shows (with episodes), and TV specials (which include TV films) are included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Then maybe it might be more prudent to move the article, because we have Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record with "Television: guest appearances of Peter Sellers" (one of which was Steve Allen); Lauren Bacall on screen and stage appearing on 3 episodes of a quiz show and voicing a character on an animated episode; Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record on Toast of the Town, which was the Ed Sullivan show , and a whole slew of variety shows; Ralph Richardson, roles and awards whose credits look to include variety and/or awards shows; David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print appearing on Jack Benny's variety show and an awards show; Stanley Holloway on stage and screen same thing. So, maybe this might work better if I just move the article. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You have brought up a valid concern here. For lack of any policy or guideline to substantiate it, I've posted a question on WT: FLC Elvis Presley filmography - TV appearances. — Maile (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
With or without variety shows, at least get rid of televised interviews. They're not exactly television credits and pretty much anyone can give an interview when on TV. What makes me inclined to remove them is that simply appearing on such shows doesn't really count as TV roles in the same playing playing/voicing a character on a TV show. Hosting such shows would be different since one is known to be running the show as opposed to just making a guest appearance on public TV. Essentially, "host" is a role, "guest appearance" as oneself on such shows isn't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Interviews removed. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with all of what FrB.TG says (especially with music career not belonging here). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • Ref 4 has a page range with a p. which should be pp. (the second one in the cite)
  • Unwanted quotation mark at the end of ref 17. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Taken care of. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
For the second comment, you'll want to have a period at the end of the cite, for consistency with the other references. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Done. — Maile (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga[edit]

Nominator(s): GagaNutellatalk and Frankie talk 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC), IndianBio

Lady Gaga in less than ten years has won several awards such as the Grammys, Brits, and VMAs. After a long work, we believe it meets the criteria. The awards in this list are reliable and we've added sources for all of them. GagaNutellatalk 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Johanna
  • On the lead, I would just ask why you are including some of these accolades here up top. For example, why is the "100 Greatest Debut Albums of All Time" there instead of another similar accolade. Currently, standalone accolades like this seem kind of arbitrary. Another example of this is 'such as a Do Something! Award."
I respectfully disagree! Honors of this kind should definitely be mentioned in an awards page received by a person especially when they are so major. Since this list is the "awards and nominations" received by here, I don't think we should miss any of the notable "honors" she has received.
  • It's possible there's more, but the only grammar thing I noticed was in the Virgin Music Media Awards in the first sentence. Replace "awards" with "awards group".
  • What is Daily Contributor and why is it an RS? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much Johanna, much appreciated. I have fixed your above comments. -- Frankie talk 21:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

An oft forgotten aspect of Hurricane Katrina's devastating landfall in the United States, this tornado outbreak was actually the largest such event on record in Georgia for the month of August. A record-shattering 18 tornadoes touched down on August 29 (previous highest was a mere 2 twisters) across Georgia. The outbreak also marked the first known tornadic fatality in August in Georgia and furthermore is the costliest such event during the month for the state. Over the course of nearly five days, 57 tornadoes touched down across 8 states as a result of Katrina.

In terms of formatting, the tornado table was created in mirror of the one constructed during the List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak FLC two years back and should meet all MOS standards. Although the article title doesn't inherently imply a list, I opted to focus the content on the tornadoes themselves rather than the meteorological conditions that would be present in most other tornado outbreak articles. If these details were to be expanded upon, it would simply be monotonous repetition of the same exact situation on five separate days. Anyways, I hope you all enjoy reading this little article and I look forward to comments/criticisms to make it the best it can be! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan is considered to be one of the greatest actor of this planet. He has nearly 200 acting credits. This list a well-written and well-sourced listing of his career. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment – Given the length of his career, make sure that all his films are listed in the chronological order of release date. Also, you might want to move the films that he had produced to a separate table to avoid confusion. Also, I cannot find any of his minor works (TV shows, documentaries, etc.,) of the pre-90s era. There must be a few, I guess. Vensatry (Talk) 07:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have arranged the films according to there release date. Out of nearly 220 films under his belt, he has only produced 15 of them. So, i don't think another table is necessary. About his TV work, KBC was touted as his television debut and he had only produced one show before. Also i'm still trying to find any of his work related to documentaries of pre-90's, but most are like his appearances on simi grewal kind-of-shows. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The table lists Saat Hindustani first. However, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the release dates of Bhuvan Shome and Saat Hindustani; the latter was released in Nov 1969. There are sources which say he actually entered films through Bhuvan Shome. I know it's a tedious task, but you are going to carry out this check for every single film of his. I'm not a big fan of unreleased films, but you might consider including this one as the failure was quite notable. I'm saying this because you currently have one uncredited appearance in the table. Coming to the producers list, it should be moved to another table for ease of navigation as he never acted in a few of those. If you're not very keen to have a separate table, make sure that you have secondary, tertiary, etc., sorts, separately for his on-screen and off-screen roles. I'll do a full review if time permits. Vensatry (Talk) 11:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added Khabardar. Almost every source claims that Saat Hindustani was his debut film. Even in an interview with barkha dutt, he himself said about his experience on his debut film with Khwaja Abbas. Those film whose release date's are available, i have listed them accordingly. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
[2], [3], [4] say otherwise. What about films whose release dates aren't available? Vensatry (Talk) 12:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Listing them after the one's who have a release date was the only choice I had. What should be done about his debut film then? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Although the criteria doesn't specifically mention this, I think this should really be taken care of. Vensatry (Talk) 12:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
How? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
We should have sources verifying the same. Vensatry (Talk) 15:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I have taken care of his debut film issue, with two sources supporting it. Also, if there are any other issues, you can mention them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see that you have removed your own comment which was about creating a separate table for 'produced films', with a hasty edit summary. Before I can proceed further, this needs to be taken care of. Vensatry (Talk) 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Irony! you didn't had the time to reply here, but Right after i deleted my own comments, you responded. Anyway, you know what i deleted so, you might wanna create the table for its betterment. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, I was quite busy for the past three days; I was constantly travelling. You might want to check my edit history. My routine editing resumed just this morning. What's the irony here, care to explain? Vensatry (Talk) 09:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, please accept my apologies and help. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No need to apologize, but please assume WP:AGF with reviewers. I'll review this one in the next couple of days. Vensatry (Talk) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha

  • "Lift Kara De (Remix)" missing from "Music videos" section.
The video features the look-a-likes of Amitabh Bachchan, Dharmendra, Ajit Khan and Dilip Kumar, they aren't real ones.
  • "Mile Sur Mera Tumhara" missing from "Music videos" section.
done §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Naam Kya Hai missing from "Films" section.
This film don't even have a wiki-article, also i tried to find any source that says he was in this film; but i couldn't. So, its not important to mention it coz every film cannot be mentioned here.
Wikipedia is not complete. ref. Every film can't be mentioned. But how do you gauge which should be and which shouldn't? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any further information regarding the release date or the director of the film. If you find one, you can add it yourself. I don't, but i have been trying my best to make this list as comprehensive as i can. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Added. It was missing from the documentary section.
done §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I also feel that his non-acting roles of being a narrator in films should be separated out.
I don't think so, because the title says "Role" and his role in these films are of a narrator.
Being producer is also a "role" in filmmaking. You need to separate out on-screen and off-screen roles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Read above.
  • Sometimes "Narrator" is written in Roles columns and sometimes in Notes column. That should be uniform.
  • Are off-screen works, like concerts, etc. omitted from this list on purpose?
Yes, because its a filmography not a discography. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
A discography won't include the concerts where he dances either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Its a "filmography", take a look at other ones. If there are any concerts and other stuffs, they should be mentioned in the biography or god-knows-which-graphy, but not here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • And continuing what Vensatry said, how are we ensuring that the list includes most of the works? I know that not all works can possibly be included. But what are we doing to make sure that not a large chunk is missed out? My quick search shows 4 missing entries listed above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Nearly 8-10 films were missing before i started editing this list, which i added later. Most of films that are important and are known and most who don't even have a article here; all are mentioned. I have also added many uncredited roles of his. But, looking at the gigantic size of his career, again i'm saying its not nearly possible or necessary to add every film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I shall review the list when all of the comments above are addressed. -- Frankie talk 22:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: and @FrB.TG:, If you have any issues, please proceed with it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • It is best suitable for the third and fourth sentences to be merged.
The third sentence mentions Anand, while the fourth one is written about Zanjeer; how can they be merged? Still I have trimmed the former one.
Nope, my comments were based on this revision. You seem to have done what I suggested. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1973 Bachchan portrayed the role of Inspector Vijay Khanna in Prakash Mehra's action drama Zanjeer" – it should either be "played the role of" or simply "portrayed" as "portrayed the role" is pretty vague.
  • "The same year, Bachchan appeared in Abhimaan and Namak Haraam. For the latter, he received the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor." – again, they can be merged.
Merging it will look something like "..appeared in Abhimaan and Namak Haraam; for which he received the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor". It can create confusion among the reader on whether he won that award for Abhimaan or Namak Haraam.
  • "Sholay (1975), which is considered to be one of the greatest films of all time" – I am not sure people other than those familiar with Bollywood or Indian film industry have heard of the film. It should be one of the greatest Indian or Bollywood films of all time.
  • "the romantic film Silsila (1981), the crime drama Kaalia (1981) and"
  • In the same sentence, all of the films' genres are included but Shakti's – pretty inconsistent.
  • "him the nominations for Filmfare Award for Best Actor" – definite article needed for the award.
Already mentioned in the 9th sentence.
So? -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue is resolved. Right? Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1990, Bachchan portrayed the role" – again, "portrayed the role"!
  • I think you should write about how Agneepath despite being a box-office failure, has developed a cult status in India.
  • The last sentence of second para is pretty short; you can combine it with the preceding sentence.
  • I think you forgot to italicize Kaun Banega Crorepati in the lead.
  • Wiki-link Hindi in the Documentaries section.
  • Reference 8 needs to have a page number.
It's not available I think.
It sure is. Page no for ref 8 is 163 while source 9's is p. 99. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Bollywood Hungama – italicize it in ref 20 and de-italicize in ref 22.
  • Ref 26 needs a page no. The same for references using {{cite book}}. -- Frankie talk 17:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, I can't see any.
Sure, they can be seen. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Page no. should be mentioned at the top or bottom left-right side of a page. I just can't see them there. Please add them yourself. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure (in ref 219) as a source is acceptable. If possible, find an alternative.
Its a case of WP:OSE, but Amazon has been used here. Still i'll try to replace this source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • To the best of my knowledge, Zanjeer is an action film. Though it had enough drama, i feel that "action film" can be a better choice.
Delinked. My mistake.
  • "These films established his image as the angry young man"—What do you mean by "These"?
  • Is Kaalia an action film or a crime drama? I think it is the former.
It's actually an action film with a lot of crime in the backdrop. So, "action crime" should suffice.
  • "Despite being a box-office failure, the former garnered him the National Film Award for Best Actor and has since developed a cult status in India." Is this statement reliably sourced?
  • Who is the director of Paa?
  • "appeared in the comedy-drama's Shamitabh and Piku."—comedy-drama's? Something is wrong here. Also, i don't think Shamitabh is a comedy drama. It was moody and tragic.
  • May i know why there was not at least once sentence about his limited work in the South (includes his debuts) and in English?
He has either produced or made cameo appearances in south indian films. I have intentionally restricted his production work with Tere Mere Sapne only, for the betterment of the lead-size. Also, about his hollywood debut, It was a five-minute role. Looking at the size of his career, i can't mention special appearances in the lead.
  • Why Ra.One is missing in the lead as his films as a narrator? It might be a failure, but it surely gained recognition.
He wasn't its narrator, per my knowledge. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This says something else. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Added. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the lead cannot accomodate more than this, considering his work. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • That 2011 image of Bachchan can be placed beside the "Television" section where you can mention him as the host of KBC. That would be more appropriate IMHO.
The image's size is bigger than the the "television" section table. Placing it there will look bloated.
  • Is there any reason behind the usage of that 2013 image? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Just for the beautification of the article, like these: [5] [6] [7]. But, I agree with you, and I feel that both those images look unnecessary. Will remove them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Tinashe discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This article details the discography of American R&B singer Tinashe, perhaps best known for her breakout single "2 On". Since then, she has gone on to collaborate with the likes of Iggy Azalea, Calvin Harris and Chris Brown. Thankyou for all comments in advance. Azealia911 talk 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999 Here are some quick initial comments at a glance

  • The lead looks disproportionate. One line, then a big para, then a short one. Try to a avoid one line paragraphs.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • (including five as a featured artist and two promotional singles). → I'm not so sure that this is completely relevant or needed.
Removed. Azealia911 talk
  • In the singles table, I'm pretty sure you're only supposed to include U.S. and then one component which is in their genre, not five of the same country. Fore example, Mariah Carey singles discography is U.S. and U.S. R&B (as she is an R&B artist and has prolifically charted on it). Celine Dion singles discography has Canada and Canada A/C (she is an adult contemporary singer)
The closest thing we have to a discography MoS is WP:DISCOGSTYLE, which explicitly states any combination of charts can be used for artists, using their success on the chart as a common sense guideline. Azealia911 talk
  • Are HotNewHipHop and InTheMix reliable sources? I didn't think Muu Muse was, either. But maybe it is now.
Switched Muu Muse, the other two references don't bring up any red flags to me in terms of reliability. Azealia911 talk

 — Calvin999 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio For the urls which require subscription, can you please have it as part of the {{cite web}} template itself? Use subscription=yes and it will auto generate the string. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Azealia911 talk

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Thanks for your comments SNUGGUMS! Azealia911 talk 11:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You are quite welcome, Azealia, and I can now support this for FL. Well done. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 20:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Eurofan88

  • I don't think "Vulnerable" was released as a single. I mean she never said it's a single. It's like Taylor Swift's "You Are In Love" [8], available on iTunes but was never announced as a single.
Someone 'never said it's a single' is irrelevant. It received singles release on iTunes, while Taylor Swift announced that all of the Target bonus tracks would be released as iTunes singles. Azealia911 talk
Iggy Azalea's "Impossible Is Nothing" was also released on iTunes but the article says it's a promo single. You reviewed that article but didn't tell the nominator to change it as a Single instead of Promo single.
That's because it was released as an instant-grat track, was the track of the week on iTunes for free at one point, hence followed the conventions of a promotional single. "Party Favors" meets none of these criteria, and I can't find any sources naming the song as a promotional single. Azealia911 talk
Okay fine. A few months ago when i asked you if a song remix which is available on iTunes is a single you said yes. Tinashe's remix for "Jealous" was released on iTunes as a single. So are you going to add it in the 'As featured artist' section?
Done. Azealia911 talk
I've reverted my edit, I can't find the Jealous remix single anywhere on iTunes, only in an EP with multipe remixes. Azealia911 talk
Never mind, found it lol. Azealia911 talk
Anyway i wish there was a consensus at the WP:Discographies if we should count songs remixes as singles or not :/ I pay too much attention to this kind of issues :D

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree, do you have any other comments for me to address? Azealia911 talk

  • Only the remix version of "All Hands on Deck" features Iggy Azalea, so i guess it's not necessary to mention Azalea as a featured artist. Plus she shot a music video for her solo version.
Azalea is credited in all the chart history from the US, Australia and the UK. So if I remove her name, I'd have to only report on the solo charting history, which was one chart, the rhythmic chart. Azealia911 talk
  • Why not to mention "Body Language" and "Drop That Kitty" in the lead, as they are the only two sperate articles of songs where she's a featured artist.
It didn't seem completely relevant to her career. Drop That Kitty flopped dreadfully and Body Language wasn't a huge worldwide success so it didn't seem necessary to include. Azealia911 talk
Linked. Azealia911 talk
  • Travi$ Scott, A$AP Rocky → Travis Scott, ASAP Rocky; no need stylizations. --Eurofan88 (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Changed. Azealia911 talk
  • Is that really necessary to mention singers and rappers' nationality in the lead every time? Also 'and featured' is used too many there, try changing it up like: 'and featured a guest verse/appearance from' for example.
Removed nationalities, switched up "and featured". Azealia911 talk
  • Remove "Dollar Signs" from the section 'Guest appearances'. It's already under the 'Other charted songs'.
It's deliberately in both sections, Guest appearances are non-single collaborations, it happened to chart as well so it's listed in both. This is common in discography articles. Azealia911 talk
  • "Party Favors" was commercially unsuccessful, failing to enter any worldwide charts. If that song flopped then no need to write about it with separate sentence.
Leaving it at just "The first was titled "Party Favors"" felt too short, plus the sentence about "Player" faring much better on the charts would also need changing to the very general """Player" entered...". It's fine. Azealia911 talk
music charts? oh come on Azealia, remove that music, it's not like the other times when you used just charts they were not music charts lol.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • Support looks fine to me! Though i would still change some things, but i won't mind to see this as a featured list as i like her songs. :) --Eurofan88 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from GagaNutella It looks great after the edits above. Now I think you need to add her music videos in this article. Here are some FL examples you can follow: Gotye discography, M.I.A. discography, LMFAO discography. GagaNutellatalk 18:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd respectfully decline to do so. Music videos should technically not be apart of a discography. By definition a discography is "a descriptive catalogue of musical recordings", of which music videos are not. If I see a FL with music videos already in I just tend to ignore them as a rule of thumb and will not remove them, but adding them seems redundant to this type of article. If she ever releases enough to make her own videography, perhaps I'll add them there, or even to her main bio article in the filmography section. I again bring up the closest thing discographies have to a MoS, WP:DISCOGSTYLE which doesn't mention music videos at all. Azealia911 talk 18:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There really is no requirement for including videos. However, remember that directors and release years would of course need citations if videos are listed. I personally wouldn't include videos when already listed in a videography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't see anything such in the discographies of Katy Perry and Lady Gaga 'cause they both have thier respective pages for their videographies. -- Frankie talk 23:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I just said that because I've seen many articles which include the videography. You can't just compare Gaga and Katy, who have a BIG VIDEOGRAPHY and global success, to Tinashe, who is getting fame now. I'm not saying x is better than y, but is like compared Madonna's videography, sales and other aspects, who is on music industry for more than 30 years to Gaga and Katy who have less than 10 years. Whatever, I support this list because despite this, I thinks it's all right. PS: If I knew my comment would cause all this trouble, I definitely wouldn't have come here. Like I said, I don't like to review discographies. I just did it for consideration to Azealia who reviewed our FLC and asked me on my talk page. So long! GagaNutellatalk 00:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • Support – with my comments addressed, I can endorse it now. -- Frankie talk 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13 - lead image needs Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It already had it. Azealia911 talk 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes it did, my apologies and my error.--Godot13 (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Azealia911 talk 11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow

  • The infobox picture is not very helpful in establishing who the artist is and what she looks like. Is there a better one?
Swapped. Azealia911 talk
  • There are subjective comments which form original research, such as "was a commercial success" and "commercially unsuccessful".
Removed OR comments. Azealia911 talk
  • The number of similar charts is ridiculous at some points. There are five US singles charts listed, including Digital Songs (a component of Hot 100) and R&B Songs (a subset of R&B/Hip Hop Songs). I can understand having a country's main chart and perhaps one genre chart, but anything more is superfluous. Consider that tables of peak chart positions in song articles shouldn't contain these minor subsets per WP:USCHARTS; it seems even more bizarre to list them here.
I've removed The R&B Songs and Digital Songs charts. Azealia911 talk
Can there be some sort of consistency between different tables? Adabow (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
In what sense? Azealia911 talk 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
US,US R&B/Hip Hop, US R&B, AUS, AUS urban for albums versus US, US R&B/Hip Hop, US rhythmic, AUS for singles versus US R&B Digital for promo singles versus US dance for other charted songs. Why are they different in every section?
Why on earth would I include charts in sections that she didn't chart in? Azealia911 talk 08:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should include entire columns of em dashes, but pick a number chart types and use them throughout (perhaps exception for other charted songs). If a chart is not relevant for a given section, just remove the column. Basically, what I'm saying is to remove US R&B from albums. I thought "2 On" would've appeared on the Australian Urban chart but upon a closer look it seems that ARIA doesn't consider it an urban single. Strange... Adabow (talk)
How do you propose I fix this? Azealia911 talk
Deitalicise names of organisations which do not produce original content, such as the iTunes Store and HotNewHipHop (which, by the way, should be replaced with a more reliable source if possible). Adabow (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand what you were requesting, what I'm asking is, how do I do that? Azealia911 talk 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Use the publisher parameter of citation templates instead of the work one. Adabow (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Per {{cite web}}, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work". Before suggestion arises, I can't use {{No italics}}, or manually use markup to change the display either. Azealia911 talk 08:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Never mind for now, then. I've asked a question about this at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Work parameter and italics, in case anyone's interested. Adabow (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Adabow (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, Adabow. Azealia911 talk 09:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

List of FC Porto records and statistics[edit]

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is another association football club's list of notable records and relevant statistics nominated for featured status. This one belongs to FC Porto, an historical Portuguese side with a vast domestic and European palmarès. I created this list from scratch and followed other similar and already featured pages during its development, so here's hoping that this one may have the same fate. Thank you in advance for your reviews. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support satisfies the criteria's style and structure policy. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm nominating another Gene Roddenberry article after the success of the filmography article. He has not received as many direct awards as others already at FL, but enough to warrant an article (especially due to the size of the main article itself. I based it on the IMDB list initially and went out with the objective to source all that were listed, although the "Executive Achievement" award from the Saturn Awards has been mentioned no-where else and so hasn't been included. I've also been through the official autobiography and two unofficial biographies in case there were anything further to add (there were). He claimed to have won a Nebula Award but aside from being recommended once for one, I can find no evidence that this is true.

I've formatted the list differently to those currently at FL, as I felt the formatting used in films worked better with one large table covering everything. In fact in Roddenberry's case, it really allows the read to track his awards through his career. Miyagawa (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from jimknut

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

  • Quite right, I'm not sure why I got out of the habit of doing that. Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So far as I know, this is the first list of nature reserves managed by a British wildlife trust nominated for FLC. It includes photographs of all the sites. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – a lovely page, and much more than a mere list. Plainly meets the FL criteria in my view. Only two comments. At Pryor's Wood, should "sparrowshawks" be "sparrowhawks"? And the absence of a Description for Rye Meads looks like an unintentional omission (FL criterion 3 (a) came briefly to mind), though I am perfectly prepared to be told it isn't. – Tim riley talk 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I don't know how I managed to miss Rye Meads - very careless. Both your points dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Another interesting list.

  • I think we have discussed the capitalisation of Local nature reserve before. On this list it is capitalised but on the relevant wp article it is not.
  • Although the MOS may have something to say about this but I can't find it at present.— Rod talk 12:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Should Lechworth be Letchworth in "Mr Fordham of Lechworth"?
  • In the table "Description" column some of the species and habitat types are wikilinked in some entries and not in others (eg "Water rail" is wikilinked in Lensford Springs but not in Oughtonhead)
  • The lat & long is given to six decimal places which may be too exact particularly for sites which cover 100 + acres.
  • Can you advise how many decimals I should have for different areas? All the advice I have seen is vague on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is no clear guidance on this. I have been told (not RS I know) that six decimal places will narrow it down to within a few feet - probably OK for a small building, and for a large city to use two decimal places. In my opinion a site of over 100 acres I would use 3 decimal places and for small sites 4 decimal places. Template:Coord just says "Avoid excessive precision (0.0001° is <11 m, 1″ is <31 m)." Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines is better with "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object" and a table of differences, but the variation from the equator to 45 degree or 60 degrees may be a bit more detailed than needed.— Rod talk 12:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. The location of the smallest reserve, Barkway Chalk Pit at 0.3 hectares, is slightly out using the only map which shows the reserve, Streetmap. As an experiment I tried finding the exact location using Grid Reference Finder, which gave coordinates accurate to 6 decimal places latitude and 10 longitude. Putting these full coords in the table for the site I tried again but it is still out, and Streetmap seems to give a slightly different position for coordinates from Grid Reference Finder. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've found this before for any conversion from grid ref to Lat & Long (or visa versa).— Rod talk 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the other lesser known species (eg Hornbeam) could also be wikilinked for those less familiar with the content area.
  • In Hunsdon and Eastwick Meads, I'm not sure about the wikilink to Lammas in "managed by the old Lammas method of hay-making followed by winter grazing" as this seems to be the day or celebration rather than a method for hay-making?
  • What is the rationale for the inclusion of specific sites in the see also? I thought initially these were other LNRs or SSSIs in the area not managed by the Trust, or those not included in List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire or List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire but that doesn't appear to be the case
  • Ref 3 (Charity Commission) doesn't have an accessdate (this may be a function of the template used)
  • This was added before I started working on the article, but checking the template documentation I see it is intended for external links, not citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 7 ("A Geological Conservation Strategy for Hertfordshire") seems to have a stray ">" before it

Most of these are minor quibbles and shouldn't be too difficult to resolve.— Rod talk 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for you review Rod. Sorry I forgot to do the final checkover before nomination. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • All the issues I identified are now resolved so I can support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

List of Leicestershire County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate (talk), ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. It follows the same format as three similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL and one which currently has three supports, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – Nice work Vensatry (Talk) 09:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


  • "the Oakham School Ground, which is actually located in the adjacent county of Rutland." This could do with a reference
  • The table doesn't fit properly on my screen for some reason. Could be to do with the images, whic I'm not sure are necessary anyway.

Looks good, otherwise. NapHit (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    • Both sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep, removing the images did the trick. Support now my concerns have been dealt with. NapHit (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1920–39)[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Following on from England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), here is the next in the series. This list follows the same format as that one. Although that nomination is still open, it has significant support and no outstanding concerns. As always, all comments, criticisms and nattering welcome! Harrias talk 09:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think that the names of parent companies for the publishers of references are needed as their names are same. -- Frankie talk 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

They were added (in the past, not this specific article) at the specific request of a reviewer at FLC. So, I guess it's probably a matter of personal opinion, as there is no specific guideline on the issue. Harrias talk 21:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think it's a little bit repetitive? Have a look ESPNcricinfo. ESPN (cricinfo excluded otherwise the same) BBC News. BBC (ditto). But it's just a suggestion and that you are not obliged to do it. -- Frankie talk 22:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessary, but if you add it should be consistent throughout the article (for other sources too). Vensatry (Talk) 08:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


  • "The emergence of Don Bradman as an extraordinary batsman..." Feel like this could do with a cite, especially with the use of extraordinary (even though that is true given his stats!)
    • Added another reference. Harrias talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "The England team of the era featured some of the country's best batsmen too." Not sure if "too" is necessary here, I feel the sentence works fine without it.
    • Removed as suggested. Harrias talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Their largest victory by runs alone during this period was also during an Ashes series against Australia, when they won by 675 runs in 1928–29, which is also an all-time record for any team." I would move 1928–29 to before "Ashes series" and have the link there instead, think it would be clearer what the link refers to and would make the sentence flow a bit better.
    • Reworked as suggested. Harrias talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe for the key, use a number that is actually in the list, as 123 isn't. A bit pedantic I know, but it might confuse a reader or two.
    • Changed the number. Harrias talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Could possibly make the summary table sortable?
    • I'm not sure, due to the nature of the table as an overview. On the other hand, it is rarely a problem adding functionality! Harrias talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than these quibbles, the list looks in great shape! NapHit (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @NapHit: I assume there was meant to be more on the final point? "Could possibly make the summary table" ? Harrias talk 12:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oops! I could have sworn I finished that sentence! Oh well, should be clearer now! NapHit (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Happy to support now my concerns have been dealt with. NapHit (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Wolfmother[edit]

Nominator(s): Shaidar cuebiyar & Dan arndt (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because it was originally included as a Featured List in September 2008, however it was delisted in June 2009 - primarily on the basis that there were only 20 items on the list and that it could be merged into the main article. At the time I was of the view that criterion 3b did not specify a minimum number of items within a list. In the last few months Shaidar cuebiyar and I have reviewed the article and updated it - it now contains 40 items, which is sufficient for a stand alone list. We have also undertaken significant copy edits to bring it to what we believe is a FL standard. The article has recently been reviewed by the GOCE, who have made further improvements. Dan arndt (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob

Unfortunate that this FLC has not received any comments for a month.

  • In keeping with other FLs of this type, the "awards section" should be merged into the lead. The lead should be an engaging summary of the list.
    • Done. Aside: my wiki collaborator, Dan, is on an extended wikibreak until mid-Jan. I have just returned from a mini-wikibreak, myself, sorry about the tardy response to your comments.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • For each award, the organisation that presents the award should be cited. Any information about the award written in each subsection should be cited such as when it was first given, for what, how the recipient is determined.
    • Done. New material added to explain each award giving body's history (first given), criteria (for what) and methodology (how recipients are determined). Additional references supplied to support this additional material.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Plainrowheaders should be used for all the tables. "wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" instead of "wikitable sortable" "plainrowheaders" should fix this.
  • What's the reasoning for inclusion in the "Other awards..." section instead of a subsection for the award itself like the Triple J Hottest 100?
    • Dan and I were told "Awards in "Other Awards" should be merged to singular "Awards" column" at a successful prevention of a FLRC back in July this year. At the Wolfmother list, awards with only one or two entries were combined into the current table instead of seven separate tables in that subsection. The Hottest 100 listings have 13 entries which justifies a separate subsection for them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Alttext needed for main image per WP:ALT. Cowlibob (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Done: the infobox template had used a previous parameter, image_alt, this is now changed to alt.shaidar cuebiyar (talk)

Alexandra Stan discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article is well-referenced and well-written. Nearly all the pages that link here are archived, so that the needed information can be also seen if the citation is "dead". I tried to do my best for adjusting the article's lead and citation style. Thanks in advance!

Well done. Now I can support this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks man! So, is it already a FL, or do we have to wait for a second opinion? Happy HalloweenΔ!Δ Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
FL candidates need at least three supports to pass and have to resolve all major concerns of reviewers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Azealia911[edit]

Comment by Godot13

@Godot13: Done! Face-smile.svg Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • How many albums is the lower limit accepted at wp:music for a stand-alone discography list? Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

List of reptiles of Bulgaria[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Please fix the color contrast in the table captions. White text on light blue is hard for some people to read. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like Anguis fragilis and Anguis colchica are seperate species now and both of them live in Bulgaria. --TnoXX (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have made an entry for Anguis colchica. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What about Trachemys scripta? Biserkov in his Определител на земноводните и влечугите в България gives information about this turtle, although it's an just introduced species.--TnoXX (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I added information on Trachemys scripta in the intro. --Gligan (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The same thing is about Natrix natrix and Natrix tessellata. Reptile Data Base claims, that they belong now to family Natricidae.--TnoXX (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Review by PresN

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

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

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

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

Review by Dudley

  • I have set my computer to flag up harvnb errors, and it is flagging up most of your citations and sources. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. You show a ref as <ref>{{harvnb|Biserkov|2007|p=34}}</ref>, but you should use either ref or harvnb, not both, and you have to show the author surname the same way in the source and the ref, but you have it in Latin script in the ref and Cyrillic in the source. As you are using sources in a different script harvnb does not work, so I think it would be better to show give the ref in the form <ref>Biserkov, 2007, p. 34</ref> It would then come out the same but not give an error message.
Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "There are six turtle and tortoise species of four families" Why lump them in together? I would give separate figures for each.
Done. I have put them together, because in Bulgarian there is only one word for all turtles and tortoises :) --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "14 lizard species of four families" You have 14 and then four. I believe the rule is you should stick to numerals or alphabetical for numbers, not mix the two. Also I would say "species in four families", but this is probably a matter of taste.
Well, I generally spell the numbers from 1 to 10 and write the numerals for those above 10. This system was recommended to me in a process of reviewing another article (I don't remember which one). --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "In addition, in recent years one turtle species, the North American red-eared slider, has been registered in numerous bodies of water all over the country and is not included in the list" If this introduced species is widespread, should it not be in the list?
It is my firm belief that introduced species should not not be included in any list of species. They should be mentioned/listed separately. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You have a note explaining conservation status codes as a note at the end. It would be helpful to readers to have it as a key at the start of the table.
I would be grateful if you do this yourself because I can't figure out where exactly to place the codes so that they could fit well into the list. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You say in the lead that some species have not been seen since the first half of the twentieth century. I think this should also be stated in the entry for these species in the table.
It is stated in the entry of the species - Vipera aspis, Vipera ursinii. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
But not the entries for the turtles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "With the exception of two species, they are distributed in the Western Hemisphere" Do you mean only found in the Western Hemisphere?
Yes. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review. I am going abroad now and will attend to these remarks upon my return next week. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is, as I said, a first rate list, but I am doubtful about the criteria for inclusion. Why exclude widespread introduced species? The title of the article is "List of reptiles...", not "List of native reptiles...". Would you exclude the European rabbit from a list of mammals in Britain because it was introduced by the Romans? If not, you have to choose an arbitrary cut-off date for a species to be listed. It also seems a stretch to include species not seen since the first half of the twentieth century, particularly the turtles, only recorded once or twice, over 65 years ago, in Bulgarian waters. I do not see how they can be considered "reptiles of Bulgaria". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Definitely worthy for FL status. I couldn't really spot any major issues. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Delegate comment

Putting back on my delegate hat for a moment- @Nergaal, TnoXX, and Dudley Miles: you all gave a review (of some extent); are you willing to support/not support/finished with your review? --PresN 16:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if @Gligan: saw my comments about classification of reptiles. After his answer I'll be able to support/not support the list--TnoXX (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography[edit]

Notified: Nehrams2020, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is not well-referenced enough to meet today's FL standards. The vast majority of roles listed here and the accolades are missing sources. Having a total of 12 in-text citations is quite problematic given how many films are mentioned. I'm also not sure if it's really necessary to include color coding for lead roles or have prose bits within the "Television appearances" section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I really don't think this could be a problem, as the General General has all movies covered.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Merely placing a collection of links in "General" isn't exactly enough; all accolades and roles need to have in-text citations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • At most case, I would agree that "Merely placing a collection of links" isn't exactly enough, but in this particular case, is seens unnessasery to add a <ref name=xxx />to every role and every movie, a recent example is 2014 Winter Olympics medal table, is pointless to add a citation to every NOCs, as they were all come from a same source, so list at "general". And I also feel this filmography case have more excuse, as those kind of infomation that people could simply watch the movie to find out, and this is the reason we don't need a citation for plot section in film articles (except lost films). I agree that this list could done some work like updating the lede, add citation for accolades (who add this anyway, when there's already a List of awards and nominations received by Arnold Schwarzenegger), but I don't feel the name of those movies, tv show, or roles needs this.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It most certainly is NOT "pointless" to cite individual roles per today's FL standards whether using one or multiple different sources for listings. The criteria has become more demanding throughout time even if this was enough for 2009's standards. "Simply watch the movie" is also not good enough, especially for uncredited roles. How well sourced other articles are is irrelevant to this page per WP:WAX, and that isn't a comparable example since it isn't even a filmography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. The table in unsourced with unnecessary use of yellow colour to denote the lead roles. The lead is quite poorly written and needs a thorough c/e. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist: poorly sourced table, poorly written introduction and the unnecessary yellow cell shading to highlight lead role. Drdpw (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)