Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FLC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Emblem-WikiVote.svg A vote to select new delegates for the featured list candidates process has started.
Voting period closes October 30.

Candidates: Iazyges · The Rambling Man

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



List of England international footballers[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a list of England international footballers with at least 10 caps, and has been moulded on the already promoted France, Germany, Israel and Scotland lists. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Tamannaah filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I created this list in June 2015 and actively reworked on it in April 2016. It has been copy-edited twice: once by Jaguar, and later by Twofingered Typist (GOCE). I have postponed it from nominating because of edit wars. Currently, the article is relatively stable. I'm looking forward for constructive comments, if any. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Update — Notified at the following talk pages: Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Maharashtra, WikiProject Mumbai, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and WikiProject Women. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG making a very brief return to FLC. I don't intend to revisit this nominations. Here are a few thoughts you can consider or dismiss:

  • "Tamannaah's breakthrough roles in Telugu and Tamil cinema came with Happy Days and Kalloori" - a respectively is needed here.
  • Done Added.
  • "Tamannaah had five roles in 2009 including:" - I think instead of the colon we need a comma before the word "including". I have not seen colon being used like this not at least in these examples.
  • Done Removed.
  • "one of the most sought-after actresses" - I think popular would do better than sought-after which reads kind of informal.
  • "a nomination in the Best Actress – Telugu category at the 59th" - in a lead consisting of only three paragraphs the usage of the word "category" is very frequent.
  • "She appeared in four films in the following year" - the second "in" is unnecessary.
  • " While Veeram was a profitable venture,[21] Entertainment was only a moderate success,[22] the remaining underperformed at the box office" - "while" is a conjunction used to combine two sentences, not three.
  • "Tamannaah played Avanthika, a warrior princess" - we do not need the name of her role unless it is a part of any literature or a character of historic significance. I see that some more are repeated in the next sentences; better leave them in the table.
  • For some reason, rowspan is discouraged in filmographies.
  • For bilingual films, I don't think you need to make two rows for them eg instead of Hindi<br>Tamil, you can simply use a comma i.e. Hindi, Tamil.
  • I think references look better in the center position.

Support Although this needs a bit of work, I don't intend to return to this nomination so this is up to the nominator whether to consider my points or disagree with them explaining why. Overall this is a decent effort which with some work can be brought to FL status. Good luck. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Jackson videography[edit]

Nominator(s): Chase (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has improved greatly from when it was demoted. I have read through the concerns of the demoters and tried to address each concern thoroughly. I believe enough work has been carried out to deserve the FL status again. I have also expanded upon some things that weren't mentioned to best fit the format of the other featured lists of the same category; for example, Lady Gaga videography and Katy Perry videography. Thank you. Chase (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Update — Notified at the following talk pages: WikiProject Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, and WikiProject Lists.

List of first overall WNBA draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Pink Fae (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar to the featured list NBA first overall draft pick, it has an engaging lead, and is easy to navigate. Pink Fae (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Melbourne[edit]

Nominator(s): —MelbourneStartalk 10:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is quite engaging with the reader, with interesting graphics and images. Additionally, the content is regularly up-to-date, sources are not simply "Emporis" or "Skyscrapercity" forums (an issue with other FL tallest building lists). Furthermore, list employs a similar style/format to Hong Kong and New York City tallest buildings lists, in that it details the history of skyscrapers within Melbourne, their use, geographical location, etc. —MelbourneStartalk 10:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment very thorough list with clearly much effort put into it. I do have the sense that it's a bit too much however, and could be trimmed.
  • First, the table is too wide and won't fit on most computer screens, so there is accessibility issues. The records columns on the far right, for example, can simply be added to notes. As a column they are mostly blank anyway.
  • Featured lists no longer begin with "This list ranks completed and topped out Melbourne skyscrapers"... You can simply start it with Melbourne has X skyscrapers that stand at least 150 metres tall based on standard height measurement"
  • You don't need a section called "Cityscape" if there is no text to go with it. You can just move that picture to be directly above the list, and save a bit of space.
  • I do have a big issue with "proposed" or "approved" or "cancelled" buildings being on this list as many of them will not ever end up being built, running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. And "vision" buildings should not be on the list unless they have their own wikipedia page. Otherwise there is notability issues.
This is just a first pass, hope it helps! Mattximus (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Mattximus: thanks very much for your review.
I'll respond to each point you've made:
  • Table size has been reduced; image sizes have been reduced (120px → 100px); records column has been removed, content (already) merged into notes, per your advice.
  • Lead has been reworded per your advice.
  • Cityscape section has been removed, image has been retained in following section, per your advice.
  • Tricky part: I'll note, such section/s re "proposed" "approved" "cancelled" buildings are included in most tallest buildings featured lists (Hong Kong, Chicago, New York City, to name a few) – Melbourne has the same format. Nevertheless, regarding this list in question: no building listed is unsourced (all projects are verified by reliable sources provided); additionally, re Crystal: this list isn't necessarily aserting that the proposed/approved projects will be built, it's simply displaying information about active projects that have been lodged for planning approval to the State Government. Furthermore: I have been actively creating articles on buildings listed in those sections, whether they be proposed, approved, cancelled or vision.
I hope I make sense. If you would like clarification, please let me know. Again, thank you for taking your time to review this list, I really appreciate it. Kind regards, —MelbourneStartalk 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

List of senators in the 14th Parliament of Pakistan[edit]

Nominator(s): Saqib (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria and so has great potential to become a Featured List. it is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, is up to date and is well referenced. Saqib (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens[edit]

Nominator(s): Nauriya (Rendezvous), 18:53, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, it has the potential of becoming a featured list, i previously nominated this article for FLC, but i was already in the 88th Academy Awards nomination process, so i had to remove this nomination. I firmly believe that this article after minor changes and suggestions will become the featured list. Nauriya (Rendezvous), 18:53, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob

Oppose This is very far from FL.

  • 600 words and four long paragraphs for a list of this size is way too much. There is no need to mention several of the box office records it broke, just mention a few ones, the main article can mention them all.
Green tickY Done. Reduced it, and removed unnecessary details. But check if there is any change/modification is required.
  • There is no mention of the plot of the film at all.
Green tickY Done. Added plot details and cast.
  • A good format to use is, first paragraph (introduce the film, plot, key players in the film (director, actors etc.)), second paragraph (premiere, box office gross, notable records, third paragraph (major awards), and fourth (minor awards).
Green tickY Done. But check if there is any change/modification is required.
  • Rephrase the Rotten Tomatoes sentence to " Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, surveyed x reviews and judged y% to be positive"
Green tickY Done. Rephrased it already.
  • No need to mention both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic
Green tickY Done. Removed matacritic and repharsed Tomatoes one.
  • No film is universally acclaimed
Green tickY Done. Removed.
  • No one's performance in any film is universally acclaimed
Green tickY Done. Removed.
  • The table does not meet WP:ACCESS, needs rowscopes and colscopes
Green tickY Done. Added rowscopes.
  • Nominees should sort by last name
Green tickY Done. Each nominee/winner is sorted by last name.
  • Refs need work. 3 dead links. Box Office Mojo, Costume Designers Guild, Makeup Guild, Empire Awards, Saturn Awards, Online Film Television Association, Visual Effects Society should not italicised, Ref 14, 25 should avoid WP:SHOUT.
  • Green tickY Done. Replace dead links, remove italicised names, and fix Ref 14, 25 capital letter problem.

Those are my initial comments. Cowlibob (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: thank you for pointing out all the mistakes, you have been very helpful, I have tried to repair all problems, please check if there is any modification is required. Nauriya (Rendezvous), 18:42, October 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph needs references for plot, cast.
Green tickY Done. Provided source for each actor and provided one review and one containing plot details.
  • The second paragraph needs references for 14,300 theaters, need to make it clear that's the worldwide figure.
Green tickY Done.
  • Don't need mention that it was the 24th to gross $1 billion but can mention that it was the fastest to do so.
Green tickY Done.
  • Abrams' direction
Green tickY Done.
  • Don't need the including if you are mentioning all the categories it was nominated for at the Academy Awards.
Green tickY Done.
  • In the table, the awards and nominations should be changed to accolades
Green tickY Done.
  • appraisal is the wrong word. It's also odd to mention critical recognition in the infobox heading as it's a list of awards and nominations.
Green tickY Done. Changed to "noted"
  • check that all the awards in the table match with the ones in the infobox and that the total awards and nominations are the correct number.
Green tickY Done. Some were missing and corrected the count.
  • Bodil award nomination is missing, Cinema Audio Society nomination, Hugo Award nomination, Motion Picture Sound Editors, Santa Barbara International Film Festival, Screen Nation Award, Society of Camera Operators, and World Soundtrack Awards are missing.
Green tickY Done. Added all but Santa Barbara International Film Festival and Screen Nation Award have no any Wikipedia page, plus didn't find any reliable source. Other than Imdb list there is no brief detail of these ceremonies.
Santa Barbara International Film Festival (reference for award [[1]]), Screen Nation Film and Television Awards (reference for award [[2]]). Cowlibob (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Green tickY Done Nauriya (Rendezvous), 4:24, October 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • No alttext for any of the images.
Green tickY Done.

Cowlibob (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: check i fixed issue five days ago.
@Cowlibob: Now check. Nauriya (Rendezvous), 5:06, October 16, 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Rise Against discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Rise Against is an American rock band, known for their political activism and social justice inspired lyrics. After a peer review, I feel this list now meets FL criteria. Have at it! Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments FYI: This is probably my first time reviewing a discography,
    • The first paragraph of the lead is too short compared to others. That should be avoided.
    • Rise Against's next album would be Endgame in 2011 - "would be" seems too colloquial to me, maybe "Endgame, Rise Against's next album, was released in 2011"
    • most successful album chart-wise to date - to what date? Will this statement be true next year?
Reworded. I removed the part that mentions 85,000 copies sold, as I had only mentioned sales for Appeal to Reason, and no other album.
    • The 2014 album - what album is that? The Black Market? Be more specific
Done. Also, I condensed the lead into two decent sized paragraphs, instead of one decent sized paragraph and two short paragraphs.
    • The lead overall listed the studio albums with a couple of singles and a compilation album. Nothing on documentaries (2) or music videos (17)
Yeah I knew this would be problematic. Most discography pages solely focus on albums and singles, as they reach music charts, while the lesser known extended plays and documentaries, barely sell. I can include the documentaries if you want, but the music videos are almost never put in the lead, even on FL pages.
    • The lead should also mention that the band's former name was Transistor Revolt. I was surprised by that B note.
Honestly, I don't think that's necessary. The band was known as Transistor Revolt for a year at most, and of all the sources I've found, a grand total of two mention their previous name, both of which are used in the list. Almost no one knows there original name. Besides, there are several famous bands that were originally under a different name. For example, Maroon 5 was originally Kara's Flowers, while Nirvana had four different names including Pen Cap Chew, Bliss, and Ted Ed Fred. Neither of those band articles or discography pages (both of which are at FL status) mention the band's original name in the lead.
Maroon 5 discography mentions the old name.Cheetah <small(talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, whoops, I guess I just glossed over it. Anyway, I added the band's original name.
    • The tables are missing captions per MOS:DTT
    • The "notes" should be a separate section
    • Reference from Bundesverband Musikindustrie is not in English
    • Why is the reference for "I Don't Want to Be Here Anymore" formatted differently?
It's a cite web instead of a cite AV media notes. The ref I used to source The Black Market also mentioned that "I Don't Want to Be Here Anymore" was the album's first single, so I decided to reuse it
Is "*" really necessary?Cheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • What do the Media notes mean? What is the purpose of listing that under references?
Media notes are basically another way of saying liner notes for CDs. Since I couldn't find refs for most of the singles to prove they were indeed released as singles, I just decided to cite the CD single itself, which is accepted in discography pages
I've checked three Discography FL pages and none of them have such lines: Maroon 5 discography, Selena Gomez discography, and Evanescence discographyCheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh, I've been using Azealia Banks discography as a model, but after looking through WP:DISCOGSTYLE, I don't find anything that says that singles need to be sourced. I guess I put myself through more trouble than I needed to. I will remove the single citations, but I'd like to keep the album citations, since that is in almost every discography list.

--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, please, let me strike my comments next time. Thanks!--Cheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kelly Clarkson[edit]

Nominator(s): Chihciboy (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating the List of awards and nominations received by Kelly Clarkson for featured list because after a comprehensive overhaul of the page accompanied by archived reliable sources, I feel that it now meets the FL-criteria and is now similar with the standard found on the FL-approved list of awards won by artists. I'll do my best to address your concerns/reviews. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything I've suggested has been addressed, I can't see why this shouldn't be promoted, so it has my Support.  — Calvin999 14:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Essex[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This list is in the same format as other featured lists of Local Nature Reserves, such as Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and I hope it will also be found to meet the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Kenya ODI cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice little list. Based partly on List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • "The Kenyans won the game the game by 73 runs" - bit of a stutter there :-)
    • Given that the lead mentions that ODIs have a limited number of overs, probably worth wikilinking "overs"
    • "Kenya has since qualified" - singular here, plural everywhere else?
    • "The Kenyan team has played 154 ODI games" - jumps back to singular
    • "In those 154 games, 50 individual players have represented Kenya" - don't think this is needed, the first paragraph already said there are 50 players on the list
    • "Last updated 30 January September 2014" - eh?
    • "those players are initially listed alphabetically at the time of debut" - I don't think the last five words are needed.....?
    • Could you combine the three notes into one, since they all say exactly the same thing just about different players?
  • Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I have implemented all of your suggestions. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - can't see any outstanding issues........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review and support ChrisTheDude. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

List of poker hand categories[edit]

Nominator(s): Hpesoj00 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was formally featured but got delisted for various reasons but I believe the list is now up to standards. I believe I have addressed all comments in the talk page and delisting discussion, and have generally improved the content and appearance of the article. Hpesoj00 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Revise Reference 10 to avoid WP: Shouting.
  • If possible, add ALT texts for the images in the “Hand categories” section. I understand if this is not possible given the structure of the section, but I wanted to double-check on this point.
  • You do not need to repeatedly link the word “poker” after its first use in the article. Please remove any extraneous links to avoid WP:Overlinking. (The repetition in the link primarily occurs in the first line of those subsections discussing the different types of hands.) The same comment applies to the linking of the word “suit” and “high card”. I would advise that you look for other similar examples in the article to avoid WP:Overlinking.

@Hpesoj00: Great work with this article! It was a very informative read, and I will definitely use this as resource as I have grown very rusty with poker knowledge. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. If possible, could you review my FLC? I know that it is very outside of interest field, but it would be great to get input from a new pair of eyes. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Fixed the reference ALL CAPS.
  • I initially linked each section as if it were a stand-alone article, but I have received feedback from several people about this now, so I have removed the extra links.
  • I believe that the card images do have alternative text; the images are provided via Template:Card.
  • Thank you! I apologize for missing this during my earlier read.
Thanks for the review. Let me know if your points are addressed. I will check out your article ASAP! Hpesoj00 (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Thank you for your prompt response. This was a very helpful article, and an interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Jnanpith Award[edit]

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

One of the most important literary awards in India. The list has gone through major changes recently and we believe that it follows the required guidelines to be a FL. Hoping to see some constructive comments/criticism. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Quite a few issues with the English, I have to say.....
    • "the award is bestowed only on the Indian writers who have been writing in Indian languages...." => "the award is bestowed only on Indian writers writing in Indian languages...."
      • Done
    • "The first recipient of the award was Malayalam litterateur" - what is a "litterateur"? I am a native English speaker and have never seen this word in my life
      • This is a word with French origin as per Oxford.
        • It must be a super super obscure word. For the benefit of readers not familiar with it, I would suggest using "literary experts" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Done
            • Still being used in two other places in the article........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • "who was awarded in 1965" => "who received the award in 1965"
      • Done
    • "The rules were revised for the forthcoming years to consider works during the period of last twenty years" => "The rules were revised in subsequent years to consider only works published during the preceding twenty years"
      • Done
    • "As of 2015," - we are now quite close to 2017, is this still true?
      • @ChrisTheDude:Thats correct. 2016 award is not yet declared. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • "to start a scheme in literary or cultural field" - I think just "to start a scheme" is sufficient, the fact that it was for a book makes it obvious that it was in the literary field
      • Done
    • "were invited in Delhi" => "were invited to Delhi"
      • Done
    • "Sampurnanand presided the committee" => "Sampurnanand acted as president of the committee"
      • Done
    • "The first Selection Board comprised of" => "The first Selection Board consisted of"
      • Done
    • "The works that were published between 1921 and 1951 were considered" => "Works that were published between 1921 and 1951 were considered"
      • Done
    • "translations of the work in Hindi or English" => "translations of the work into Hindi or English"
      • Done
    • "Every three years, an advisory committee is constituted for all the languages" => "Every three years, an advisory committee is constituted for each of the languages"
      • Done
    • "The language of the recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years" => "The language of the most recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years"
      • Done
    • "The Selection Board consists of maximum eleven and minimum seven members" => "The Selection Board consists of between seven and eleven members"
      • Done
    • "Having final authority in selection, the recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board" => "The recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board, which has final authority in selection"
      • Done
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: I have addressed most of your comments. Please let us know if you have more. 10:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Hornets draft history[edit]

Nominator(s): Cheetah (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria. I have worked on similar lists before, some became featured. This list includes some part of the FL I worked on more than 8 years ago. All comments/suggestions/questions are welcome and will be dealt with. Cheetah (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

It's a shame this hasn't gotten any attention yet. Anyway, as a sports fan in general, I'll take a look at the list.

  • Is it possible to have lead picture be of a play wearing a Hornets jersey. It looks weird seeing as how the lead picture has Mourning in a Heat jersey, aka not the team discussed in the article. Try Kemba Walker, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, or Jeffery Taylor
  • "Two years after the Hornets' departure, the Charlotte Bobcats were established in 2004 as the NBA's 30th team." Why is it important to mention they are the NBA's 30th team? You didn't mention how many teams were in the NBA in 1988, but even so, it's a meaningless statement to the list about the draft picks.
  • "The franchise's name was changed back to the Hornets at the conclusion of the 2013–14 season – one year after the team in Louisiana renamed itself the New Orleans Pelicans." Link 2013–14 NBA season. Also, why the dash? A simple comma would do the trick, as the dash kind of looks out of place.
  • "The franchise's history and records while in Charlotte would also be returned to its original city." This sentence really makes no sense to me. Which team is this sentence talking about, the Hornets/Pelicans, or the Bobcats/Hornets?
  • "In 1989, the NBA agreed with the National Basketball Players' Association to reduce drafts to two rounds, an arrangement that has remained the same up the present time." Link National Basketball Players Association, and remove the apostrophe after Players
  • "Bryant finished his career as ... an eleven-time all-NBA first team..." Link All-NBA Team
  • "Okafor was the only Bobcat voted to the NBA All-Rookie First Team." Source?
  • Why not just combine the Key and Selections sections into one section? Something along the lines of NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award.
  • Perhaps use 30em instead of 50em for the notes section. It separates all the notes into two sections, which is much cleaner than one long list

Good list, just needs some improvements here and there. Would you mind returning the favor and reviewing my FLC? Famous Hobo (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the review, Famous Hobo! I believe I dealt with your comments. Could you please take a second look? --Cheetah (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, even looks good. I'll Support, but note that I don't know too much about properly formatting tables and such. So you might have some other editors point out some mistakes in the format of the table, but regardless, I don't think the lead should give you too much trouble anymore. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Oh Land[edit]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am sure that it meets the required criteria for all featured lists. It is detailed, comprehensive, and provides a complete overview of the very talented singer's discography. All help is and would be appreciated. Thank you! Carbrera (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Change “had” to “has” in the first sentence.
  • This is just my own preference, but would suggest changing the first sentence to something similar to that used in List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus. The dependent clause does not seem that necessary and breaks up the flow. I would revise it to say “Danish singer-songwriter Oh Land had recorded material for four studio albums, X soundtrack albums, and guest features” to keep it short and sweet.
  • I think you should break up the second sentence of the first paragraph into two. It might just be me, but the long dependent clause about Fauna sounds a little awkward to me, and may benefit by just being its own sentence. Plus, the sentence is pretty long and places more emphasis on the second album when the article should have a fair coverage of all of her songs.
  • What do you mean by “and featured contributions from a variety of musicians” as when I look at the album’s page, I do not see any features so what kind of contributions do you mean?
  • The lead appears to have a lot of focus on the second album, and I was wondering what led to this decision. I understand if this is her only successful album or her only album that had successful singles, but I just wanted to point this out to you.
The most information is available for this album, and like you pointed out, it is her most successful album. :) Carbrera (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I would avoid language like “most recent album” as the artist may release more albums in the future, and it is somewhat unnecessarily repetitive as the album’s release date says that by itself.
  • You mention in the first sentence that this artist has recorded material for soundtracks, but you do not discuss this in the lead. Make sure to list this in the second paragraph either before or after the sentences about the guest features to avoid confusion.
  • Is there a reason why you added a citation for Trespassers, but not for The Paper Cut Chronicles II. Also the sentence about Earth Sick needs a citation.
  • @Carbrera: Great job with the list! I have actually never heard of this singer before so it is cool to learn about something new. My comments primarily deal with the lead, as I did not notice any problems with the list itself. I just provided suggestion for stylistic improvements and revisions that you may find beneficial. Feel free to ask me if you need clarification on any of my comments. I will support this once my review is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Sorry about the delay! I'm all done now; thanks so much. Carbrera (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Carbrera: I apologize for the delay in my response. I can now support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The Voice (U.S. TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mymis (talk) 15:28, 13 September 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 singing competition series The Voice aired on NBC. The list was nominated before but failed to attract enough reviewers. Mymis (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • There is an unnecessary repetition of the word “singing” in the third sentence of the first paragraph, and I would change “singing competition” since it was previously used in the first sentence.
  • Something about the phrasing of the second sentence seems strange to me. The show itself isn’t really looking for new talent, as the judges and producers are really doing this. You could be right with this, but I just wanted to raise this point to you.
  • Not sure about the wording with a “panel of four coaches”. Yes, there are four coaches, but that wording and the phrasing “a panel of four coaches who choose…” makes it sound like the judges work together as a single unit to choose and help contestants when they act individually with their individual teams of contestants. I would just say something like “the series features four coaches who choose their favorite…” and in that case, change “guides” to “guide”.
  • @Mymis: Great work with this article. All of my comments are more nitpick-oriented. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this once my review is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I believe I fixed them. Could you take a look again? Thanks! Mymis (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Mymis: Awesome job with this article, and thank you for your prompt response. I can definitely support this. If possible, could you review my FLC? Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite improvements made during the previous nomination, this season article neither attracted any opposes nor supports. I've looked at the feedback given and addressed that which was actionable, and would appreciate either support, or further actionable feedback that I can correct. Thank you for your consideration. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - improvements made since previous FLC; I can't find any reason why this shouldn't be featured Spiderone 08:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Peter Dinklage on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and all that, and Peter Dinklage is awesome. I look forward to all the constructive comments on how to improve. AffeL (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment, you have another nomination that is still ongoing, having only been up a week or so, I believe it's against policy to have two nominations at one time. Suggest a procedural close. Mattximus (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It says that "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." The first nomination has been up for ten days and has gained support and reviewers. And all concerns has been addressed. AffeL (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Jimknut


  • "In the early 2010s, Dinklage became better known." – This line is not necessary.
  • "In 2011 he played a role in the romantic comedy A Little Bit of Heaven, The following year and since he has played Tyrion Lannister in the HBO series Game of Thrones, earning him international attention and acclaim."- "The link to 'romantic comedy' needs to be fixed so it does not redirect. There should be a period after A Little Bit of Heaven and not a comma. Since the first sentence lists the year 2011 then the opening of the next sentence ("The following year") would indicate 2012, yet in the list Game of Thrones is shown to have started in 2011. This next to be fixed. Suggestion: "That same year he began playing Tyrion Lannister


  • The column name of "Channel" should be changed to "Network". ("Channel" is for British usage, whereas "Network" is American and hence more appropriate since all of Dinklage's television work has been in the United States.) Jimknut (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jimknut: Thank you so much for the comments. I have fixed all the things you mentioned. AffeL (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Crzycheetah: Maybe, I think so.. I don't know to change the name of a page. Could you help me out? - AffeL (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Cowlibob
  • The lead is far too short. At 1333 characters it wouldn't even qualify as a DYK.
  • The filmography type article should have in its lead a summary of the actor's career which shows their journey in the industry: debut, ups, downs, breakthrough, most critically and commercially recognised films.
  • There's no mention of the stage career in the lead.
  • Perhaps you could make a sourced directors column in the film table.
  • Ref 8 should be publisher=Academy of Television Arts & Science
  • Just a Kiss ref has a typo
  • Fix the WP:SHOUTING in Ref 14, ref 31, ref 37
  • Questionable sources: Ref 11, Terapeak is a reliable source, in Ref 23, moviejungle in Ref 29, futon critic in Ref 37, tvfodder in Ref 38, in Ref 48, Ref 33 (Daily Mail). Please replace these.
  • Ref 26 needs to properly formatted as an ebook.
  • For all tables, everything in the table must be sourced eg: roles, year of release, theater, that they acted as producer.
  • For names of roles they need to be sorted with the sortname template so that they sort by last name.
  • Titles of films also need to be sorted so that "The", "A" are ignored.
  • Film table is missing The Three Christs of Ypsilanti, television is missing Ice Age Columbus: Who Were the First Americans?

Cowlibob (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 21:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The most well-known male American soccer player of all time, and leader of the scoring charts for the men's national team. As he's just come out of retirement for his club, I thought I would nominate this list in celebration/dread. The format is pretty much based on other FLs on international goals. I tried to vary sources as much as possible to make things interesting. SounderBruce 21:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – I'm confident that the list meets FL standards after the few issues I pointed out were addressed. Nice work on this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Fassbender filmography[edit]

Michael Fassbender is an Irish-German actor who has played a variety of roles in both box office hits such as Magneto in the X-Men film series and indie films such Bobby Sands in Hunger and a slave owner in 12 Years a Slave. This filmography lists these and many others on both television and film. As always, look forward to all the constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by AffeL
  • Ref 3 is dead and Ref 26 does not work.
  • @Cowlibob: Other than that I can't see any issues with this article. I would say that this list currently meets the FL criteria. AffeL (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@AffeL: Thanks for the review. Fixed dead links. Cowlibob (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good. Well done. - AffeL (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

List of winners of the Masters Tournament Par-3 contest[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it cropped up as being an interesting side-effect of the Masters tournament. Many holes-in-one, lots of affection for the contest, a "curse" too. Yes, I have another FLC open, it's not related, it's got one set of comments that I've addressed, it's all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


  • List of winners could have the first two words dropped, since we don't need confirmation that it's a list.
    Thus moved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Typo in the Vijay Singh photo caption: "pictured".
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • We only have 2013 marked as having had a playoff. This source gives a figure of 19 Par-3 contest playoffs going into 2015. It gives a few playoff years but not all of them, and I don't have much in my various sports almanacs that would help. Maybe looking at the sources again will give a few clues as to when playoffs were held. Or you might consider dropping the symbol if the sources don't exist to comprehensively note them.
    Interesting, will come back to this. Particularly as the source you note is wrong also in its claim that the last playoff was in 2004... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Refs 2 and 26 have gone dead since the start of the FLC.
    Will go looking. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If the players with wins in the Masters and the Par-3 tournament aren't referenced somewhere, they probably should be.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd add the related source used at the end of the lead to the first note below the Masters champions table, as the source is from 1991. The lead source is more up-to-date.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The publisher of ref 8 should be capitalized, as the Augusta Chronicle is a newspaper. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    I'm guessing you mean The August Chronicle should be The Augusta Chronicle, thus done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, just the playoff issue to resolve, I'll take a look at that tomorrow if you don't mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ravichandran Ashwin[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No bowler has taken more fifers than Ravichandran Ashwin in the past one year. Making his Test debut in 2011, he is comfortably placed above the Indian spin quartet. I've modeled this list based on similar FLs. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. Vensatry (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support nice list. Good work Vensatry! Also, would you mind having a look at this FLC I have open? If not thats ok. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Maryland[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is my tenth list that I aim to bring up to Featured List. Thanks to all the people who helped out with those reviews so far. I have modelled this list off of the recently promoted List of cities and towns in Montana and so have taken any changes from that article into account here. I've incorporated templates into the tables which allows the list to be updated quickly after the next census and 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) 13:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Quick comment Your main reference is about Alabama.--Cheetah (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yep, the annoying thing is that the website defaults to alphabetical listing (so Alabama is first). I can change it to [3] if you think that would be better? Mattximus (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    I believe I've fixed the original. That link you've provided above was worse.--Cheetah (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • First, the title: Shouldn't it be List of municipalities in Maryland?
      • Moved.
    • Is Maryland really located in the Southern US? I highly doubt that
      • Yes Maryland is really located in the Southern US. The source for all the data in this table is the United States Census, so I used the Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau. Click on the link to see a map.
    • County should be County(ies) since there are 2 counties on some cells
      • Done
    • Since Baltimore doesn't have a county, it should have an emdash(?) or endash(?). Now, the word "None" is sorted under N as if it's a county name
      • Good catch, done.
  • Pending commennts
    • The table is missing the caption and the col rows are missing the "!" per MOS:DTT
      • Added caption, and all the col have the ! per MOS... not sure if that is what you meant?
        • | scope="row" should be ! scope="row"
          • What is the purpose of this change? I just tried it and it messes up the entire formatting, the whole table becomes out of wack.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's for screen readers scope="row" doesn't have any effect without that exclamation mark.

I see, thanks. However it doesn't resolve the issue of how the whole table becomes broken when you add the !. For example, the first three columns change background colour, they become centred which makes it hard to read, and they become bolded for some reason. It really looks very bad. All other lists passed with the current format, is it absolutely necessary to change?

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's like saying History of Maryland should start with the events in the 21st century since it's the most recent information about the state.

Yes, the lead of the Maryland article should probably begin with it's present population and status. And it does, so this page is in agreement with the main state page.
    • The Land area shouldn't have 2 subcolumns, it should look like the Density column
      • See previous comment, this is the style for all American states in the list above, it would be strange to make Maryland different from all the rest I would think.
        • Again, it's not all of them, but only the ones you worked on. List of municipalities in Florida, an FL, doesn't look lie that.
          • Sorry I just linked to the ones I worked on, but almost all others (even ones I didn't promote, for example List of municipalities in Alberta) follow this trend. I will get to the Florida one eventually to fix that one.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Right now, "Density" and "Land area" columns use two different formats, just pick one and stick with it. If you want two separate columns for mi and km, then both columns should have 2 subcolumns.

    • "Incorporated" column should be added with the dates.
      • I often include that piece of information on these lists but I couldn't find a source for Maryland, do you have one? Also, it would make the column rather wide for smaller screens, so I'm not sure it is necessary.
        • It's more necessary than the population change. Here's the link, just click on the name of each city and you'll see the year incorporated.
          • I have to disagree that it's more important than population change, what is your logic on that? Knowing how a city changed over recent time tells you much more about a place than a date it was founded, which is honestly fairly trivial. Population trends are great proxies for all kinds of economic, and demographic inferences, but dates don't tell you anything about what the city is like now.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dates don't tell you anything, huh? It shows whether that particular city has a history and how long that history is.

Actually this isn't true. The incorporation date rarely tells you how long the history is, some cities that were founded centuries ago incorporated in 2008. So by providing the date, you are actually misleading readers.

--Cheetah (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I've addressed all but one of your comments, which I'm still working on. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

With the 25-49 appearances list now having two supports and no outstanding issues, I now bring this here to complete the trinity. I have incorporated all the feedback from that FLC into this list too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

— Great list and I'm happy to support and have left a few comments that can be implemented if you see fit. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Done all those -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Threeohsix:, @Lemonade51:, @NapHit:, you guys all commented on the 25-49 list, any thoughts on this one.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, but I've got to oppose on criterion 5a. No-one's ever satisfactorily explained to me why this comes under Visual appeal, but the criterion requires that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". There are roughly 175 redlinks, which is approaching a third of the notable players, and more than 20% of the list as a whole; I can't see that as a minimal proportion. I've added a few comments below. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • there are one or two rows missing their row scopes (Osadebe, List, possibly others)
  • Osadebe's Soccerbase ref belongs to someone else
  • It doesn't seem to say anywhere what the source(s) are for career years or nationality.
  • As you've included nationality for all the players, rather than just those who played international football, are you defining it as their nationality at the time they were at Gillingham, or their current/latest nationality?
Unfortunately, while I could probably fix the other items quite easily, I just don't have the available time at the moment to create new articles on over 100 players, so I think this one will have to be chalked up to experience, sadly........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front (World War I) order of battle[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an important article about American involvement in World War I. Currently an A-class list. It has had a FLC before but was failed due to a lack of comments. All comments welcome.Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. Although I don't know much about these specific topics, I question what more could be added or improved and could not think of anything. I'm sure those familiar with this topic will have some comments, but as far as I can see this list is an excellent candidate that deserves FL status. Great sourcing, can't really ask for more information on the lead (or any cleanup for that matter) and I feel like this is comprehensive and complete. Well done on this list, I hope it gets promoted this time. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Although i would have recommended you peer reviewed it first. Here's a few comments Tomandjerry311 (talk · contribs), feel free to cross them out when they have been dealt with or if you feel it is not necessary,
  • "During the United States campaigns in World War I the AEF fought in France alongside French and British allied forces in the last year of the war, against Imperial German forces." Should specify the last year of the war, incase someone doesn't know, purely because it's in the lead paragraph.
  • " seized German ships, borrowed Allied ships, " this could use some rewording, perhaps "german ships seized by the navy, and ships that were borrowed from allies,"
  • "Barely any American troops were sent to Europe in 1917, since Pershing ordered all AEF forces to be well-trained before going overseas." two things with this one, for one what does well trained mean? it does not elaborate, and two, when the next paragraph talks about 1 million troops in 1918, the barely any part seems a little weird, if it is saying that his order was repealed, then it could use some clarification.
  • The different army breakdowns could use some work, while I do love conciseness, I feel that they are a bit lacking.
  • The image under I corps is excellent, more should be added if available.
  • Is there a reason that some of the field artillery regiments and motor regiments aren't linked when no article exists and some are?
  • The unassigned divisions thing could perhaps have some better explanations, of why they weren't attached, or else if they function on their own or just joined up with other units ad hoc.
  • That's the end of my comments, good job overall, I think it should definitely get promoted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments A very constructed list, but I have some queries before I give my support. Except the first four sections, in all other sections the "Notes" is completely empty with nothing for any of divisions. In such case, remove the columns completely from the respective sections. Because keeping such empty is of no such other than making it more heavy. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

List of parrots[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I worked really hard on this (there are 350 species of parrots so this was really tedious). I based this list off of list of cetaceans, which I've also worked on.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment very nice list! The table needs formatting though because it is way too wide, it doesn't fit on my screen and I don't have a small screen! Mattximus (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently I have a very big screen because the table fits perfectly for me. I'm not sure how to make the table fit onto different sized screens other than shrinking it (which wouldn't fix anything), any ideas?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Does this help?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope, but I have a similar problem in an older list. If you use chrome, simply zoom in a bit (hold control and scroll mouse wheel) to see what most users see. I could tell right away you have a very big screen, but unfortunately you are probably the 1%. I'm not good with formatting but there should be an easy fix. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll ask at the Teahouse   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Found the problem. It appears you are forcing the table to have "width:1645px;" and also force the font size to 0.1%? I think the table normally auto-formats for different screen sizes, but the way you have it, it forces it to be a certain width which is far too large for almost every screen. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If I don't do that then all the tables end up being different sizes left-to-right, so it'll end up like this. The font size thing is just for sorting purposes, you can't actually see the letters at 0.1% font size so I just used it so, when sorted, everything would come in the correct order.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Well it fits on my normal screen, and I tried on a smaller screen. I see what you mean about looking weird, but that's a second problem. The first problem of fitting properly on different screens seems to be fixed. Mattximus (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I fixed the second problem. Check the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's much better on my tiny work laptop. Do note that all of the single-bird tables are missing the purple border, though, because they don't have the inner table. Will return to review this list later if it doesn't get enough eyes; I definitely want to support broader lists like this. --PresN 19:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
fixed the border problem   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Cardiff City F.C. seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked to improve it to a level that should meet the required FL criteria. I have used the List of York City F.C. seasons, List of Watford F.C. seasons and List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons pages as guides in order to improve the list. I have also received some very helpful pointers from Struway2 to bring it up to scratch. Kosack (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • First sentence needs a source
    • "the club were granted permission to adopt the name Cardiff City" - by whom?
    • "but their relegation in 1962 lead" - spelling error
    • "the longest absence in the clubs history" - missing apostrophe
    • "22nd in the Fourth Division in the 1995–96 season" - how can this be? There was no Fourth Division in 1995-96
    • "saw them rise from the Fourth Division to the Second Division in just three seasons" - similarly, this can't be correct
    • Why are seasons before 1910 not included in the table? Is the data not available? If so, this should be clearly stated, although I'd be surprised if there wasn't a club history book that contained the info.......
    • In note I, system is spelt wrong
    • In note J, the name of the team was Corinthian (singular)
    • In note M, "The Third Division South Cup was abandoned at the sem-final stage during the 1938–39 season following the outbreak of World War II" - how can this be? The 1938-39 season would have been long over by the time war broke out (also, semi-final is spelt wrong)
    • Note Q needs a full stop.
    • As does note T
  • Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks very much for reviewing the page. I've cleaned up the numerous grammar and spelling issues now. Some explanation on some of the points:
2 - The club history does not say who they actually applied to, HERE. If that is an issue then I'm happy to reword that sentence to something such as "changed their name to Cardiff City".
7 - Statistics for the seasons prior to 1910 seem to be non-existent as far as I can see. I own numerous club history books, including the "definitive" statistical history written by the club historian Richard Shepherd, but none of these provide any information on those seasons. The same can be said for the web sources such as the Football Club History Database and the Welsh Football Data Archive.
10 - The semi-final and final were held over until the following season but never played after the war broke out. The source for that is HERE. I have tidied up the note to hopefully explain that a bit better.
Thanks. Kosack (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've noticed a couple of other, fairly minor, points.....
    • In the notes, you use both "Division 1" and "Division One" (and similar) - choose one format and be consistent
    • General refs should be formatted using citation templates just like the specific ones
  • Think that's really it this time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Sorted those two issues now. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Agent Carter characters[edit]

Nominator(s): adamstom97 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this series was recently cancelled, and so the listing won't be changing. I (and several other editors) have been working on the article for over a year now, and I believe that it is good enough to become a featured list. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment This looks more like an article than a list to me. I'd nominate this at WP:GAN first. The lead is too short for this page. Also, the descriptions of some of the characters are too short and some are too long; just try to balance them out. You can check out this page for an example.--Cheetah (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The Smallville list has different sized sections for different characters as well, and I think it all boils down to how much information there is about each character which is presumably based upon importance. The lead can be expanded though. As for your first statement, I'm not sure how this isn't a list. We literally list characters. In fact, this seems like more of a list to me than some other articles I have seen promoted to FL (like this recent example). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This page actually talks about each character. The prose in this page is twice as much as in that example you provided.--Cheetah (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
So you think that all the prose makes it more of an article than a simple list? I could understand that, and a potential move to GA instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's my opinion of this page.--Cheetah (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment this is much more like a GAN than an FLC, suggest this is closed and the nominator takes to the GA brigade. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah and The Rambling Man: As you have suggested, I am going to take this over to GA now. Is there a specific process that I need to go through for ending this discussion? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Withdrawing by the nominator - The FLC staff will take care of it.--Cheetah (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C. Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I was reliably informed that the Ipswich Town F.C. featured topic would be demoted if, amongst other things, this list wasn't taken up to FL standards. So here we are. As I know it can take a month or two for these things to precipitate, I've pushed it out early doors to give the FT people the notification that I'm serious about keeping the FT going, and I'd be grateful for any and all comments here regarding this article's suitability for an FL. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • First sentence could do with a source
    • "a number of personnel associated with club" - think there's a word missing there
    • Suggest merging two sentences at the end of the first para: "The inaugural members were [names], who were selected......."
    • The notes are not sourced, and don't seem to be covered by the refs on the relevant rows, e.g. ref 1 does not seem to support any of notes 7, 8 or 9
  • Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, thanks very much for your review, I believe I've addressed the comments and certainly see an improvement from them (plus I learnt about {{efn-ua}}!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2

  • @Struway2: not sure if you saw that I'd resolved your last notes? No worries either way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry boss, my attention span is shrinking by the minute second... All issues satisfactorily dealt with, am now happy to support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
      • No worries boss, my attention span expands to a full five minutes these days. Could be early-onset-Altzheimers, or perhaps it's just dealing with two sub-three-year-old kids. Or both. Either way, thanks again for your scrutiny. If I become a FLC delegate, I'll be calling on you to assist, assuming you have the time.... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Governors of Arkansas[edit]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I took a long break from the governor lists, and some changes have been made to the format, some good, some ... I disagree with. This is my attempt to reconcile some of them. Major changes from previous lists:

  • No more "parties" bar. IMO, it's not that useful - the ebb and flow of party dynamics are much better expressed in prose rather than numbers, which nearly always require some gymnastics to figure out, due to repeat governors, acting governors, etc.
  • No more "other offices." I mean, I'll put it back if people really want it, but I found it to be a bit too subjective and not terribly useful.
  • I *want* to take away the "living former governors" box but I think there's a consensus for it to stay; however, if y'all agree with me, then into the chute it goes.
  • Much better use of the 'term' column, to include the election year (and a link, if available).
  • More context for lieutenant governors; this isn't a list of them, but the dates of vacancies, etc. are useful.
  • And as mentioned in the previous FLC, I discovered a new governor. That's pretty neat.

Let's do this. --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • comment- I might have time to do a full review later but for now you will at least need a small legend indicating what the blue and red colours mean next to the names. This may not be clear for non-Americans. Mattximus (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I put back a row at the top with the colors, but this has nothing to do with Americans vs non-Americans, as the same kind of style is used everywhere on Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I meant most Non-Americans would not know that the colour blue represents the Democratic party, and red Republican. Mattximus (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Arkansas Legislature" Can the legislature override a veto with a two thirds vote?
    • Probably, but we have to have a line here between the governor and not-governor. The legislature can also impeach the governor, but that is also beyond the scope here. Maybe there shouldn't be any real explanation of powers, since that's beyond the scope of the article. (I'm not saying this sarcastically; I'm all for removing stuff outside the scope of an article. Like the list of living governors.)
  • Why no party designations for governors of the territory? If the post was then non-political, I think you should say so.
    • Appointed posts are nearly by definition non-partisan, IMO, since you aren't nominated or endorsed by a party for it. That's different from non-political.
  • There are no references for the items in the table. These are needed.
    • This I'm going to need more clarification on. The table is a synthesis of data points from multiple major references, which are contained in the 'general' references. (though that does need to be pruned, there's way too many there. It should just be the NGA and encyclopedia links. Fixing.) For specifics, when necessary, there are specific citations in the footnotes. I don't understand the need to have a citation for every single row when they're all going to the same site, and I can say "hey here's the site[s] used" in the general references.
Five citations in a row that go to the same place. I think this is not the best method of citation. I'll consider this, though. --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "though as the state fell to Union forces there was a loyalist government put in place with an insignificant Confederate government in exile." This is unclear but I assume you mean that it fell earlier than other states. A date would be helpful, and did the Union government then appoint a new governor? (I see you explain in the notes, but I think clarification here would be helpful.)
    • I think I mean... when the Civil War began, there was no Union government in exile, but as it ended, there was a Confederate government in exile. I tried rewording it, please check.
  • "the next in line for the governorship was the speaker" is the speaker?
    • Nope, because that only applied to the period before the office of Lt Governor was created.
  • Why do you not use the photo of Winthrop Rockefeller at [[File:Paige, Huckabee, Rockefeller, and Hutchinson with large check, August 2002 - cropped to Rockefeller.jpg]] Is there something wrong with its licence?
    • No, because that's of lieutenant governor Rockefeller (died 2006), not his father, governor Rockefeller (died 1973).
  • "The most recent death of a former governor was that of Dale Bumpers (served 1971–1975, born 1925), who died on January 1, 2016. The most recently serving governor to die was Frank D. White, who served from 1981 to 1983 and died on May 21, 2003." It took me a while to understand this. It should be more clearly expressed, although I doubt whether it is needed.
    • I agree. Any objection to deleting that whole section? I've never understood the strange obsession some on Wikipedia have with having easy access to a list of the former people in an office still alive; it's kind of relevant for Presidents (what with secret service protection, long-standing tradition of trivia, etc), but Governors? Nah. Middle-click the last few until you start running out of live ones. Done.
  • "The Speaker of the House declared that the measure had lost because it did not receive a majority of the highest vote total from that election." I do not understand this.
    • It's hard to understand. It seems that at the time, Arkansas had a weird rule - or thought they did - that a referendum that people voted on had to receive at least as many votes as to win the highest-vote-getting question on the ballot. In the case of amendment 6, it received 45567 votes in favor, winning by a mere 361 votes. However, another election chosen on that same ballot (it doesn't say which; maybe some congressman or something) received 135517 votes in total, so they said that, for a referendum to pass, it had to receive at least enough votes to win that contest, i.e. 67758 votes. In 1925 they realized a 1910 act had amended that so it only needed a majority of the votes cast for that particular question. I think another way of looking at it is: There were 135517 votes cast in total, if people didn't vote for either 'pro' or 'con' the referendum, then it was assumed they voted 'con' instead of assuming no vote at all. I've expanded on the footnote to attempt to explain this rather arcane incident.
  • What is meant by "General" references. If the source is used in the article, it should be cited for the specific statement it references. If they are sources which are cited in the "specific" references, the arrangement is unusual and confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • See above for my explanation of "general" vs "specific" references. --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The usual arrangement is citations and then sources. If you want to call them specific and general references that is fine - people use different names for them - but the specific references should come above the general ones and the constitutions. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Why? The general and constitution are designed to be seen by readers and directly gone to, whereas the specific ones are designed to be accessed via the footnote. Things that are less immediately useful to the reader should go lower. --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you back at this! As general comments to your changes, I kind of liked the Other offices section, but I've felt living former governors is simply trivia; perhaps just have one sentence elsewhere summarizing the number and the one oldest (or who served the longest ago). I like the election year in the terms. When the Lt gov is elected separately, I'd just as well leave it out completely - the positions are entirely unrelated beyond succession, and there's a separate (though usually inferior) article for that list. Reywas92Talk 07:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Some responses:
  • My problem with the 'other offices' section is that it was becoming subjective. I never included mayorships, yet for some, being mayor of a major city would be a pretty notable job. For some, being CEO of a major corporation would be a notable job. Sarah Palin is obviously most notable for being a VP nominee, but on my criteria that wouldn't have listed. And for judgeships, I had to just decide on a level to stop at. To me, it felt like "trivia about the people" rather than "trivia about the position." The only info should be who held the office, when they held the office, and why who held the office changed. What they did when not governor is not at all relevant. Now, for some states, this could simply be removed to a paragraph about how many of their governors have served as President - basically, New York - but otherwise it just seemed like a soulless list of data.
  • Yeah, I originally just had term number - and I shouldn't say "I" because I borrowed that from Spartan7W's excellent idea implemented on the California list, much better than my previous "fractions" idea. IIRC, I had included the election year as a link under the number; someone else then came along and moved it out to parenthetical election year, which was a great idea. Finally, I was working on Georgia, and ... honestly no one seems to know how many governors Georgia has had, in part because during the Revolution they had 6 month terms. Yeah. So I gave up on trying to number the terms and just gave the year they were elected. I haven't done that here yet because it wasn't necessary, but I probably should - the year they were elected is much more useful/relevant than the number of term they served.
  • The Lt Gov and Gov not being elected on the same ticket is only one sentence, and is useful to explain why several Lt Govs are of different parties than the governor. (Which has to be noted due to accessibility concerns)
  • "Usually inferior" what do you think one of my next projects is :) --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Slovenia at the Olympics[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 15:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it contains all the relevant information regarding Slovenia at the Olympics, and is presented in a comprehensible way. Since most of the article consists of tables, I believe it is appropriate to nominate it for a FL. The criteria:

  • 1&2 - Should be fine. Probably some tweaks will be required, please point them out in the review.
  • 3 - Contains lists of medallists, number of athletes at each Games, and also a list of Slovenian medallists representing former countries (but clearly listed separately with an explanation). I was considering including a list of flag-bearers at the opening ceremonies but that is a separate article already so I avoided forking.
  • 4 - That should be fine.
  • 5 - The tables follow the style of related articles. Flags and pictograms are public domain. No other images, though some portraits (perhaps Tina Maze and Iztok Čop) could be included. Depends on the reviews.
  • 6 - I expect no major changes until the 2018 Winter Olympics ;)

Tone 15:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • This list is vastly improved and I am happy to support on prose. No comment on referencing or the ref templates, I will leave that to the source review. Note: I made this copyedit as well as the three mentioned above. Well done Tone! - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you! --Tone 08:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments
    • The first sentence and the whole second paragraph should be merged. They both say the same thing.
    • as a part of → as part of (several instances)
    • Source [51] also mentions - what source? it should be named. Also, the footnotes always should be placed after punctuation marks.
    • 1988 Seoul Olympics[52] and Vinko Jelovac - see above
    • Jelovac holds both Slovenian and Croatian passport and was twice chosen as Slovenian Sportsman of the Year in the 1970s. - "holds both Slovenian and Croatian passport and" part should be removed from that sentence. He won that award in 1970s when there were no Croatian or Slovenian passports.
    • There are several references in another language; not English. They should mention in what language they are written.

--Cheetah (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

    • Thanks! I believe I have addressed all the comments, please check. --Tone 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


  • " Olympics in 1912 as " should really reword to say their first appearance was at the 1912 Summer Olympics, rather than that easter egg link.
    • Done.
  • I'm seeing a few spaced hyphens in the reference titles, these should be en-dashes.
    • Those were done by a script. If this is wrong, perhaps the script should be fixed as well?
      • Dunno, I've done this using the script I use... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah, I thought you meant the dashes in the references. Thanks for fixing it ;) --Tone 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • " the team sabre" specifically it was the "men's" team sabre.
    • Done.
  • Should link Slovene.
    • You mean to Slovenian people? I currently made a link in the first mention, let me know if this is what you had in mind. ]
      • Well you have "Slovenian" and "Slovene"; are they interchangeable? Do they mean the same thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
        • When talking about people, yes. It can also mean the language, which is not the case here. Perhaps this link is redundant then. --Tone 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Rajmond Debevec (shooting) " this is an odd way of writing prose, why not "The shooter Rajmon Debevec..."? Similarly " was Nastja Govejšek (swimming)", why not "was the swimmer Nastja..."?
    • Changed. I kept the links to the sports. --Tone 19:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Track and field athlete Merlene Ottey competed at the Olympics seven times between 1980 and 2004. In her first six appearances, she was representing Jamaica, for whom she won nine medals.[7] " this appears to have no relevance to the article. I know, because I looked it up, hse represented Slovenia from 2002 onwards, but that's not clear here.
    • Well, Ottey still is a Slovenian athlete with seven Olympic appearances, which I think is interesting to mention it somewhere. As for women with most appearances, I found 3 with 4 in a quick check. I guess that's too many to list individually.
      • But the article didn't actually make any comment to suggest that Ottey represents Slovenia... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah, that's what you thought. Added. --Tone 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes a reliable source?
    • I found some sources that cite this site, Time, for example. That makes it relevant enough for me. Alternatively, there are such articles for individual games, but I have not found another comparable site.
  • Tables all need row and col scopes per MOS:TABLE.
    • Hm, I can't find the word "scope" in the manual :/ Did you mean sortability? --Tone 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Where are the number of athletes at each Games referenced?
    • That's the first reference, Slovenia at the Olympics at sports-reference. Also the medals.
      • Re-add it inline with the tables, currently that section has no inline references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Do you like what I did? --Tone 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sex, for whatever reason it's listed, ought to be next to the name of the athlete.
    • IDK, should I just remove it instead? Easy to move, otherwise.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I went through some now, will continue soon. My responses above, feel free to comment now already. --Tone 19:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ben Affleck filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

After making Mr. Damon's filmography a featured list, it makes sense to do the same with Mr. Affleck's screen roles. I look forward to constructive comments, as usual. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Good list. Comments resolved. Cowlibob (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Birdienest81

  • For a reference to Ben Affleck's credit in Wanted: the Perfect Guy, I found this book source that would serve better than's source (I personally am okay with it, but I found a better one). It is on page 3 (in case Google Books does not let you see it because it is only a preview). Also, this reference from TCM makes note of his role as Danny Coleman, as well.

More to come, but looks good.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: Krimuk has permanently retired from Wikipedia but I'm happy to answer any queries. Have replaced the above ref with one from Turner Classic Movies. Cowlibob (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Not convinced that the two subsequent images after the lead add anything other than reflect the fact that he looks pretty much the same in every photo...
  • "The year 1997 was noteworthy for Affleck." unnecessary.
  • " on a novel by" should really be " on the novel by" with "the novel" forming the text of the Wikilink.
  • " his highest-grossing release" how much?
  • Would prefer to see those portal links on the right-hand side.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

List of current champions in CMLL[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  21:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has the quality and level of detail similar to 13 other Featured Lists I have promoted on the topic of CMLL championships. This is the main topic for a potential Featured Topic and every FLC I have been through has helped improve my work, with this being the ultimate result of everything I have learned so far.  MPJ-DK  21:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The first thing that jumps out at me is that "....currently promotes 23 different championships; 12 championships designated as World Champions in various divisions, 5 championships on a national level and 7 championship on a regional level" doesn't add up....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Woops, poor math skills. They dropped a championship after I started working on the article but before I posted it and I did not get that number adjusted.  MPJ-DK  07:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The second sentence in the second paragraph still needs adjusting......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Adjusted and spelled out.  MPJ-DK  21:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A proper review from me now......
    • "which is also the oldest, still active championship in professional wrestling" => "which is also the oldest championship in professional wrestling still active"
    • "The titles branded as "World" level can or have been defended outside of Mexico, the Mexican National championships" => needs a conjunction in the middle, I suggest "whereas the Mexican National...."
    • "The regional championships are not promoted outside the area they belong to such as a specific Mexican state, and in the case of the CMLL Arena Coliseo Tag Team Championship not normally defended except in Arena Coliseo in Mexico City until 2016 where it was defended in Japan" - this a very long run-on sentence, I suggest breaking it up, thus: "The regional championships are not promoted outside the area they belong to, such as a specific Mexican state. The CMLL Arena Coliseo Tag Team Championship was not normally defended except in Arena Coliseo in Mexico City until 2016 when it was defended in Japan"
    • "One example of was Mephisto holding" - missing word here
    • "The Occidente ("Western") championship are" - missing S on championships
    • In the tables, "house show" sometimes has a capital H and other times not
    • My only other queries would be why the title does not follow the same pattern as List of current champions in WWE. Calling it List of current champions in CMLL would technically be more accurate, as while Atlantis, Electrico, etc, are champions in CMLL, they don't hold CMLL championships per se. Does that make sense?
  • Hope this all helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: Article name - the way I saw it is that they're all "CMLL Championships" as in CMLL controls them, no different than the other list having NXT champions on them so that thought never really entered my mind. As for if it should be "Championships" or "Champions" I have no strong feelings either way, they'd both be correct. Since these are probably the only two "list of current" on Wikipedia it would probably be a good idea for them both to be consistent, I will move it to List of current champions in CMLL and adjust the nomination links. I will address the rest of the issues later today.  MPJ-DK  16:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Oppose
    • There has to be a link to Kayfabe, preferably the word "scripted" can go there.
      • I think the pro wrestling article lead does a much better job explaining the fact that professional wrestling is pre-determined, the Kayfabe article is a mess and "jargony", I prefer the PW article
        • The PW article looks fine, I just don't think linking to Screenplay is appropriate here.
          • I reworded it and took the scripted part out
    • currently promotes 23 → as of 2016 promotes 23
      • Fixed but slightly reworded
    • as World Champions → as World Championships
      • Fixed
    • 6 championship → 6 championships
      • Fixed
    • Being professional wrestling championships, they are → "The professional wrestling championships are"
      • Fixed
    • Why is the font small in side the tables? Let the readers decide what size they want
      • Fixed
    • | scope="row"! scope="row"
      • I tried it, the preview looked odd and I did not like it. I agree it's appropriate for championship histories where the first column is a number, but here it looks weird. It's also not consistent with other "List of current champions in" lists for professional wrestling.
        • I believe it's mandatory per WP:MOS.
          • I cannot see where the "!" part is mandatory?  MPJ-DK  00:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(→)Here--Cheetah (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

      • Perfect, that helped me find a way to avoid the bold and still get the "!" in there etc. Awesome.  MPJ-DK  03:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The tables should be sortable
      • Fixed
        • There are some names that should be sorted by last name.
          • Fixed and also sorted La Mascara and Maximo so it ignores the accents etc. should all be right now.
    • What's the Template:Portal Bar red link doing at the end?
      • Fixed, it was a typo, should have been "Portal bar"

--Cheetah (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Addressed some, doing some checking on the rest.  MPJ-DK  15:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, the following are not groundbreaking comments, but the ones I'd like to see implemented
    • Each section has to have a "As of..." line first.
      • These used to be standard for all championship lists but have been removed a couple of years back. The challege for that is two fold 1) If you put in a static date (as of October 10) then the automatic counters for length of reign is actually wrong because they are always as of "today" 2) if you put in a paramter "As of today's date" then the second someone loses a championship that's actually wrong too, making it seem like it's up to date when it's not. I would prefer to not have that in the list to be consistent with the general professional wrestling championship articles.
        • Well, the reign date can become wrong the second someone loses the title, too. What are you going to do about that?
          • Well I figured that since neither option is ideal I would stick to the general formatting for similar lists, which is not to have the "As of" section. It's not perfect, but it is consistent.
    • Footnotes 2, 3, 4 need references
      • They are in the text next to the note, I cannot figure out hoe to get it inside the note
        • Crzycheetah Thank you for updating the notes to the other format, it allowed me to get the citation inside the notes. I did not know of that format but I'll make sure to use it from now on.  MPJ-DK  23:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

--Cheetah (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Lead image caption is a sentence fragment so no full stop required.
  • Try to somehow rework "...Lucha libre professional wrestling promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre...", see WP:SEAOFBLUE (When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link...).
  • " area they belong to" -> "area to which they belong".
  • " but in the 21st century.." repetitive, perhaps "but since 2000...."
  • "El Gallo" needs disambiguation.
  • Use consistent date formats for publication dates and for accessdates.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The Rambling Man Thank you for your input and your eye for the details, it is appreciated. I believe I have addressed all of the concerns you voiced?  MPJ-DK  21:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ariel Award for Best Director[edit]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:12, 17 August 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) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments
    • Multiple wins and nominations should be the second section of the list
    • Why was there not a winner in 1953? Did the voting not take place? OR The voting was rigged?
      • The only info I found indicates that the award was declared void. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • That footnote has to have a source. As soon as it's sourced you have my support.--Cheetah (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The "1959 — 1971" row looks different, which is surprising. I think the year column should have a gray background and the "Not awarded" field white background.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I do not know how to fix that, can you help me? Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • No need, I understand it now. They ear is not marked gray because there was no award.--Cheetah (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support --Cheetah (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @WP:FLC director and delegates: This list had one support in the previous nomination and one more support in this one. I suggest one of you does a review and then the other can archive it.--Cheetah (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I think the list meets FL standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


  • "exhibited outstanding directing while working in the film industry" the global film industry? Or the Mexcian film industry? Or something else?
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • " In 1947, the 1st and 2nd Ariel Awards were held" why two awards in one year?
I did not find any reference for that. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If this award is notable, then recipients of it should be notable as well, wouldn't you think? I'm curious as to why there are so many not-even-red-linked directors, e.g. Carlos Enrique Taboada, Diego López Rivera, Juan Pablo Villaseñor...
I am working on stub articles for the winning-directors, I started with Raúl Kamffer. I added red-links to the articles. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "1959 — 1971" should be an unspaced en-dash.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Mongolia national football team results[edit]

Nominator(s): Gri3720 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, aside from my belief that the article meets the general criteria to be a featured list, the list is referenced by a variety of reliable sources from several languages, including the language spoken in the area that the article is about. Images have been added to supplement the content of the article using formatting beyond the most basic. Mongolia has been a FIFA member only since 1998 so it was possible to begin a list that does not have gaps in early history, though pre-FIFA content was researched and added and will continue to be. The article will be simple to maintain and update at to the standards of a "featured list" as the Mongolia national team does not play matches often. The formatting of the article has been modeled upon other similar pages that have achieved featured list status, such as Faroe Islands national football team results.Gri3720 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. I like the design, based on the Faroes list, and this one is equally informative and well-researched. I've no problems with it at all and I think it deserves promotion. BoJó | talk UTC 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose All I am going to say is that the Faroe Islands that received featured list status looked like this. The Mongolia page doesn't look one bit like the Faroe Islands page that became a featured list. The Faroe Islands list has to be reverted back to the original structure or it's going to lose its FL status.--Cheetah (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I would like to say that there is not a standard format for featured lists. Mongolia's list of results should not automatically be disqualified from featured list status just because it looks like the Faroe Islands just like it should not automatically qualify because it does. There is not a single correct format.--Gri3720 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments. @Crzycheetah: Perhaps I should have specified that what impresses me most is the research, not the design. The key words in my assessment are "informative and well-researched". I do like the design, but that is a secondary point. I agree with Gri3720 that there is no standard format and so any comments about a list design are simply "by the way" remarks. What matters is the work that has gone into the detail and, as far as I can see, that is good enough for the list to deserve promotion. BoJó | talk UTC 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The Faroe version that was voted as a featured list and List of Montserrat national football team results (a featured list) had a very similar structure and style. That style became a standard format for featured lists. Currently, this list is failing two points of the criteria: Structure and visual appeal. Since structure (also known as design of the page) is a part of the criteria, it is NOT a secondary point.--Cheetah (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see nothing in this page that disqualifies it on the grounds of style, structure, design or visual appeal. Where does it say that one style is the standard one? BoJó | talk UTC 18:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. It does say that It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Also, it says It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour. This list currently fails those two points. The ones I showed you as a standard format did not fail this criteria. --Cheetah (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I respect your opinion on the issue but think that the points in the description that you are referencing leave a lot to opinion and preference. Structure and, particularly, visual appeal are subjective. I do not see how the page is not easy to navigate, it includes numerous section headings, and the only table in the article is sortable. Again, "...suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour" is subjective. It would be more beneficial if you would state specifically what is unsuitable about these characteristics. Also, you cannot say that there is no standard format and then refer to the format of the Faroes and Montserrat as the standard format.--Gri3720 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I stated what part of WP:FL? this list fails. I provided two featured lists that show what needs to be done to pass those criteria points as an example for you to model on. Unless some changes are made, I will not come back. --Cheetah (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for now but needs more - Disagree entirely with Cheetah's comments. Personally, the tabular format in the two lists noted is not helpful, you can't go to specific years or competitions so to me would not satisfy the criterion: It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Lists like the Faroe Islands one were promoted five years ago. My personal view is that I don't think that there is a need to rigidly hold to a presentational style and more generally, I think we have moved on in terms of presentation, if anything, their FL status should be revisited.
I would however like to see more in terms of:
  1. Analysis of the results, not just a list, for example something along the lines of Bhutan national football team results or Northern Mariana Islands national football team results. But then I would as I wrote those two!
  2. Something that introduces each section, a couple of sentences summarising each section, which would help break up the page visually and make it more readable.
Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive feedback. I reviewed the two pages you suggested and agree that some introduction to each section would be beneficial and potentially add to it visually. I added a new section in anticipation for the 2016 AFC Solidarity Cup and followed your recommendation (at least as well as I could based upon the limited information available at this point). I will continue to add analysis and commentary to the other sections as I can. Thanks again and nice work on your seems we both favor minnows as the subjects of our articles.--Gri3720 (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


  • I think there should be a better separation between FIFA-sanctioned games and other ones.
  • the intro talks twice about "first ever victory"
  • summary table should have a totals row
  • intro shoudl clearly spell out the ~5 countries Mongolia beat, and probably mention the rough total games it played (FIFA and non-FIFA sanctioned) and how many of these were not losses).
  • the intro should mention briefly leading goalscorers or possibly notable players if any

Nergaal (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment – I just briefly glanced at the list and spotted a problem. None of the colored items in the tables have a matching symbol, which is required per WP:ACCESS guidelines. Please do consider fixing this, as it's going to be difficult for me to promote the article with such a clear breach of accessibility standards. While I'm here, a few of the references are in ALL CAPS, which is a style guideline breach. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Essex[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the third list of Sites of Special Scientific Interest I have nominated after Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and I believe is it is also of FLC standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments
    • The In the early Anglo-Saxon period ... sentence looks out of place to me. It breaks the flow when I read the lead. Maybe it's just me, I just want someone else to comment on this as well before making any changes.
      • I put this in because I thought it was interesting background, but I am happy to take it out if reviewers think it does not belong there. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The Map and Citation columns should have that "a" footnote as well
    • The area for Abberton Reservoir is listed as "718.3", but the citation says "716.31". The location for Abberton Reservoir is listed as "TL981181", but the citation says "TL 970180". I strongly suggest to go over the info one more time.
      • This is a difficult one. I have always gone on the citation as that has been the standard and that is what the note says, but in this case the figures were put in before I started working on the article, and - checking now - I see that whoever did it used the Magic Map for Abberton Reservoir. I will check whether the same applies to other sites. This often differs slightly from the citation and is a more reliable source for the location and area. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
        • If all the location and area values are from the Magic Map, just change the references. If it's mixed, just leave the citations and change the values. Currently, they're not referenced and a change is a must.Cheetah (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I have gone through the figures and there are many minor discrepancies, probably because the location was based on looking at the Magic Map and estimating the centre of the site. I have revised the figures using the most reliable source, the Natural England details page for each site, and revised the notes accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Alt text on "Purfleet Chalk Pits" and "West Wood" images should be corrected
    • "commons category" should be placed under "See Also" section, not over.
    • Other similar FLs (the ones you didn't do) have a column Year in which notified, what's the reason of this omission?

Cheetah (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Crzycheetah I have checked and revised the areas and locations. Do you have any other points? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

Another excellent list. Just a few minor questions/nitpicks:

  • The "Map all..." link works in OSM & Bing but doesn't work properly in Google for me - I can't see any reason in the code & may be a temporary blip on Google maps.
I think it is a blip. I have checked the link in three other articles and they all have the same problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
OK perhaps worth checking in a few days or asking those knowledgeable about the template map links.— Rod talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The title "Inner Thames Marshes" redirects to Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve. The RSPB ref uses one name & Natural England uses the other are they synonymous?
This is a difficult one. There are very few details on the RSPB's own site, and I cannot find any map of Rainham Marshes or reference to the SSSI. An old BBC article at [4] says that Rainham Marshes is 77% of the Inner Thames Marshes SSSI, but I doubt whether this can be considered an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the local knowledge or sources to help with this one - I see on Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve the top of the infobox says "Inner Thames Marshes" not sure about this but consistency is generally good. Might be worth a comment in the description within the list, but minor.— Rod talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I have revised to make clear that Rainham Marshes is only part of the SSSI. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Anglian glaciation is wikilinked in the description of Holland-on-Sea Cliff & Wivenhow Gravel Pit but not in Hall's Quarry - any particular reason?
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In Harwich Foreshore "London clay" doesn't have a capitalised "C" but the article London Clay does - any reason?
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 195 has WIVENHOE capitalised - any reason?
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Refs 94 and 110 (Ratcliffe) seem to point to the same page in the same book - it could just be reused
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope these are useful.— Rod talk 18:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your helpful comments Rod. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments - Looks good, just a few points for the lead, will look at table next.
  • Is the first "and" in the second sentence needed? Reads strange with two "ands".
  • I do not think it works deleting it, but I have deleted the whole clause, which is not needed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "It has an area of 1,426 square miles" could not find this number in the citation... also the citation uses km? Which is standard in the UK?
  • I put in the wrong url, and I cannot find the source now, so I have replaced it (with a source which gives a slightly different figure). Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "fit back together" -> "reconstruct" or "recreate"?
  • This does not work. You can fit back together pieces of flint, not reconstruct them - just as you can reconstruct a jigsaw but not the pieces of the jigsaw. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Mattximus (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • " Red Data Book invertebrates." should probably be "invertebrates on the IUCN Red List". Similar change would be good for "Canvey Wick", "Crouch and Roach Estuaries", "Epping Forest", and other references.
  • Changed to " IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "two unusual moths" are there wikipages of those two moths? If so it would be good to link to them.
  • Brachythecium mildeanum needs to be italicised
  • "A network of ditches radiates from Holland Brook, and these have several nationally scarce aquatic plant species, such as brackish water crowfoot and divided sedge." -> "A network of ditches radiates from Holland Brook. These ditches have several nationally scarce aquatic plant species such as brackish water crowfoot and divided sedge."
  • In Inner Thames Marshes, all Latin species names must be italicised.
  • xanthandrus comtus italicised.
  • "The woodland it mainly ancient, and there are more than a thousand species of moths and butterflies, and nearly seventy of breeding birds" This sentence does not make sense.

Great list! Look forward to support with these few changes. Mattximus (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments Mattximus. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, all the changes were met and it looks good. Just one minor quibble, there is still one reference to "red book species" which I think can be better termed "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" or even just "species on the IUCN Red list" if you want it less verbose. Great work! Mattximus (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. I think on reflection that it is worth spelling out what the red list is, as some readers will not know. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Mattximus do you have any further comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you've met all my concerns and I keep my support from before, great work! (I'm not sure if you have time but I do have a nomination up above that could really use a quick once over) 10:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Will do in the next few days - and I have another Essex list above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep I saw, was hoping to get to it on the weekend. Mattximus (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of One Piece video games[edit]

Notified: Goodraise , WikiProject Video games and others

I am nominating this for featured list removal because nobody is actively maintaining this list; it is not up to date, as indicated by tags and talk page messages asking for updates, none of which have generated any action or replies since at least May. This also include one question about whether this should stay a Featured list. Problems noted include criteria 3 (Comprehensiveness - not up to date) and 4 (Structure - confusing section names). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree that it should be removed. Even if the list can be updated now, we'd just get in the same situation in half a year. If it would get updated accordingly and someone is willing to keep it updated, I might be interested in keeping it. The lack of good prose doesn't help in my opinion. ~Mable (chat) 10:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist. Agreed. An article should not be featured if it'll continue to be outdated. I'm also not sure why there's an "other games" section when they're also video games... Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Brisbane Roar FC players[edit]

Notified: Daniel, WikiProject Australia

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has many issues:

  1. First, the title says list of players and the list itself is in the third section. Strange!
  2. What is the purpose of the "Records" section for it to be listed first?
  3. "International players" section: it needs updating, names need to be sorted by last name, nat.(I suppose it's nationality) needs to be written clearly along with the flag, check mark and x mark need to go, the footnote for Ivan can be placed under "first cap" column and the "Notes" column can be removed
  4. "List of players" section: it needs updating, names need to be sorted by last name, nat.(I suppose it's nationality) needs to be written clearly along with the flag, check mark and x mark need to go, having those rows for letters is unnecessary and should be removed, again the "Notes" column can be removed and the notes be placed on the appropriate columns.
  5. References: The first three links don't work anymore and the fourth one verifies just one sentence from the lead. Citations needed!
  6. Just a nitpick: this page should use dmy dates, but there's a mdy date. Cheetah (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Delist Wow you are right, this page looks nice on the surface, but is actually very confusing. I can add to your list. The table sorts by first name, but lists by last name. What does checkmark, x-mark, and strikethrough mean? Why are there no sources for international players, and why is it separate from the main list? Why have 2 lists at all? I'm not sure what any of those abbreviations means. What's with the section with nothing in it? This is too much to fix in a short period of time.... Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Charlotte[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers

There are some very big problems with many of the "tallest buildings lists" that are currently featured, two have recently been delisted for similar problems. Specifically, two whole sections (Under construction and Proposed and announced buildings) are completely unsourced. There is a half finished broken table, with missing citations. The lead is updated "As of April 2008" and has not received much updating since. There are dead links, messy citations. This would take a lot of work to bring it up to standards again sadly. Mattximus (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Delist Many issues with this list as highlighted above. The starting sentence "This list of tallest buildings in Charlotte...." is an old format we no longer use. No update in the lead from April 2008. Uncited sentence in last paragraph of lead. Table is not accessible. No alttext for images. At least three dead links. Many buildings which are unreferenced. Two whole sections with no citations. No substantive work has been done since this nomination to improve the list. Cowlibob (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)