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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  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:



Latin Grammy Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Following my last successful nomination with Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, I worked on another article for a Latin Grammy special award, this time one that focuses on honoring historic Latin recordings. Just like the other article, I have the table set up to the same format. I look forward to your comments! Erick (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

List of S.L. Benfica players (25–99 appearances)[edit]

Nominator(s): Threeohsix (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it's ready to be feature. I've research it from the Almanac, with newer players being online sourced and put a lot of work into, getting the stats right and also creating about 50 new articles. Learning from my first nomination, I've corrected all of the problems pointed in the other list. Please give me feedback to anything I've might have missed. --Threeohsix (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments (includes source review, but need to check table figures) –

  • "Since its first edition," since the inugural league season?
    • Then we would have two "inaugural" in the same paragraph, sounds better to use synonym to inaugural, don't you agree?.
  • "Of the players still at the club" - "Of the players still contracted to the club"
    • Actually no, Benfica has about 100 players under contract. To be in the list, they must part of the first team and obviously make a minimum of 25 appearances. When they're loaned, they're not counted.
  • What makes a high-quality, reliable source?
  • No dead or dab links, can't seem to open the ones with the site mentioned above
  • Images have appropriate licensing as far as I'm aware Lemonade51 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Be sure to add future nominations to the top of WP:FLC, so others can spot it. ;) Lemonade51 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

He did, but SchroCat reverted it- not sure why? --PresN 03:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops... Hit something by mistake there. Apologies Threeohsix. – SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

J. C. Daniel Award[edit]

Nominator(s): Charles Turing (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Instituted by Government of Kerala, the J. C. Daniel Award is the highest honour in Malayalam cinema. I hope this prestigious award will find a spot in the Featured Lists of English Wikipedia. Looking for some constructive suggestions. Charles Turing (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


  • "is the highest award in Malayalam cinema." says who?
  • Was it not awarded in 2015? If not, then this should be explained. If so, then the article needs updating.
  • "hosted the award.[6][1] " prefer citations in numerical order.
  • For the 2003 award, I don't really know what " due to some technical corrections" means.
  • No images at all for this?
  • In table No Award -> No award

Nothing major really, just a few comments and queries. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Also worth checking that every recipient in the list links to this article, if, after all, it is the highest award they are likely to obtain... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Bridge of Spies (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Bridge of Spies was a highlight of 2015 particularly for Mark Rylance's portrayal of a KGB spy. It received many awards and nominations which are listed here. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This lists all of the detachments formed by the Yugoslav Partisans to resist the Axis occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina during World War II. It leans heavily on the comprehensive 1982 source in Serbo-Croat on the Partisan forces by Anić, Joksimović & Gutić, but with important context provided by other sources. Partisan detachments in Bosnia-Herzegovina ranged in size from 16 to 3,000 fighters, and a total of 108 such detachments were established during the war. Some detachments were established, disestablished and re-established on a number of occasions as the fortunes of war waxed and waned in their particular corner of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It recently went through a Milhist A-Class list review, and while I believe it meets the criteria, I am keen to get feedback on areas for improvement. Thanks in advance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval[edit]

Nominator(s): Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm nominating this for FL status because I think it meets the criteria. I based this list of List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium (a FL). This is my first nomination and I'm looking forward to it. Thanks to any reviewers in advance. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on style and structure, nice work. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ariana Grande discography[edit]

Nominator(s): U990467 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because other editors and I have spent a lot of time collecting information in the hope of making the page more complete. I think that it has already been a FL-quality list. Thank You. U990467 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • U990467, this article is a list, so it will never go through to FAC. FLC (where you are) is the right place for it, as long as it is ready for the final polishing that the nomination process can provide. In other words, this is not the right place to look for feedback: this is where you come after feedback, or if you think that page is at the right level to become part of our featured content. Are you sure you want to put this though the FL process at this stage? - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

WCW Light Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 11:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is another tilt at the windmill for this one, which was archived after drawing no responses on its first candidacy. It's another short-lived pro-wrestling championship from the early 1990s. I'm aware that there's a degree of overlap between this and List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions, but this is a more thorough look at a separate entity which is only in hindsight considered one and the same with the latter so I don't believe that's going to be an issue. The article was given a copy-editing tag-team by Zppix and Baffle gab1978, and follows the same layout as the FL WCW International World Heavyweight Championship. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. GRAPPLE X 11:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe performances and awards[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe is still an icon, even over fifty years after her death. Her fame and status rests on the 29 films in which she appeared, of which possibly ten are truly memorable. This filmography has recently been updated and revamped, and is now at FLC standard. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by jimknut


  • The Jack Benny Program, The Bob Hope Show, and President Kennedy's Birthday Salute should be in italics, not quotation marks.
  • The Bob Hope Show redirects to a radio program called The Pepsodent Show. Either find a correct link or don't link it at all.
  • As Monroe's credits were all on American television, the column listed as "Channel" should be changed to "Network". ("Channel" is more apt to British television and thus does not apply here.) Jimknut (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Jimknut, all three suggestions followed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's probably not a common practice to add a comma after "in [the year]" in British English. Should comma be added here?
  • I think it is in AmEng, but I'd be grateful if a passing American could confirm this for us. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "the Hollywood Walk of Fame on February 8, 1960" - do we need to be so specific about the time? I think only the year would suffice.
  • I agree on the walk of fame date, which I've slimmed down. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Same goes for the dates in the television section.
  • I think we should be more precise on the television appearances where possible. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it should be "Ref" instead of "Notes" in the awards and nominations section. Just for the sake of consistency.
  • Yep – my error – I deleted the wrong column heading while putting it together. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing major; thanks for working on it. FrB.TG (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your comments – much appreciated. I've tweaked a couple, per your comments, and left a couple (one for others to clarify, as I'm not 100% sure on the US practice. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, I am sure a comma won't make that of a big difference. The change can be made accordingly as and when an American confirms it. Great work! FrB.TG (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Parks and Recreation[edit]

Nominator(s): Mymis (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating it for featured list because I do believe that it passes the FL criteria. The article includes a list of various awards and nominations received by popular American television sitcom Parks and Recreation that aired on NBC. Mymis (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Tarantino is hands down one of the best modern film directors (alongside Nolan, Spielberg and Scorsese); his films are often characterized by gore, violence, nonlinear storyline, and pop culture references. His most popular and successful films include Pulp Fiction (1994), Kill Bill (2004-05), Inglorious Basterds (2009) and Django Unchained (2012). This is my first filmography on a filmmaker and my first filmography since last August. I reckon it is close to meeting the six criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

  • There is a typo in the caption of the third Image.
Good catch!
  • I'd suggest you to trim the 'promoting H 8' bit from the caption, its too long.
  • A comma is missing from the first alt text.
  • "..Sin City (2005) is not count." I think it should be "counted" instead, maybe.
You got me there!
  • My Best Friend's Birthday was a short film, that should be mentioned.
  • Is it 'jewelry' or 'Jewellery'?
They're both, but the former is American English.
  • "His screenplay in Tony Scott's.." --> His screenplay for.
  • Do we need to mention that he appeared briefly in Pulp?
  • Kill Bill's plot detail is too much for a filmography, try trimming it down.
  • I guess he directed one of the stories in Sin City not a scene.
Not according to the source – it says, "Tarantino because he directed one brief scene"

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yash. FrB.TG (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the Philippines[edit]

Nominator(s): — Mediran [talk] 05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey. Nominating this because this former featured list is no longer a former featured list (by standards). This complete list of presidents of the Philippines from 1899 up to the present has seen great improvements. (I'd like to thank Corinne of WP:GOCE for doing an excellent copy-edit.) I believe the issues that were brought to light in the removal discussion almost eight years ago have been addressed and resolved. I'm hoping this will be re-promoted and get its place in WP:FL back again. This is my third FL nomination, in case you're wondering. I'm really looking forward to your feedback (and support, hehe). Thanks in advance Face-smile.svgMediran [talk] 05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The WP:LEDE section is much too cluttered. Sections of the article are still facing content disputes. It is too early for this to be a featured article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Which sections have the content disputes? I can't see anything tagged in the article at the moment, and there's nothing on the talk page that looks like a current dispute. For that part of your oppose to be actionable, we need to some some evidence of disputes that make the article unstable, per FL criterion 6, and I don't see proof of that here. Perhaps you could elaborate, for the benefit of the nominator and those of us who are FLC closers. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Giants2008. @Shhhhwwww!!: The lead is as concise yet comprehensive as it could be. The sections are well-sourced and verifiable either, so I don't know where's the dispute. I'd like to hear more from you so that I'll know what else needs work. Cheers — Mediran [talk] 06:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix videography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This videography covers rock musician Jimi Hendrix's appearances in films and videos. It was created by combining the relevant sections from the featured list Jimi Hendrix discography and Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. Besides convenience, it helps to reduce size problems with the discographies (WP:Article size). Since the last FLC, it has been updated with a public domain image of a television broadcast from Commons and the source links have been verified. Looking forward to your reviews. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because since I asked for the peer review in 2012, the show has continued to attract viewers and gather more coverage in not just industry press, but popular press as well. The page for the current seasons of Game of Thrones is among our highest-viewed articles, and inspired me to continue with the push to get all our episode articles to GA. This is my first FL nomination in years, so I apologize in advance for newbie errors and easily correctable oversights. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Considering the show's nature, I wonder if there should be a table of recurring characters killed. Nergaal (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't object to that if there were a call for it. Are other popular TV shows with a lot of character deaths getting such sub-lists to make FLC? I don't want to check any I haven't already seen, in case I do someday... Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Davis Cup champions[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because as I have worked hard on it recently and believe it is close to featured standard. As always, I look forward to your comments, and thank you in advance for those. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • it is run by the International Tennis Federation (ITF), who describe it as the "World Cup of tennis." Unreferenced - does the ITF officially describe the Davis Cup and not the Fed Cup as the real deal?
  • "The first event in 1900 was between Great Britain and the United States" I think it is worth clarifying that only these two nations were invited to enter. (I know you do below.)
  • "five singles and doubles matches" - four singles and one doubles would be more informative.
  • "The Davis Cup was founded in 1900 as the International Lawn Tennis Challenge." When did the name change?
  • "Australasia became the first nation outside of Britain and the United States to win the tournament in 1907" Australasia is not a nation. Maybe "Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) became the first victors outside of Britain and the United States when they won the tournament in 1907"
  • "British Isles" Why not Great Britain?
  • The history section is far too detailed, stating what is repeated below. A summary of the highlights would be better.
  • In the template I do not think that there should be a separate section for the 2016 World Group. A template should not be designed so that it becomes out of date each year. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of Local Nature Reserves in Buckinghamshire[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the fourth list of Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) in English counties I have nominated for FLC. LNRs are designated by local authorities for their biological or geological interest. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – With the fixes, I find the list to be of similar quality to the other ones in the category that Dudley has worked on. Nice job yet again. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Support – Meets the FL criteria, and is of the same high quality as earlier FLs in the same series. Two v. minor points in passing: "anthill" is one word rather than two according to the OED and Collins and is one hyphenated word according to Chambers (Chairborough Road); and I don't suppose you meant to pluralise "deer" as "deers" (Warren Nature Reserve). – Tim riley talk 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. Both your points are interesting. I have changed "anthill" to one word, although it looks wrong to me. OED quotes Smeathman 1781 as giving two words, but I fear that is not Sufficient Authority. I have also changed deers to deer. OED gives deers as "occasional", so not actually wrong, but on reflection deer does sound better. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Support – only quibble is you could link county in the lead sentence. Otherwise it's pretty faultless, prose is sufficient, table is appropriately formatted and so are the references. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Link added. Thanks very much Lemonade. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Selena Gomez discography[edit]

Nominator(s): SennKev (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This article details the discography of American singer Selena Gomez. I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and I believe the article is well-referenced and well-written.

I would support this article if the lead was in fact "well-referenced", which it's not. It has a mere three references for four entire bodies, and has quite errors.
  • You need an extra space in between "Come & Get It" and "which reached the top 10..." in the lead's third paragraph
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Certifications (Gold, Silver, etc.) should not be capitalized when mentioned in the lead, so "certified Gold by the RIAA." --> "certified gold by the RIAA." in each instance this appears.
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • I am confused as to why the first two paragraphs of the lead discuss her work with The Scene, yet there is no mention of it in the article. And since it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, I don't see the need for the first two paragraphs.
    • Yes check.svg Done
If you cite sources for each statement in the lead without one, I might change my mind, but for now, I do not support this FLC. Carbrera (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC).
@Carbrera: Is it okay now ? Thanks for your review. --SennKev (talk) 9:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Support, everything checks out with me now. Carbrera (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I now support the article. If you're not too busy, it would be appreciated if you left a review on my FLC Thanks – jona 23:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the article meets the FL criteria, and happy to support it. Mymis (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mymis: Thanks for your support! --SennKev (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • The lead is entirely US-centric and doesn't take into account her success in any other nations
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Band work is better for her bio or band's main page
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Planned musical hiatus is also better for Selena's main bio
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • If talking about opening sales in lead, then just stick with pure sales rather than figures that include streams
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Unless they were singles, promo singles, or songs that happened to chart anywhere, none of the "Other appearances" entries really belong here and would be better for a page of songs she has recorded
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Music videos really shouldn't use rowspans; they hinder accessibility in instances like this
    • Yes check.svg Done

At least for now, I oppose this nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for your comments! Is it okay now ? I have changed many things... Could you please check ? --SennKev (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It's looking better, but the referencing still needs work as Mymis pointed out earlier. Print publications like Billboard and Entertainment Weekly need to be italicized in all instances while web-only publications (except for online-only magazines/newspapers) such as iTunes and shouldn't be at all. Additionally, "" isn't a reliable source, "" should be "Official Charts Company", and there's a dead link. All publications should only be linked in the first ref they are used (i.e. just link Billboard in ref#3, and Recorded Music NZ in ref#50). The use of publication owners/publishers (i.e. Prometheus Global Media, The Walt Disney Company) has also been largely deprecated for a while. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review ! @SNUGGUMS: Not sure but I think it's great now. --SennKev (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
E! shouldn't have italics, and only link Recorded Music NZ in its first instance within refs (that would be ref#50, unlink it in ref's #54 and #57). Link Consequence of Sound. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks you so much ! @SNUGGUMS: I hope it's great... --SennKev (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no more glaring issues and can now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for your support! --SennKev (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1980–89)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) and Vivvt (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured list because with some inputs from you this can easily become a featured content. It is inline with the past FLs of Padma Bhushan of past decades; the 1950s and the 1960s.
Note: Vivvt & i independently have one open FL nom each. But both those noms have received supports and have no pending open points. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mediran
  • It looks good, but I observed that the lengthy second paragraph seems a repetition. It also appears in the other FLs you provided. Don't you think it's better if it were cut out and placed somewhere else (e.g. its main article) since this list, after all, is only about the awards given out in the 1980s? Take a look at the 68th Academy Awards for example. It doesn't include the history of the Oscars because it's already in some umbrella article but it has all the information about the Oscars of 1996. I don't know. What's your say?
    • I think its okay to mention only about the brief history and medal specification. Some of other do follow the same pattern (Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients: 1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945)
  • "registered in The Gazette of India, a publication used for official government notices and released weekly by the Department of Publication, Ministry of Urban Development". Is the "Ministry of Urban Development" another name for the "Department of Publication"? This should be clarified for "backgroundless" readers (like me).
    • Done
  • Fix the dimensions of Hosur Narasimhaiah's image so that it's uniform with other images.
    • Replaced
  • Fix the quote in the refs per MOS:SINGLE ("Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks").
    • Done
  • Since you provided archive links, use the parameter deadurl. Set it to yes if the orig link is dead or to no if not.
    • Done
  • In the notes, "Indicates a citizen of United States". There should be a "the" between "of" and "United". The same with "United Kingdom".
    • Done
  • "In a career spanning over sixty years, the 1983 recipient filmmaker Richard Attenborough is best known for his eight Academy Award winning film Gandhi (1983) and is considered as 'one of Britain's best-known actors and directors'." Could use a hyphen there: "eight-Academy Award-winning film" or "eight Academy Award-winning film". "The 1983 recipient" suggests that Attenborough is the only awardee of 1983.
    • Done
  • "(CCMB), who". The comma is unnecessary.
    • Done
  • Remove "then-" in "then-President Zail Singh".
    • Removed

I'll add more. — Mediran [talk] 07:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mediran: I have fixed most of your comments. Please let us know if you have more. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing some of the minor errors I observed. I did minor changes to the list, and here's more
  • "returned it in 2015 in protest of the Dadri incident". What incident?
    • Done
  • The colon in "The order of precedence is: Bharat Ratna..." is unnecessary.
    • Done
  • "Non-citizen recipients" to "Foreign recipients"?
    • Done
  • In the refs
    • Should be "ESPN Cricinfo".
      • Done
    • The publisher of The Hindu should also be specified in other refs.
      • The Hindu is a newspaper and mentioned as |newspaper=The Hindu. Per Template:Cite news, "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher)."
        • Got me there. I thought the word inside the parentheses in Ref 9 is the publisher.
@Mediran: I have fixed the above comments as well. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The list now looks better, but I'm still not sure about paragraph 3. I think it still needs to be worked on. You could copy-edit it yourself or tap our editors at the WP:GOCE. — Mediran [talk] 08:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I've made edits myself, but I have not much time to do more. I wish this will get through. Cheers — Mediran [talk] 08:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Tentative support (for now). Don't see changes, but I am hoping it will be fixed soon. My concern is the wording of the third paragraph. What's the change in government? What was it before? Maybe this can be told in a better, more understandable way. — Mediran [talk] 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Lakes in Minneapolis[edit]

Nominator(s): BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 03:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And now for something a little different! There are currently no featured lists of lakes (Justin Timberlake discography notwithstanding) and where better to change that than from Minneapolis, Minnesota, the City of Lakes? The structure of this list is based on List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek and other lists of tributaries. This is my first nomination to WP:FL and I look forward to making sure this is the best list it can be! Uff da! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 03:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Great idea for a list. I learned a lot from this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • One nit. Would it be possible to link Grand Rounds Scenic Byway to "Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway"? I believe that's the name sometimes in use by the Park Board, plus it's the honest truth. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Added that fact and the fact that it's an artificial lake to the Notes column. Thanks for the suggestion! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – Clear, evidently comprehensive, widely and thoroughly referenced, and well set out and illustrated. A pleasure to read, and clearly of FL standard in my view. Tim riley talk 10:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • Given that the map/list explicitly calls out lakes that are not actually in Minneapolis but the city still claims, I think the list could be a bit clearer on why Wirth Lake is included, as it clearly lies entirely outside of the city. It's implied that it's because the city runs the park that it's in, even though most of the park and all of the lake is outside of the borders, but nowhere is it explicitly stated that Wirth Lake is not in the city proper but counted anyway. --PresN 00:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This has been giving me a great deal of grief for quite a while. This entire list sort of arose out of the question "How many lakes do we have in Minneapolis??" and the subsequent research. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is not the City of Minneapolis; it was created by an act of the Minnesota legislature in 1883 that called for its establishment to be put to referendum for the citizens of Minneapolis. The referendum passed and the Park Board was established but while it runs concurrent with the City of Minneapolis, it has its own powers to levy taxes (I think) and its own budgets and so forth. So perhaps the option that is least confusing is to simply remove Wirth Lake from the count because the more I think about it, the harder it is to justify a statement like "Well, it's not in Minneapolis but it's claimed by an entity that shares a name with Minneapolis" as a valid reason for including it on the main list. I'm going to go ahead and remove it to the Other lakes section and update accordingly. Let me know, @PresN: and others, if you think this change is valid. Thanks, BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 04:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That would make more sense to me, but I haven't reviewed the list in depth or ever been to the city. It just struck me as really strange when I saw the map. --PresN 01:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I will probably have only intermittent internet access until July 17 so I may be slow to respond to comments until then. Thanks. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 06:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • This is a first-rate article. My only queries are about the second paragraph.
  • "The Dakota harvested wild rice from lakes, including from Calhoun, upon whose banks stood the community of Ḣeyate Otuŋwe, founded by Maḣpiya Wic̣aṡṭa in 1829. The lakes' shorelines were marshy, deterring large-scale settlement and development by White residents." This confused me. At first you appear to be talking about something in prehistory, and then you seem to imply that it took place after 1829. You might say something like In x period the Dakota harvested wild rice..." And then new sentence: "In early 19C lake shorelines marshy were... deterring white residents...but Dakota community founded 1829. BTW I do not think "White" should be capitalised.
  • Why did Cleveland recommend purchase - to turn the area into parks and preempt development? If so, it is worth saying so.
  • Was the dredging to get rid of the marshes and make the area habitable? It sounds as if it was private iniatives which made some of the lakeside private. If so, it should be explained. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Good comments all. I'll look into these questions within the next several days. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 15:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: I've addressed your first two points to the best of my [references'] abilities; I cannot determine why the park board initiated the dredging by I've tried to clarify that as well. Please let me know if you have any other thoughts! Thanks, BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Selena singles discography[edit]

Nominator(s): – jona 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has since been copy-edited by members over at WP:GOCE and was updated to match model FL singles discographies. – jona 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you and good luck on your FLC. Best – jona 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

  • Provide an Image of Selena with alt text.
  • There's no free image of her on Wikipedia. – jona 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Her career began as lead vocalist of Los Dinos in 1980." --> as the lead vocalist.
  • Done. – jona 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the opening sentence should be "American singer Selena had released".., because she's dead.
  • Done. – jona 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikilink Billboard in its first appearance in the references.
  • Done. – jona 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Is ref 24 a RS?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Montana[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This is my 9th nomination for list of local governments. I have completely reworked this one to now include more demographic data than anyone really needs. I've also tried to standardise formatting to be consistent with other local administrative lists (List of cities and towns in California, List of cities and towns in Alabama etc...). This time I've tried using more templates to make the list a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: It would be nice if in the Type Column, you also mention the class of the cities. For example, Billings would be City (First Class).Blackhole78 talk | contrib 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I have tried what you proposed in my last list, List of cities and towns in Alabama, but I'm actually considering removing them for several reasons. I'm unaware of any single source that lists which city is which class. Population doesn't automatically change the class, there is some procedure to do so, thus it is impossible to know what class any particular city is (see Birmingham, Alabama for one such anomaly). For the Alabama list, I assumed this to be the case, but no source backs it up, which is not very encyclopedic and is the main reason I'm going to remove them. Secondly, they don't actually mean much functionally. If you have a source that gives either the classification of all cities, or what the functional legislative differences are (there may not be any), I will be happy to add both/either to the list. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I can see you take care the sort problem this time, good work.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jarodalien, getting better each time. Mattximus (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Emirates Cup[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Another football nom. The Emirates Cup is a pre-season tournament, hosted by Arsenal which tends to run every summer with few possible exceptions. Just like the competition itself, this list is largely modelled by the Amsterdam Tournament which was promoted years ago. I've polished the history bit, added some pictures and think it's now worth a shot here. As ever would welcome any sort of feedback, mercy buckets....Lemonade51 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mymis

Some minor suggestions/comments:

  • "It has been held every summer since except 2012" -> not sure if "since" is needed
  • "pitch renovation" -> maybe link "pitch"?
  • "if teams were tied on points" -> "if teams are tied on points"
  • some captions of photos end with a period, some don't
  • "March 2007; managing director" -> I'd suggest starting a new sentence after "2007"
  • "the Intertoto Cup however meant they" -> "however" sounds out of place in the sentence, maybe not needed at all
  • "with over 110,000 filling the stadium" -> "with over 110,000 people filling the stadium"

Mymis (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mymis:, thanks for your comments, have made changes. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Some further suggestions:

  • "were formally announced weeks later" -> i think the exact date when the cup was officially announced is important
  • Done
  • "earnt" -> "earned"
  • Going by British English spelling, it's perfectly fine to use 'earnt'. I've changed this however.
  • Not sure whether commas are really needed in short sentences throughout the article, including: (I may be wrong tho, my English is not perfect)
    • "Arsenal won the inaugural Emirates Cup, held in 2007."
    • "Emirates Cup in 2010, but failed to top the table in the next"
    • "A wide shot of the Emirates Stadium, where Arsenal faced Real Madrid"
  • Only changed the first sentence, the last two I think need commas because one is an independent clause, the other for semantics and structure. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Never seen it spelled as "earnt" and Oxford English Dictionary interestingly does not even include such word. And about commas, sounds fair.
You have my support; great job. Good luck! Mymis (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Support – Read through the list and didn't spot any flaws worth pointing out. I must admit that the most interesting part for me was recalling that the Red Bulls actually won a tournament once. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Threeohsix The prose is top standard, but I feel something it could do have some improvements. You cover the history well, but about the reception? Is it viewed as a top pre-season tournament, how's it compared with others in terms of appeal? with some many pre-season tournaments available, do clubs often skip this one to play for another, like Audi Cup? what's the cache that Arsenal spent to bring the teams there? Also it's the trophy generic or about Arsenal or Emirates? I know we're always depend on sources and what they cover, but it would be great not to have just a history of who won it.--Threeohsix (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments @Threeohsix: I think 'reception' is pretty self-explanatory as the first tournament was well attended and it's been like that ever since. Reception of managers, players? Not so sure. There's very little context to go on because it's a pre-season competition (the media's coverage isn't as comprehensive as a cup final or league fixture), and Arsenal doesn't release information about how they decide which clubs to invite and such. Hope that clears up your concerns. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Williams on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Williams is an actress who, despite several acclaimed roles, likes to keep a low profile. This listing of her stage and screen appearances has been well-cited, and I appreciate all constructive comments on its improvement. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at the article talk page. This editor has a long history of violating policy just to put a FA/FL under his belt. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: Delegates please note that if I was violating policy, I wouldn't have FA/FLs under my belt. Musdan77 is trying to insinuate that the FLC delegates who have passed my previous 21 FLs don't know what they're doing. This is just another bad-faith tactic by Musdan77, who has a history of attacking editors who write featured content. Look at the persistent disruptions that Musdan77 made at Emma Stone's awards list that eventually became an FL. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I checked the whole discussion and can concurr that Musdan77 needs to WP:DROPIT. Being tag happy for the sake of it when you don't even understand the basic structure of lists is borderline disruptive. Further disruptions if reported by other editors should be taken to WP:ANI. —IB [ Poke ] 12:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Some of their edits were good suggestions. For example, there are redundancies: section titled Film has a second title called "Film roles of Williams" which can go. Same with other two sections. Why do you need 2 titles for each list? However I do disagree with the lead, it is of an appropriate length. Mattximus (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, one is a section title and the other is the table title. But yeah, that isn't really important and I have removed the latter. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Chandler bibliography[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Chandler was an excellent author who struggled initially with writing in the 'hard-boiled' style for which he is best known. This list has been re-written with new material added, and all constructive,comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. Only two, very minor comments, both to do with the lead section:

  • "British-American" – I see from the main Chandler article that he took British nationality in 1907. If that means that he was hitherto an American citizen, I think perhaps British-American would be better switched round to American-British, though the point is not of great importance.
  • For the Williams quote in the final sentence of the introduction, I think the prose would flow more smoothly if you moved the opening quotation marks three words to the right, beginning the direct quote with "a touchstone..".

That's all I can find to throw in. Clear, well laid out, thoroughly sourced and referenced, and doubtless comprehensive. Happy to support promotion. Tim riley talk 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. Your suggestions happily adopted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • Looks fine. A few minor comments.
  • Why no pictures? There is the photo in the article on him and a (small) commons category on him.
  • The pic on the article is a non-free one, so we can't use it. The two images on Commons are of a house and blue plaque, which doesn't really illuminate readers. I'll have a look at Double Indemnity images, but we're moving away from the books a bit with those. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that a bit more on his early background would be helpful, particularly his travels. For example "Born in Chicago, Illinois, he was educated at Dulwich College from 1900." seems a non-sequitur.
  • Yep, I'll add a little more to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • How does this look now? - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it worth commenting on the change in his output - poems and essays up to 1912 but almost none thereafter?
  • I didn't come across any explanation for it, but I'll dig through the sources again to see if there is something interesting in there we can use. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • How does this look now? - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am uneasy about having writings by and about him in the same section. I would suggest splitting the first section in two.
  • Is this in the Miscellany section? All the works there are by him, even if edited by others. The Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe work does contain more of other people's work than Chandler's, but there is an original work in there. Are there any in particular that you feel would be best removed? - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I meant "Publications in periodicals and newspapers". Some of the interviews such as "Raymond Chandler Talks of James Bond" and "A Confession by Raymond Chandler" sound as if they were written by a journalist who interviewed Chandler. If he was interviewing someone else, this should be made clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, OK. All those interviews are listed in the main source, so I'm a little uncomfortable excluding them (it feels like we're applying too much editorial judgement if we exclude). What I've done to clarify the matter is to state that RC was interviewd by a journalist, which should at least clear up the matter in people's minds. These interviews should be mostly RC's words, even if interspersed with any background provided by the journo. Does this sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well on that point I disagree. I cannot see that it is exercising too much editorial judgment to arrange material differently. I think it would be better to have a separate section for (say) "Interviews with Chandler". The comments quoted would have been chosen by the writer, and might have quoted him inaccurately or misleadingly. Of course as you are now making this clear in the notes it is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • OK - I've split the interviews out into a second table in that section. Does that work OK? - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No change needed, but is there any evidence that he knew Wodehouse? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure they did, but I do hope so. Odd though it may seem, there are some similarities between theirphrasing from time to time! - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Dudley. I'll work on some extra text to add to the background. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks again Dudley Miles. I've addressed your points again, and added new material. Please let me know your thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks again Dudley Miles. As per the above, I've split the interviews out into a second table in that section, which should be better. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

List of G:link stations[edit]

Nominator(s): New9374 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I created the article and think its on par with similar lists. I am a relatively new editor. This is my first nomination. Please excuse my inexperience. I would appreciate any assistance. Please note I cannot find any detailed ridership figures besides those in the lead with inline citations. Please note I cannot find any distance figures; the article previously included figures that were original research but I removed them. New9374 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gonzo_fan2007
  • Just my opinion, but I would bold sixteen stations in the G:link, not just sixteen stations.
  • The second paragraph has a lot of short, choppy sentences (specifically "There are no park and ride lots.") and a lot of them start similarly (i.e. Eight stations... , fifteen of the stations..., etc.). If you could go through it, copyedit and merge some of those sentence it would help the flow of the lede.
  • Add a comma after "2018 Commonwealth Games" in the third paragraph.
  • Rewrite "It is planned to have three station:..." to something like "Current plans call for three new stations:...". "It is planned" sounds off.
    • Yes check.svg Done difference. Re-wrote to "Three new stations are planned". New9374 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite "It is expected to take 11 minutes to travel the extension" to something like "The new extension will add approximately 11 minutes to the total travel time."
    • Yes check.svg Done difference. Re-wrote to "The new extension will add 11 minutes to the total travel time." New9374 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Add "of the new" to "Two of the new stations will have free park and ride lots with a total of 1,400 new parking spaces."
  • Add a comma after "public consultation" in the last paragraph.
Tables and Key
  • I am not sure the paragraph in the Key section is needed. All of the info in this paragraph is readily stated in the tables, and thus seems repetitive. I would recommend removing.
  • I would recommend using different symbols for each transfer station, like † or the {{Rint}} template.
  • Remove the Park and Ride column in the main table, as it doesn't provide any useful info (all of the stations have 0 park and ride spaces).
  • Zones are mentioned in the table but not explained in the lede. I would recommend explaining what zones are, how many zones there are and how many stations are in each zone.
    • Yes check.svg Done difference. Explained in the lede what zones are, how many zones there are and how many zones the stations are located within. New9374 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would recommend removing the Time column. If you want to keep it, you need to mention the time is in minutes [i.e. the column name could be Time (in minutes)] and include a {{Note}} explaining it (i.e. that the time builds up from the first station at Gold Coast University Hospital). Also, the Time column should be unsortable {i.e. !class="unsortable"|Time).
    • Yes check.svg Done difference. Mentioned the time is in minutes. Included a note. Made the Time column unsortable. New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • difference. I think it's unnecessary to mention "(in minutes)" in the column heading and it's "enough" to just mention "in minutes" in the note. Plus I don't like how it widens the column. Hope that's okay with you. New9374 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Have the future stations been designed enough to include their Grade and Platform Layout (similar to the main table)?
  • You may want to consider adding a See Also section and linking Public transport in Australia (note the piped link to the section) to help readers.
  • You may to consider adding {{South East Queensland public transport}} to the article (and maybe linking this article in the template).
  • All sources look good and are reliable.
  • All images look good, freely licensed and include alt text and descriptions.
    • N Stale difference. Now that the "Coordinates" and "Tourist attractions nearby" columns are added, I thought it'd be best for the table to be full width so I removed the photo thumbnails to increase the available space and instead added photos to the table in a new column and systematically wrote new alt text. Just like the featured list List of London Underground stations. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would recommend adding a system map to the article (check-in with the Graphics Lab for requesting a map be made. You can see my request here for how easy it was). It wouldn't hold back my support, but system maps really help the reader understand where the stations and system are located.

Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I made a small copyedit here, fyi. Hope you don't mind! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good! Nice work. I am fine with your responses regarding the minutes and the see also section. Good luck with the map request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, only Shiftchange will know for certain, but what would the likely reader of this list be wanting to know? While some of the readers will be train spotters and fascinated by the G:link stations themselves, I suspect the bulk of readers will be people planning on catching the G:link and wondering where they should get off. I suspect many tourists will want to get off at Cavill Avenue being the heart of Surfers Paradise. And I imagine both the hospital and the GU campus will probably be popular destination for some folks. And if I wanted to go to GCEC or the casino, I'd want to get off at North Broadbeach. If I wanted to go to Pacific Fair, I should go to South Broadbeach. Maybe you want to create a separate column for Local Attractions to avoid linking the station name itself (and there might be multiple things to link, e.g. casino and GCEC). Given the Gold Coast's status as a holiday destination, I think local attractions are more important for this list than if this was a list of suburban tram stations in a non-holiday town. Kerry (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done difference. Added, sourced from "Stations Archive". RideTheG. Keolis Downer. 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016.  New9374 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted some of the tourist attractions from the list because I don't think they're sufficiently notable and are tangential to the subject of the list, and because Wikipedia is not Wikivoyage. Thanks, New9374 - you've done a good job improving this list! Gareth (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Kde crystalsvg eraser.png Undone difference. Hi Gareth, unfortunately you cannot delete some of the tourist attractions just because you don't think they are sufficiently notable. That selection criteria is ambiguous, subjective, and unsupported by reliable sources. Kerry asked me to add tourist attractions to the article and so I objectively added all the tourist attractions from the official G:link website. If you would like to remove them all from the article though, for the reasons you mentioned, then that's fine, please discuss it with Kerry. And once you two reach consensus, I will edit the article accordingly. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think selection criteria applies to this discussion; the list is of the G-link stations and their selection should conform to the criteria. I don't think it applies the column on attractions (I wouldn't call them "tourist attractions" as hospitals and universities aren't really tourist attractions). I agree with Gareth that using all of the things in the official G:link guide is maybe too much (out of proportion). I'd had been thinking more in terms of a smaller set of local "attractions" that would attract significant numbers of people (readers). It's not unusual for Wikipedia articles to limit lists to things-that-have-Wikipedia articles as a basis for judging notability ("if it's that important, why hasn't someone written the article?") and I think that criteria would prune it down to a more manageable list. I note too that you can pipe the wikilinks to reduce some of the length of the names, e.g. "Sea World" instead of "Sea World Resort & Water Park", and you could probably reduce "shopping centre" and "shopping complex" to "shops". And I think the one uncited sentence about ghost tours in the Southport article probably fails the notability test. And finally I would point to the fifth of Wikipedia's pillars, no matter what a rule says, improving the article is what matters, which is imprecise but generally resolves itself through discussion and hopefully consensus. I sense you are frustrated that you cannot move quickly to a "final version" for FL status but this to-ing and fro-ing is normal and does take time. This is very new article which therefore won't have many watchers yet, so it may take some time before people who might have an opinion come forward. Remember too that a lot of Wikipedians are not active on a daily basis. Given it's a very new article, maybe you want to draw it to people's attention at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Getting just a few opinions might not really represent consensus. Kerry (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
difference. I have re-named the column "Attractions nearby" as per the official G:link website. Why don't you think selection criteria applies to the column "Attractions nearby"? They are still lists even if they are lists within a list. Using things-that-have-Wikipedia articles as a basis for judging notability is unacceptable because there are notable things that do not have articles yet. Please provide an example of a featured list that uses this as a basis. Using your example, Sea World Resort & Water Park is a resort that adjoins the theme park Sea World, and the official G:link website states that the resort is an attraction - not the theme park - so you are arguing for including attractions that are not supported by reliable sources. There really is no need to seek many opinions from noticeboards, etc, when precedents have already been established in the nineteen already featured lists of stations and this nomination has already recieved support. Please don't guess my feelings. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC).
I have invited Shiftchange, Gareth and Mcz7 to discuss the inclusion criteria with you Kerry. And once you four reach consensus, I will edit the article accordingly. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have removed the attractions from the article. I have instead created a new Route section within the main G:link article which details the line, its stops and the attractions served. This is similar to the nineteen already featured lists of stations and the good article Bergen Light Rail. Please share your thoughts. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Kerry Raymond

Could the table have the lat/long coordinates for the stations restored please; they appear to be in this version of the G:link article. Could look at adding a {{GeoGroup}}to show the set of locations on Google Maps, Open Street Map etc. Thanks Kerry (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you need worry too much about minor differences in lat/long especially once you are at 4 decimal places and beyond; it makes little difference in practice. And the techtonic plates can move at up to 10cm or so a year (although generally less so here in Australia), so all lat/longs become less accurate over time anyway. Kerry (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, New9374 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sam Waterston on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Arbero (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I would like to make this list my first featured list. Thanks. Arbero (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Nice work on the text and tables. I've not checked the sources, but may get round to a source review before the end. – SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, I hope everything is alright with the article. As for the references, I'm quite sure most of them are reliable, but a check wouldn't hurt. Arbero (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Overall, the list looks good. I've got no problems with the sources, they all seem reliable. — Mediran [talk] 08:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Mexican National Women's Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  23:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This list is the second to last list needed to create a Feature Topic on current CMLL Championships (the last one has not yet been created) and it follows the formats and standards of the twelve other Featured Lists I have gotten promoted over the years, and as always this list has benefitted from input received during previous FLC nominations and thus to me represents the qualities needed in a Featured List. I welcome all feedback and will be happy to take all constructive suggestions on. Thanks in advance for anyone's input.  MPJ-US  23:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Support from the POV of a wrestling editor: based on my review below, all concerns were addressed. starship.paint ~ KO 13:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Here are my comments: starship.paint ~ KO 06:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • ... created and sanctioned by the Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. - needs a source.
  • Fixed
  • In the table, when you state live event, can you also state the promotion holding it? Because you said AAA and CMLL used the title but I don't know when they did.
  • I will go over the sources and clarify the time line
  • I have indicated which shows were specifically CMLL and AAA to clarify the timeframe a little better.
  • Please explain what is the point of the 1, 2 and the A, B, C in the table. Why not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?
  • I see how that may look odd, so here goes. I have source confirmation on who the first and second champions were. Champions listed as A, B, C etc. have been sourced as ho!ding the title at a certain time but no confirmation on what number they are. There could have been 5 champs between 2 and "A", or none but records don't confirm that. It would be Original Research to list Rose Williams as " 3" and so on. The lineage is unclear so I tried to not make the list misleading. MPJ-US  11:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: Ohh okay. I get it now! This explanation needs to be in the table Key. Could you leave a note there? Also, instead of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I would suggest A1, B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, D1. starship
  • I have changed it to your suggestion, grouping them where the order of reigns is known.

.paint ~ KO 12:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Jennifer Lawrence, as we all know, need no introduction. She has achived both critical acclaim and commercial success, and that too in such a short span of time. Coming to the list, which provides the information about the awards and nominations she has received, I feel meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this. Krish | Talk 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I guess I'll take the first bite at this list. I figured I'd take a look at this list since I managed to promote Bradley Cooper's awards list to FL status not too long ago. I'll take a closer look tonight, but just something I noticed right of the bat. Recently, this was a thing, and I had to reword the opening line of the Bradley Cooper list to not include the number of awards and nominations. You should definitely look at it. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, my previous commitment took much longer than I expected, and I'm kind of tired. But I still did a cursory look through the lead, and so far so good. One thing that can be easily fixed is "her portrayal of Raven Darkhölme / Mystique". Personally, I think you can leave it as Mystique, as most superheroes in superhero movies just go by their superhero name instead of their real names (Captain American, Wolverine, etc.) There is also another mention of Raven Darkhölme / Mystique in the last paragraph. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Fixed: Famous Hobo Thanks for looking at the list. I really appreciate it. Krish | Talk 17:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There are WP:OVERLINK issues in the lead (People and Teen Choice Awards, Golden Globe). – jona 23:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • "notably at"..... including would be more neutral
  • "Her performance in the comedy-drama Silver Linings Playbook, she won"..... missing a "For" at the beginning
  • "2013-15" → "2013–15" per WP:DASH
  • "she received several awards and nominations for her performances in the other three films in The Hunger Games series"..... "series" shouldn't be italicized, and let's give specific examples of what she won (i.e. Best Female Performance for Catching Fire)
  • I'm so sure if Daily Express is a reliable source to use, but this definitely isn't either way
  • Ref#139 is malformatted since accessdate parameter needs to be separated from "Chicago Film Critics Association"

Needs some adjustments, but not too far off Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @SNUGGUMS: Done. However, couldn't do the references (will do it soon).Krish | Talk 02:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking better, but I just noticed now that one of the Oscar links is dead Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed it. @SNUGGUMS:, regarding your concerns towards above refrences, I would like to add that both Metro and Daily Express are widely used on Wikipedia (just came to know about their wiki articles).Krish | Talk 07:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That doesn't necessarily mean they're good to use, though. While Daily Express might be a fine source to use, Mirror (what I linked to) and Metro are certainly not as they're known to often give dubious reports. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: Replaced the Metro source with one from The Hollywood Reporter. I hope rest is fine. Thanks for your inputs.Krish | Talk 07:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I now support since I don't see any glaring issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rajinikanth filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk), Vensatry (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Rajinikanth is probably the biggest 'Superstar' in Indian cinema. His body of work encompasses 170-odd films in seven languages. He has been in the industry for 40 years and has been the highest paid actor in India for the last two decades. I joined Wikipedia with the sole intent of taking the actor's bio to GA. I've been working on this list, one of my long-pending tasks, for more than a month. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. Vensatry (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

A note to the nominator(s) and the delegates before starting the review. Though being a fan of Rajinikanth, i am not really aware of a major portion of his works. Though this is a filmography list, please do try to answer those queries where his characterisations are concerned. And, my affection for the actor is not going to show any sort of impact on my review of this candidate. Thank you.

  • Considering that he seldom worked in the technical crew and writing, i think the word "film career" can be replaced with "acting career".
    • He worked in theatre even before doing his diploma from the Madras Film Institute. So, 'film career' would be the best option to go with. Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "While performing in a stage play at the institute, he got noticed by the Tamil film director K. Balachander, who signed him for four films". -- two things. First, i think it can be simplified as " the institute, Tamil filmmaker K. Balachander noticed him and signed the actor for four films". Second, were the four films written by him, directed by him, or produced by him? If it is the second and third, i suggest you to mention it as "four of his films". If it is the first, mention it as "four films he wrote".
    • Rephrased the former. I don't think the latter needs clarification because it clearly says 'Tamil film director Balachander'. Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I'm okay with the current sentence there. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rajinikanth made his debut with the director's 1975 Tamil drama -- acting debut?
    • Reworded as 'cinematic debut'. Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "He secured his first major role in Balachander's Telugu drama film Anthuleni Katha (1976). Later that year, he was cast in a negative role in Moondru Mudichu, which marked his first full-fledged role in Tamil." -- This statement can be simplified as "Balachander's Anthuleni Katha and Moondru Mudichu—both released in 1976— offered Rajinikanth his first full fledged roles in Telugu and Tamil films." He played the villain in both the films, so mentioning that isn't too important. The continuing sentence "It was through this film that his style and mannerisms got noticed by the audience" can be rewritten as "His style and mannerisms in the latter earned recognition from the audience."
    • There's a difference between 'major' and 'full-fledged'. And, he was not a 'villain' in either of them. Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The success of the film brought the actor-director duo..." -- "Its success brought..."
    • Rephrased as 'The film's success', because we're talking about his role/performance in the previous sentence.
Fine. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

More to follow... Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Look forward for a thorough review. Thanks, Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


  • "Rajinikanth played a dual role for the first time in his career in the "action thriller" Billa (1980), which was a remake of the Bollywood film Don (1978)." -- Is Kailash really the co-nominator? ;-)
I'd prefer to call the film a "gangster thriller". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm terrible in this area. Will leave it to Kailash. Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: What makes you call Billa a thriller in the first place? Care to explain by giving a small example? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Our definition: Thrillers are characterized and defined by the moods they elicit, giving viewers heightened feelings of suspense, excitement, surprise, anticipation and anxiety. I'm now confident that Billa fits the bill. Vensatry (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Our article on the original calls it an action film, not a thriller. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────G. Dhananjayan calls the remake an action thriller. So, this should be okay now. Vensatry (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't that the same book which you found a case of WP:MIRROR in the past? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
So? Vensatry (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it advisable to use such a source for verifying a claim, for a featured standard article? Please give it a thought. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Why not? The author is clearly an expert in the field. Vensatry (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind. I found another reliable source which calls it an action thriller. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What was the fate of his 100th film, considering that it is a landmark one? If information is available about it, please add it.
All I know is that it failed commercially, and may be one reason why Rajinikanth does not often appear in arthouse-like films. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a flop. Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "In the latter half of the 80s" -- 1980s. It is better to pronouce it completely, though the actor was born in 1950.
  • "He made his debut as a screenwriter in the commercial failure Valli (1993)." -- i suggest you to rephrase it as "He made his debut as a screenwriter with Valli (1993), a commercial failure." Release first, fate next.
Yes, I go with what you say. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
'Fate' is predetermined. :) Nevertheless, rephrased as suggested. Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think his character in Baashha can be described as a crime boss instead of a gangster. He leads a team of henchmen in the film and stands on a level par with the villain who influences the system. Give it a thought, gangster is too small to describe him. BTW, isn't it important to mention its director?
Yep, he was a crime boss. "Gangster", IMHO, means a lower-level criminal. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks 'crime boss' (I know our article has this title) is a bit informal? Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Crime boss is not an informal word. I hope that you too would feel the same after reading this article by Federal Bureau of Investigation on the Italian Organized Crime. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, done. Vensatry (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Rajinikanth himself compensated for the losses by repaying them with money" -- "...compensated for the monetary losses". Rather than money, i don't think so that they lost something else which could've been compensated by the actor.
  • What makes Chandramukhi a horror "comedy"?
This source describes it as one. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I really pity the writer. What made him consider Chandramukhi a comedy is not something i can understand. Anyways, the source is reliable and i am okay with it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: Its actually the hilarious scenes between Rajinikanth and Vadivelu dominating the film, the exorcist bit with Nassar, Vadivelu and Manobala, Vadivelu himself too, that makes Chandramukhi a horror comedy than just plain horror. IMHO, if the film were just plain horror, it wouldn't have given Rajinikanth the comeback he desperately needed. Look at the article's "Legacy" and "In popular culture" sections and you'll know what I mean.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Our article on the original calls it a horror-comedy. Vensatry (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let the readers know about the commercial failure of Kochadaiiyaan.
    • I'll leave it to Kailash. Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: I await your response. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Done I think. Vensatry (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is Paparayudu not "Paapparayudu" in Pedarayudu. (PS: Really strange name for a male, phew! :))
    • Gosh. I, too, was wondering. Fixed Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref no. 27, titled "Brand Rajinikanth", is changing its sub-domain. Please fix it.
  • Ditto with ref no. 15 and 29. Both are related to The Hindu.
    • Not sure what's the problem here. Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can you please provide a better alt text for the only image being used?

Support -- For an actor whom i arguably call the last Indian superstar existing, this is a well detailed list. Hardwork put in by the people is visible. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Inside Out (2015 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Another awards list of another fantastic film of 2015, which in my humble opinion, meets the FL criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Comments have been addressed, I looked at other similar articles and have found it to be acceptable. The list is well-written, detailed and complete, the writing is superb, and well deserving of FL status. Best – jona 14:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. FrB.TG (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been meaning to add comments for a while now, but it's just taken me some time to get here. After a quick read I believe the lead would really do well with some critical commentary, maybe just the RT consensus, as it reads a little bland and too factual. A single round up of the major aspects from any other reputed source could work too. Will add the rest of the comments in a short while.NumerounovedantTalk 08:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead is fine for an awards list, which can get repetitive as it only talks about awards it received. FrB.TG (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC) @Numerounovedant: do you have any concern? FrB.TG (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay... I've been busy lately, however, the list looks good. I will go through it one more time before giving a final say. NumerounovedantTalk 15:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The list looks in order to me, but, since I have not added much to the review so I think it's not a place where I should be giving a verdict. Good look with nomination though, good job. NumerounovedantTalk 10:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support All my comments have been resolved satisfactorily. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated. FrB.TG (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Yash! FrB.TG (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Valley Metro Rail stations[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I came upon this list when it look liked this. Lots of issues including incorrect names of the stations, no references, and just a poorly organized list. Since the system is from my home town, I thought I would take a crack at it! Now this is my first FLC nomination in many, many years, so I apologize if I have missed anything. But I believe that it is a helpful list, meets all of the criteria, and has many helpful images. Please feel free to provide any feedback, I will address any comments promptly. Thanks for taking the time to review the article! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: The lead section is a bit overlinked; you could probably do without the links to brand, train stop, municipality, intersection (road), weather, waste container, drinking fountain, parking space, nonprofit organization, sales tax, and board of directors. Images check out; all are freely licensed on Commons. Actually, I'm not sure whether File:VMR Station Public Art.jpg should be in there–it may not be covered by freedom of panorama which does not cover artworks, even permanent ones, in the US. On ref 15, the archive/accessdates aren't in a format inconsistent with the other accessdates. This page is looking in good shape! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 07:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks @Bobamnertiopsis! I appreciate the review. Here are my responses:
      • I have delinked based on your recommendations.
      • The piece of art on the station is public art (in that it was commissioned and paid for by Valley Metro and the City of Mesa). I believe that all copyright is released in this case. I am basing this off of the publication of photos of each art piece by Valley Metro found here. I updated the file's description accordingly to clarify. Let me know if this satisfies your concern.
      • On Reference 15, the first date is that date of publication, the second date is when the article was archived by WayBack Machine and the third date is when I accessed the article. It looks different because it is the only source that I used an archived version (Phoenix Business Journal's links rot sometimes).
    • Please let me know if you have any follow-up comments. Thanks again! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for delinking things in the lead! It feels a little cleaner now.
  • In re the public art: as I understand it, even publicly displayed, publicly funded art in the US is subject to copyright and not subject to the freedom of panorama. Wikimedia Commons's page on freedom of panorama says "17 USC 120 [which governs freedom of panorama in the US] applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures." See Portlandia (statue) or Cloud Gate for some very prominent works of public art that art still not covered by freedom of panorama and whose accompanying pictures are therefore hosted with a non-free use rationale.
  • In re the ref date thing, I was just wondering why you'd gone with "Sunnucks, Mike (August 27, 2015), "Prop. 104 supporters lay out what's next for Phoenix following measure's passage", Phoenix Business Journal (Phoenix, Az), archived from the original on 2016-06-03, retrieved 2016-06-04" instead of "Sunnucks, Mike (August 27, 2015), "Prop. 104 supporters lay out what's next for Phoenix following measure's passage", Phoenix Business Journal (Phoenix, Az), archived from the original on June 3, 2016, retrieved June 4, 2016", the latter of which would leave all dates in the article in a standard format.
  • Oh, may bad! I didn't understand what you were referencing at first. It has been fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good work on this article! If I have the time, I may make a similar one for the light rail stations on my local metropolitan area's train lines, using yours as a template. All the best, BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 05:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments Good list but needs some work before promotion
  • Like another editor said, still too much overlinking. Common nouns in the lead should be linked with caution and there's no need to link all the cities and platform types for each station.
  • Although I agree with you, I think this is outside the scope of WP:FLC. None of the criteria require proper naming convention for articles that are just linked to the featured list candidate. If I have time I may be able to address this separate from this nomination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No need for a separate column just for references, just add them at the end of the station name in the first column
  • Since the station name column has various symbols after many of the stations, adding references here would probably create a readability issue. I don't believe there is any guideline or FL criteria that states it cannot be done this way. If you have another recommendation on where to put the references, I would be open to any suggestions. Any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The gallery section is a bit odd and doesn't seem to comply with WP:GALLERY. For example, readers don't need a picture of what a station trash can looks like.
  • The images column in the list doesnt work well, mainly because all the thumbnails look very similar and do not illustrate the article well. I would suggest removing the column and adding select images to the right side of the page with a descriptive caption.
  • Infobox seems unnecessary; I've never seen a list article with one and I think that it should be restricted to the article about the line/system itself.
  • The system map should be included (but not as part of the infobox). However, the SVG map does not render properly as a thumbnail and is very difficult to read, so I would consult WP:SVG help for futher assistance.
  • The SVG renders fine on my computer and is legible when I open the image itself. Considering it is representing a 26 mile long line, with lots of stations near each other, I think it would be difficult to read in thumbnail version either way. However, I think its encyclopedic value outweighs any possible readability issues when presented as a thumbnail (since the reader can click on the image to see it better). Any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No need to bold the "35 stations" text.
  • Fix formatting of ".5 miles" to "0.5 miles" and change "electric people mover" to simply "people mover".
  • Final lead sentence does not satisfy MOS:DATED and needs a citation.
  • Utilized the {{as of}}. This statement is almost cited because there are no sources that explain the future configuration. I haven't been able to find anything that specifically states this and I am pretty sure that Valley Metro Rail hasn't publicly discussed how the system will be configured after everything gets built. Would you recommend that I just remove the sentence? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you @Dream out loud! I really appreciate your review and in-depth comments. I believe I have addressed or responded to all of your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to address your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I liked the images embedded within the list but that's probably a preference thing. Thanks for your responses to these comments; the list looks in good shape! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments: This page needs some more work, mainly in the prose department. Some sentences are really awkward and . Some of the things pointed out by earlier reviews haven't been fully fixed, like overlinking (the specific examples were fixed, but the issue persists). I'll give my full two cents later, but here's a few suggestions. SounderBruce 05:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The newly added coordinates look out of place and seem more like filler than useful information.
      • It is actually pretty common item to include in lists about places that have specific coordinates. The {{GeoGroup}} template allows editors to see all of the points on different types of maps (Google) or even download the points for their use. I would consider providing the exact geographic location of each station to be extraordinarily helpful. MOS:COORDS doesn't clarify when to use coordinates, but the mere fact we have a MOS on the topic tells me that it is perfectly acceptable, or even encouraged, to provide this information to our readers. Also coordinates are included in each station article as part of the infobox. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The red links look out of place and need stubs or redirects for the time being. Approved stations are plenty notable.
      • Stubs created for those station articles, removed one other red link. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The sentence about Ability360 belongs in the station article, not on a list where summarizing is the goal.
    • "which will begin operations at the end of 2018" sounds awkward. Normally, "begin service" would be used here.
    • Citations needed for the extension names, especially the "starter line".
      • The two extensions names (Central Mesa and Northwest Phase I) are cited in sources 7 and 8, and their formal Valley Metro names are cited in sources 24 and 26. Added a source after the first instance of "starter line". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Are there ridership statistics for each of the stations? They should be added as a column.
      • Unfortunately, Valley Metro doesn't post ridership by station (see here for what they post). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @SounderBruce for the review. Regarding the other reviews, I believe I have either addressed or responded to every comment, and am waiting on some follow-up items from Dream out loud. Let me know if you have any other items to add, especially any overlinking examples. Appreciate it! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@SounderBruce, just wanted to send you a quick ping to see if there are any other items that I can address to improve this list. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that the correct formatting of the article names in the list is important to WP:FLC, and they should all be fixed as per WP:USSTATION. If it was articles linked in the text, that would be different, but the purpose of list pages are to include articles related to that topic, so they should be formatted properly. Additional comments:

  • Station list should be in alphabetical order by station (current order looks very unorganized)
    • Stations are in order from the western terminus to the eastern terminus (since it is a single line system, this order made the most sense). The sortable table will allow readers to sort alphabetically. I added a note to the column heading to clarify this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Coordinates section seems unnecessary and adds too much clutter to the page. I suppose it's an interesting feature, but I don't know of any other station lists that have it.
    • I do not agree. If I am reading about these stations and I want to see what one looks like, or where it is located, there is a direct link provided for me. It is a great and useful feature, especially being able to open up a map with all of them on it. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it shouldn't. Coordinates are an encouraged feature on Wikipedia and found on almost all location-based articles. I cannot go along with argument that this is not helpful for our readers; it would be a detriment not to include it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Map and some photos are missing alt text.
  • According to Checklinks, 5 of the citation links require registration, and should be noted with {{subscription required}} or similar.
    • Added |subscription=yes to citation template (Az Central does allow 10 free articles before a subscription is required, just so everyone knows). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Valley Metro Rail is overlinked in the citations
  • Publication place parameters (i.e. "Phoenix, Az"; "Tempe, Az" [sic]) are not necessary for these citations (should only be used when multiple places produce publications with the same name).
  • As I stated earlier, the SVG map does not render well as a thumbnail and the station names are almost impossible to read. It does read fine when clicked on, but it should be somewhat legible when it is included on the page.

I haven't had a chance to read through the whole lead section yet, but I'll try to get a chance to do so once the above is addressed. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if there is anything else you find. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dream out loud: the creator of the map increased the font size. Let me know if this helps make it clearer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dream out loud: Sorry for not adding "station" to the article names, dumb mistake on my part. Thanks for helping out! I am not sure if you know or not, but Valley Metro doesn't spell out the full names of the "roads" within the station name (i.e. University Drive/Rural station is actually University Dr/Rural station). See here for how Valley Metro names their stations. I really don't mind either way, I just didn't want to fix all of the redirects in the article unless the station names are final. Let me know what you think and if you are planning on moving them again. If not, I will fix the redirects. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not planning on moving them again. Most transit authorities don't spell out street abbreviations for station names, but as an encyclopedia it's better to spell out the full name of streets. Most station articles on Wikipedia follow this practice. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dream out loud: sounds good. I fixed all the redirects. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles that cover two adjacent one-way stations (i.e. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations) should listed as two separate stations, with some sort of note indicating their one-way service. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dream out loud: Are you suggesting the creation of two separate articles for each split-station? Those stations are considered one station with two platforms, not two separate stations. I don't necessarily agree with the current naming structure you added when you moved these articles that makes the word "station" plural (i.e. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations vs Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue station). I think adding a note stating these stations have two separate platforms for each direction would suffice. I can work on that later today. I also think the station articles should be moved to the singular title station. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have added the note to clarify the split platform stations. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
They are two separate stations a block apart, so it should be pluralized. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dream out loud: Valley Metro's official tally is that the system has 35 stations Source. If those split-platform stations were counted as separate stations than the system would have 40 stations. It is the difference between a split platform station and two stations. Per all of the sources, Valley Metro counts those split platform stations as one station, not two. We have to go with what the sources provide us. Either way, is there anything else you would like addressed? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Valley Metro may consider the sets of "split stations" as one, but for purposes of Wikipedia, they should be separated. It doesn't make sense to list "Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue" as a single station then their infrastructure is completely separate and they are listed a block apart. Similarly, the New York MTA considers there to be 422 New York City Subway stations because they consider large transfer complex stations to be a single station, while Wikipedia considers there to be 469 stations total. (This is also explained in the lead of the article page.) –Dream out loud (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess I am not understanding what specific change you are requesting. Is the note that I added sufficient to explain this? I would be uncomfortable performing my own research to classify these split platforms as two separate stations when all of the sources in the article classify them as one. Just because something may not make sense, doesn't mean we can go against what the sources are reporting. The New York MTA issue seems to be more about how transfer stations are counted where multiple separate services interline with each other. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations is a good example of how this is one station with two platforms, since the light rail platforms are on each side of a bus transfer facility. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, you noted earlier that Valley Metro doesn't post station ridership info on the website, but I found this on the very link that you posted. [1] Ridership should be included in the list since it is available. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess I didn't look hard enough! Before I make this change, what do you recommend I add? I see two issues, first that Valley metro doesn't provide a total weekday average (they provide ins and outs). Should I average these numbers to get one figure (possibly WP:OR), or list both (which I believe will look very cluttered). Also, how do you recommend I treat the 7 stations that don't have ridership info from that source (both of the new extensions)? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
For the stations that don't have data, a simple {{N/A}} would be fine, preferrably with an explanation with why the data is unavailable. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dream out loud: Which value do you recommend I provide for ridership? An average of ins and outs, just one, or both? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ariel Award for Best Director[edit]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete and referenced, and it is modeled after the FL Academy Award for Best Director. The Ariel Award is the most important film award in Mexico, known as the Mexican equivalent to the Oscars. Thanks for your comments and input. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support after my comments were resolved. – jona 22:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal)[edit]

Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article's prose has been improved, references have been updated, and all data has been updated and checked. The list failed nomination two years ago due to these factors. Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The first sentence seems tautological, it needs to be clarified.
  • I strongly believe this could be done as a single table, with columns for country and each of the sources. The format seems odd with four parallel tables and the country names duplicated, and that makes it more difficult to compare the sources.
  • I think it would make sense to merge this page with List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita as the data is fundamentally the same. Add a column for population in the table, and you could have Country-Population-IMF-IMFpercap-WB-WBpercap-UN-UNpercap in a single concise table. It's sortable, so no worries about the different rankings. Reywas92Talk 21:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: The first sentence has been fixed.
  • Four parallel tables are included because the sources differ in their time frame and coverage. The IMF and World Factbook data are from 2015, while the UNSD and World Bank data are from 2014. Additionally, many of the regions measured in one table are not measured in the other. Another issue with combining the tables is determining the rank. Which dataset is the countries ranked by? The IMF one? The UN one? One could average them like suggested in the first nomination, but this would be a violation of WP:SYNTH.
  • The per capita data is not fundamentally the same. The list up for nomination measures the aggregate size of economies, often used to determine international economic influence and power, whilst the per capita rankings typically determine development and standards of living. These two concepts, while based on the same notion, are greatly different in what they cover. Additionally, this would constitute doubling the size of a table that is already pushing the limits of acceptable scope. Zach Vega (talk to me) 04:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
They don't have to be ranked, they can be in alphabetical order and the table is sortable, or just pick one to be default and have a note. That is a good point about per capita, we can see what others think. The reason the page is so big is because every country and flag is there four times when it could just be once, and every cell has a center alignment tag that could be applied collectively; size is not a concern. Reywas92Talk 18:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with the above, the lists are hard to view on even medium resolution screens. The fix would be to have every country listed only once (instead of 4 times!), but with a column for each measurement. Having four entire tables side by side is quite hard to capture on normal sized screens. Mattximus (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Dudley

  • I am not sure where this nomination is going. The article looks fine on my screen, but I take the point that it does not on others, and it would be better to have each country listed once in alphabetical order. Some of the CIA figures are based on data going back to 2003. These are not comparative with 2015 ones and I would exclude the older ones. The CIA also adds a note that the figure for China is misleading because the exchange rate is set by fiat, which is worth mentioning in the article. It gives a figure for China of $10.98 trillion, whereas the table shows $11.38 trillion as the CIA's figure for China. Another concern is that Zach Vega has not edited the article (or this page) since 5 June, and many edits have been made since then, often by anonymous IPs. Has anyone been monitoring them? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Uncharted media[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A couple months ago, someone created this list in time for the release of the 4th main game of the franchise, and I thought it was pretty clearly based on my own FL List of Mass Effect media. And if they were going to go ahead and make a list based on an FL of mine, I thought it only made sense to come through and finish it off to nominate. This is the 8 video games, 2 motion comics, 1 film, 5 books, 1 board game, and 7 albums of the best-selling "totally-not-Indiana-Jones" video game franchise, all pulled together into one list. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I created it, and I mean, thanks for nominating it and all, but just to bring you back down to earth I didn't base it on your list. I don't think you invented the "List of X media" format, and I have never played a Mass Effect game. Have a nice day. Andre666 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh well, guess it was in my head, then. Just thought it looked really similar, using the same table format. Sorry! --PresN 20:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Support - Usual good quality, great job everybody. The article looks complete, well referenced, and references seem to resolve without any errors. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed there is a complete lack of any media on this list of media page. Is there a reason images such as box covers, or a photograph of one of the main people involved in creating this series is not included? Mattximus (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair use images, such as box covers, would be more than likely deemed purely decorative and would not pass fair use requirements. Salavat (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I've never been a big fan of referencing pages like this, but that's only a personal preference; I can't deny their reliability, particularly for recent games like these. This entire article is meticulously sourced, and well-formatted. It's a Support from me. – Rhain 05:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Miroslav Klose[edit]

Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I had nominated it around six months ago and it failed because it went stale; I was a novice and was not commenting on enough other reviews to gain consensus. All of the criteria brought up by the reviewers back then were addressed. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


  • No need to make the first digit of each score bold, you've already stated the Germany goals are listed first.
  • Result col doesn't sort correctly (the 13-0 comes before 1-0...)
    • I am not particularly technical, do you know how to make it go in that order? '''tAD''' (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Saints be praised, I've done it '''tAD''' (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Competition and Venue columns don't have consistent linking.
    • That was to prevent overlink but this is a table and people will move it around so yeah I'll link all of it '''tAD''' (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Done '''tAD''' (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You may need to explain Cap (or add a Key which does this).
  • row and col scopes needed for all tables per WP:ACCESS.
  • I added the Category:Career achievements of association football players for you!

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

    • Thanks. That category seemed to have been emptied earlier, as if it were deleted... '''tAD''' (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no reason NOT to have goals in the same game merged across the columns. Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    It's fine as it is. Just personal preference to merge cells, and may make it more of an accessibility challenge. Merged cells unmerge following a sort in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments, just minor ones, @The Almightey Drill:

  • "Klose scored in his first match for Germany", on his debut for Germany sounds better?
  • List of goals table need row scopes to comply with MOS:DTT, Lemonade51 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Lemonade51, as you can deduce, I have been unfamiliar with this technicality. Have I now added it right? '''tAD''' (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - my main concerns have been addressed, nice work. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments The prose is very good, but I feel it's poor record at the Euros is being overlooked, with three goals, it's not even in the top ten. Odd for the World Cup record holder. Also, he never scored in any of three finals he played.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Threeohsix Thank you for the comments. His number of goals at the Euros is included in the prose and in the table by competition. Why Klose has these cycles of coming good every four years is a mystery to me as well, but we go by what sources say and I can't recall much journalism damning his performances at the Euros. In comparison, for example, Zlatan Ibrahimović used to be damned (at least in my country's inward-looking media) as the guy who never scored against English teams. See references such as [2] [3] for that, although as I say that comes from a national bias and would not be recalled in other country's media. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, now I look at the stats, he played three times as many games in the World Cup than Euros. This is hampered by the old 16-team format, and Germany's failure in 2004. His goal record of 3 in 6 at the Euros is a better ratio than in friendlies, although he played 10 times as many friendlies. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • You can tweak the prose to reflect his low scoring record in the Euros, and the final of a tournament. Something like ... another 13 in qualification games. In the UEFA European Championship finals, he scored three goals in six matches, putting him outside of tournament's top ten goalscorers. In the qualification stages, he netted 16 goals. The remainder ...and Sweden. Klose has never scored in any of the three tournament finals he took part on.--Threeohsix (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I am personally unconvinced that the reader would be interested in games he didn't score in, particularly when you take into account the title of the list. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae[edit]

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it only failed the previous review due to a lack of attention from reviewers. All the concerns from the previous review were addressed. Hopefully this time it will get some more attention.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by jfhutson[edit]

  • "No. 1" spell it out I think
  • Wikilink Billboard charts not the mag
  • "In 2011, his fourth album..." Long complex sentence and the first comma might not be necessary.
  • The Sketch the Journalist article seems (forgive me) a little sketch. It seems promotional, especially with the exhortation to prayer at the end.
  • "In 2013, Lecrae became the first hip hop artist to win the Grammy Award for Best Gospel Album for his sixth album Gravity (2012)." Could mean the achievement is winning with one's sixth album.
  • In the intro to the BET Awards list, you don't say which award before "this award".
  • Be consistent with "hip hop" vs. "hip-hop".
  • "The Stellar Awards is an awards show that honor artists" honors
  • Couple WP:DUPLINKS, check out this script

Overall it looks like a complete and well-formatted list. Let me know when you've addressed the above and I'll give it a second look. --JFH (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made all the fixes (and I forgot that I'd installed the duplinks script). With the Sketch the Journalist source, I agree that the tone is rather informal and seems promotional. With the exhortation to prayer, I've often seen this done in Christian hip hop-specialized media (possibly some Christian media in general, I don't remember well). The piece as a whole is an opinion essay, but Sketch is a professional journalist, and so I thought that for the statement it is supporting (that Church Clothes was the to date the most important CHH album) the source was fine.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The claim that it's the most important album rings alarm bells (WP:PEACOCK). I expect it to be backed up by a very good source, and then you'd want to attribute the source in-text (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) unless you can show some kind of consensus among critics of this music that this is the most important album. I also looked closer at the article, and I think it'd be more accurate to say Sketch thinks this may be the most important album. Another problem is that he's writing about an album that hadn't been released at the time of writing, so it's not credible that he could have a well-founded opinion on its importance. --JFH (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll concede to that argument. I'll take that bit out on all the articles where it is mentioned.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, a second pass:

  • I'm not sure whether "Cypher" is a proper noun in this context. Also, is there another word you can use or a wikilink? I'll let you be the judge of whether that word will be understood by the audience for this page (I had to Google it).
  • I linked "2011 BET Hip Hop Awards Cypher" to BET Hip Hop Awards#2011, as this is a proper noun in this case but the wikilink will explain that it is the name for the performance.
  • I think "Gospel Albums Chart" is a proper noun?
  • Correct.
  • For the "most important album" claim, even with the reliable critical source, you need to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The critic is providing a subjective judgement.
  • I added an additional source, Atlanta Daily World, and attributed the statement to Rapzilla and World.
  • Don't spell out "one hundred fifty" (WP:NUMBERS)
  • Done.
  • "Lecrae has received five Stellar nominations, of which he has won three." He won three awards, not nominations. There are several similar constructions. You could say he was nominated for five awards and won three, or he has received three awards from five nominations (as the featured List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry does).
  • I think I fixed all of these.
  • Done.
  • FN 12, the via param is for the content deliverer. This would be if the article was first published somewhere else and then you read it on the AP's website. In this case, it looks like the AP has copyrighted the article, but there's no indication it was published anywhere else, and if anything Billboard would be the content deliverer. I would just delete the via param.
  • Done.
  • FN 19 link doesn't work
  • I added an archived version of the url.
  • FN 23 is a case for a via param. The document appears to be a news release of the GMA (I would see if you can find it direct from their site and I would use Template:Cite press release). You are getting it via News Release Tuesday. It does not appear to be part of any larger work called News Release Tuesday, so nothing should go in the website parameter.
  • I replaced this source with an archived version of the Dove Awards nominations page.
  • I'd say NRT Media is another case where the publisher param should be left blank as substantially similar to the work News Release Tuesday.
  • Done.

Overall the sources look reputable. I don't see them as making controversial statements (except the "most important album" one), so I'm not worried about the fact that I don't know much about them. --JFH (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

All issues mentioned here are addressed. Any others that are outstanding?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Support, all my issues have been addressed. --JFH (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

All the issues were fixed, you have my support, good luck! Mymis (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography[edit]

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Vermigli was a lesser-known Reformation theologian whose influence was widespread thanks to his nomadic career. This list includes all his known published works. I've also nominated Vermigli's biographical article for FA. JFH (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment by 3family

The list is very well supported by sources, and well formatted. The problem I have with this list is the massive lead attached to it. If the list itself were quite long and extensive, then the lead would be fine, as it would be summarizing a large amount of listed content. But the list itself isn't very large, and so the lead is far, far too long. Would it be possible to work much of the prose into the list sections (e.g., move the content about his minor works and letters into the relevant section)?.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'm also nominating a featured list candidate, List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae, which I would like feedback on. I know that this might be out of your comfort zone, though it just occurred to me that Lecrae is Reformed and thus might be of interest. Thanks regardless, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I agree, let me know what you think of it now. --JFH (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
That looks a lot better now! I'm Supporting this article's promotion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Images should use alt text for screen-reader access
  • It may be a holdover from reworking the lead, but some of the section prose is very light on links that might be useful; this isn't necessary but linking things like the biblical books or the names of people like Calvin or Luther.
  • A follow-up to this, names like Martin Luther should be given in full on their first post-lead mention, then taken back to surnames thereafter.
  • Kirksville, MO should read Missouri in full
  • Is there a given source for the short Latin titles used? The ellipses seem an unusual styling so I'm assuming there's a set standard being used here, can we provide a reference for it (a note like your existing note a, appended at the column header for the short titles)?
  • I used the short titles from the Donnelly and Kingdon bibliography, a reference for which is provided after each title. I don't have the bibliography in front of me, and I can't recall if any explanation for abbreviation is given. Often what's being cut is Vermigli's name and title. For example in the Judges commentary title "D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris divinarum literarum in schola Tigurina" --JFH (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's fine, but a note explaining that the source is also where the title comes from would be useful. As it is the source just looks like it's used to cite the existence of the work, and that would be fine if the field was just "Title"; but when you use "Short title" it makes it clear that this is an adjustment of the original and it's worth showing who made that adjustment. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I added a note. --JFH (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this seems fine to me, a thorough look at the subject and with plenty of context to it; the list tables themselves are adequately handled as well. GRAPPLE X 13:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've addressed all these. --JFH (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. I'm happy to support this nomination. GRAPPLE X 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna[edit]

Nominator(s): Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list. I came across this list while trying to save it from deletion at AfD some months back. The list was later nominated by Harrias for FL. Unfortunately, I guess due to his real life commitments, Harrias withdrew the nomination and could not work upon the changes recommended by editors like Cowlibob, Nergaal and NapHit during the first FL review. I've seen all suggestions and worked on all of them. You can see the first FL review here. I am replicating a few paragraphs from the first FL review below for the sake of reviewers. These paragraphs were the ones where reviewers had left their suggestions. My new comments are added after each of their suggestions in small letters within the first review. Thanks Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


  • "With McLaren, Senna won all three of his world championships..." I would change this to 'Senna won all three of his world championships with Mclaren...' (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
  • "In the subsequent three seasons with McLaren..." I feel like there should be a comma at the end here (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
  • ref 15 needs the author and date of publication (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))

Cant' see much wrong otherwise. NapHit (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit . Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Meets the criteria, good work. NapHit (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This list looks so much better that the just-promoted Schumacher one. Support. Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations[edit]

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria at WP:FLCR, and is on par with similar lists at WP:FL#Transport. This is the second nomination for this list, as it was previously nominated last year, then subsequently closed and archived by an editor, with no further reasons given.

I previously worked on the following featured rail station lists: List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations (creator, main editor, FL nominator), List of Los Angeles Metro Rail stations (added new sections/updates), List of MetroLink (St. Louis) stations (nominated for FLC-removal, then "saved" list via reformatting/updating). I feel that this list is equal to those in quality and criteria. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is a well-formatted list with a concise but complete introduction. There are high-quality maps of both parts of the system in the lede, and images illustrating the list. However, Checklinks shows that five Google News citations are dead links; this appears to be because Cox Media Group removed their holdings from Google News in 2015. Although offline sources are perfectly acceptable, for a featured list I think it would be better to have live links - even to subscription-only content - rather than none at all. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Citations have been fixed. Unfortunately I couldn't find any online archives for The Miami News (including subscriptions), so I just removed all the URLs from the citations. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support All my comments are resolved. I agree ridership is important, no worries regarding the Feb. 2016 data being used. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


  • "with additional five stations opened through Okeechobee station in Hialeah." This is missing "an" before "additional", from the looks of it.
  • "Since opening of the initial line" needs another "the" before "opening". Or you could try "Since the initial line was opened".
  • Would it be possible to include more information about reference 18? Without a date or page number, it's hard to say that this source is verifiable at the moment. What I don't understand is why the date was apparently removed. A page number would be optimal, but a date is a must for verifiability. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Typos have been fixed. I added the date back to the reference - it seems that another editor removed it by accident. I don't have a page number available. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This is an exceptionally comprehensive and aesthetic list. With the above edits I am unable to find any deprecating issue. A deep scan indicates content is accurate and sourced, the article is lavishly illustrated with appropriately licensed images and other graphics, and the topic is treated fully and comprehensively. LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in international cricket[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC), Lugnuts (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2016

This is a nice list, well referenced and illustrated. A lot of the work has been put in by Chamal N, Lugnuts and Sahara4u but only Lugnuts is editing regularly. I'm sure between he and me, we can address all concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, count me in - I'll do my best to get another cricket-related star on my userpage! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You say "pot-aaa-to", and "I say pot-ahh-to" / you say "tom-aaa-to" and I say "'List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in international cricket' isn't the best title"...
Having looked at the title issue, and for the lack of a better alternative that I can think of, I'd go with the previously suggested name of List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in a format of international cricket. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thus moved. Now then, to the list itself please! Bencherlite, if you're happy (or happyish) would you cap your comments on the name so we can encourage comments on the list itself please? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed the missing ODI names. TRM - can you take a look at the lead for the article? It states that Arthur Coningham was the first Test player, but the table/source states it's Tom Horan. There's a rather good source attached to Coningham, so I don't just want to butcher it! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment – Can't we have separate pages for each format? 20, 22 and 12 seems like a reasonable fork. Vensatry (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
    I did mention that above, but Bencherlite felt that a single list was more appropriate. I'm not fussed either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not hellbent on that. Given that last six entries of the T20I table are from the last five years, it's more likely to grow. We can probably decide on this when the count reaches 20. Vensatry (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, would you be able to review the list itself if you get time? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, will review it before the weekend. Vensatry (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – I strongly disagree with a separate pages for each list. I prefer the way it is right now with a single list, it is much more appropriate. There is not much difference in the lead that could be written, and they are all thematically similar. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I support this too. Hopefully there's nothing major stopping this from being promoted up to FL. @Vensatry: - have you had the opportunity to review the list? Thanks in advance. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Source review

  • "Only Maurice Tate, Intikhab Alam and Nathan Lyon went on to play in more than ten Tests" - Ref. missing for Lyon. Yes check.svg Done
  • "The first to achieve this feat was Australian Michael Kasprowicz who took wickets with his first and second delivery in this format in 2005, dismissing New Zealand's Stephen Fleming and Mathew Sinclair." - You need to cite the 'second wicket' and 'Sinclair' parts.Yes check.svg Done
    • Is '' a RS? Vensatry (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks done for rest of the refs. in the lead - No issues.
  • Refs. for the three tables (main) - Ted Arnold's first victim was Victor Trumper, not Reggie Duff. Yes check.svg Done

Vensatry (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: - apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I've now fixed everything per your comments above. I hope everything is now in order. Thanks again for reviewing this. @The Rambling Man: - please could you cast your eye over the article now, incase I've missed anything. Thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Vensatry: - re: the reliable source, I think it is, but in the avoidance of doubt, I've found a source from CricketArchive and replaced it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Two small changes I might recommend:
  • 1. "Not all of these bowlers took their first wicket in their debut match." -> "Not all of these bowlers took their first wicket in their debut matches."
  • 2. Perhaps you might check if photo captions should contain the stops at the end of the caption sentences. My support any which way. Lourdes 12:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the first, there are multiple bowlers but they each only have a single debut. As for the second comment, both captions are complete sentences (i.e. not fragments) so the use of the full stop is correct. Thanks for the support. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. With respect to the "debut matches", I think I noticed a different usage in the next statement: "Clive Lloyd, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Sadagoppan Ramesh, and Martin van Jaarsveld did not bowl in their debut matches." So had an opinion that either it should be "match" in both statements or alternatively "matches". I may be wrong but and would defer to your opinion. Thanks and good work. Lourdes 16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support very nice looking list and, although looking hard, I couldn't find any issues except that maybe "no." should be defined in the key. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

List of United States military premier ensembles[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is lavishly illustrated with no fewer than 41 media files - including photo, video, and audio - all copyright cleared, and provides a meticulously sourced, and copyedited list that meets all requirements. LavaBaron (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gonzo_fan2007

Text & Table

  • Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, I would recommend not bolding in the first sentence.
  • Under the Description heading, is there a reason the photo is left justified? Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, the image should be right justified unless there is a prevailing reason not to. In my opinion, it doesn't look great in its current position and I would recommend right justification.
  • "one or more of its military bands as premier ensembles, though the exact terminology", recommend changing "though" to "however".
  • Recommend removing "from branch to branch" to the first sentence of the Description heading, since this is implied in the beginning of the sentence by stating there are 5 branches that have these types of bands.
  • "Crystallized" seems too informal. Maybe try "formalized"?
  • " to a multi-service institute responsible for Navy, Marine Corps, and Army "premier" musicians in 1951" ... why is premier in quotes?
  • "they generally do not have any duties other than musical performance (during wartime, by contrast, non-premier U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army bands reconfigure into light infantry units responsible for rear-area defense and EPW security)." I recommend starting a new sentence at "During wartime" and remove the parenthesis.
  • Per WP:OLINK, delink United States in the table.
  • What are the "the New York-based national television networks"?
  • It would help if the key to each branch was at the top of the table.
  • I think the "See also" section is unnecessary. I am sure United States military bands could be linked in the lead somewhere, even if it replaces military band.


  • After a spot check, all of the files look good and are free to use.
  • Fix disambig link in image caption Blue RoomBlue Room (White House).
  • Unfortunately, per WP:GALLERY, the gallery probably needs to be removed. I personally don't like that policy, so whether or not you do it will not affect my support.
  • I would recommend that all of the files on the page have a new Commons category Commons:Category:United States military premier ensembles. This would allow the use {{Commons category}} template to link to all the relevant files together. Currently most of the files are uncategorized on Commons, which doesn't affect this nomination but should hopefully be rectified.

Overall, this is a really great list and one of the better illustrated tables I have seen. Nice work @LavaBaron! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey @LavaBaron, I noticed that you have a lot going on right now. I wanted to know if you planned on addressing these comments, or if you would rather the nomination be archived for now. Let me know. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Gonzo_fan2007 - so sorry for my delayed reply, thanks for the reminder. I'm going to take care of this right now. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Gonzo_fan2007 - thanks again for your patience and valuable feedback. I think I've incorporated all your suggested changes, except for the Commons category in images, which I'll work on next. Please let me know if I've missed anything. LavaBaron (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support No problem. Nice work on the list! It would be great if you can utilize the {{Commons category}} template to link to all of the great photos/videos that were provided and are available. Either way though, it won't keep me from supporting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series[edit]

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) and Adamstom.97 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this article for featured list because the first nomination failed more so due to lack of eyes and editors voicing their support of it, then it not actually failing to meet FL requirements. Still, since the first nomination, the page has expanded some and is still a worthy addition to be named a featured list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  • My comments were resolved and now giving my support. Consider optionally reviewing a nomination of mine if you're not too busy. Best – jona 20:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexandra Stan discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies the FL criteria. I as well followed the style of Inna discography, which finally became a FL.

Comments by User:The Almightey Drill

  • Some of the best certifications of "Mr Saxobeat" could be mentioned in the lead
  • The German chart links seem to circle back to the site's landing page. I noticed this when I was working on Marina and the Diamonds discography. Like you have done with Italy and Slovakia, you will have to cite each song one-by-one – copy the template from the article I just mentioned and start from there.
@The Almightey Drill: All done! Thanks for your comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by AJona1992

  • I now support this nomination, I did minor removals of words and phrases that were redundant. Great job on another great article – jona 17:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Dad's Army episodes[edit]

Notified: RHB, Dad's Army task force, WikiProject Television

This is a nine year-old FL and is it showing its age badly. It's had templates on top of the page for a couple of months and, in order to replace some dead links, a book source has been used that gives no pages as references. - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There are indeed pages given for the book reference, but not in the reference itself but next to each footnote. It uses the Template:Rp to render [2]:231, which refers to page 231 of the McCann book. These references were converted into this format by an anon (who also tagged the article) in May 2016. If this reference format isn't appropriate, I could go through and convert the references into a different format, taking on faith (maybe just for now, at least) that they're the correct pages. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as the page for the Rp template says it is "usually used when other methods produce undesirable results" I went ahead and converted the references. There's no reason to not use the clearer sfn. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I've generally done what I can. I did a quick and light copy-edit, I verified the book references and moved them to cite the airdates and recording dates (though, the recording dates for the sketches are still unreferenced), and I referenced everything else where I could. In the end, I removed the original research and the refimprove tags, but I think it still needs a copy-edit. I have not seen any of these episodes, so rewriting the episode overviews was difficult and the individual articles I found confused. Personally, I recommend the overviews be cut down to a single sentence, but I'm not familiar enough with the series to make a best guess for what that sentence would be for many of them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@TenTonParasol: Actually, episode summaries should be 100–200 words per WP:TVPLOT. It really should be converted to use {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} though. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hrm. I wasn't sure about the point about the summaries considering I was looking at List of Doctor Who serials and List of 24 episodes and those don't have summaries at all. But then again, they have series/season articles and Dad's Army doesn't. At any rate. I'm not qualified to write them properly, and when I spot checked a lot of the summaries against the articles and against the book source, they didn't seem that accurate? And I can't make heads or tails out of the individual articles. I wasn't sure if the episode list template was going to be unacceptable and I was going to leave it until someone wished it to be converted. But, I can't convert now. I'm away from home until Monday and I can't do it from mobile. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @TenTonParasol: Episode list articles where the season articles have been split don't show the summaries, you have to click through to the season articles. As for the converison, I'll do it later. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I was about to mention I'll get to the conversion on Tuesday when I get back bt the edit conflict you'll do it. I could attempt to do summaries from the book source. Rephrase them and paraphrase. If nobody else gets around to it? Feel free to revert my attempts to shorten the summaries. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I converted the table to use {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}}, except for the Christmas sketches in the last section, which I quickly worked into the prose seeing as they aren't part of the overall episode count. I'll get onto attempting the summaries again with aid of the source books tomorrow maybe. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Bangladesh Premier League captains[edit]

Notified: Pratyya Ghosh, WT:CRIC

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is out of date and no attempt has been made to include the 2015 season which took place eight months ago. It cannot be a featured list if it is not being kept up to date. That is a problem with lists about an ongoing event. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment It'd be a shame if this gets demoted. What needs to be done is updating the list. Doesn't have to be demoted right away. Pinging Pratyya GhoshMediran [talk] 05:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks Mediran for your comment. I actually updated that yesterday and had a very small work left to do and I've done it. I think rather than spending your time to nominate this FL for delisting it would've been better if you spent that time to update it, Nazcheema
    You have written that I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is out of date and no attempt has been made to include the 2015 season which took place eight months ago. You could've taken that attempt. Face-smile.svg
    Anyways no need to make this discussion any longer. Since I've already updated it, I think a reviewer should review and close this discussion. --Pratyya (Hello!) 13:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree , the list is now up to date. so as the reason of this nomination is now invalid. so keep the featured status. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment @Pratyya Ghosh: Although you may have a point, please remember that editors are under no obligation to edit or improve specific articles. One of the requirements to maintain a list's status as featured is that is reasonably up-to-date. Articles are listed here for two reasons: they are in such a bad shape (and no one is interested in improving them) that they need to be removed to maintain WP:FL's high standards or as a way to encourage improvement of existing featured lists to bring them back up to an acceptable level. Just so you know, most WP:FLRC discussions stay open for at least 14 days to give editors adequate time to review and comment on the article and nomination. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)