Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten 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 {{Article history}} 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 any 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 leave a post on 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. When 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 your 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. Alternatively, 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 vote 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 (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, 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:

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:



List of Chris Evans performances[edit]

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Chris Evans is an American actor best known for his role as Steve Rogers/Captain America in the Marvel Cinematic Universe series of films. I am nominating his filmography to be a featured list because I believe it has been developed to be of comparable quality to other actor filmographies that have also been promoted to featured status. Any feedback on how this list can be improved is welcome. Morgan695 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - very nice :) LADY LOTUSTALK 19:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Might I suggest a small edit - changing the "prolific" in this sentence "His most prolific comic book movie role would be as Steve Rogers" to "most notable" or "most recognized"? I would also remove "critically-acclaimed performances" sounds a bit WP:PEACOCKish. I'm also not a fan of Networks being in the television table - for any page, not just this one. Networks change or become outdated or don't apply to how people watch them, just seems excessive. The page as a whole is well written with correct table styles, after those tweaks I would certainly support. LADY LOTUSTALK 18:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lady Lotus: Edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The only thing I have picked up on the lead is that you seem to use "would" an awful lot, and I'm not sure it's actually necessary in most cases. For example, rather than saying "While comic book films would form the bulk of Evans' filmography from the late 2000s through the entirety of the 2010s", why not just say "While comic book films formed the bulk of Evans' filmography from the late 2000s through the entirety of the 2010s"?
    • The key shows colour and a symbol for upcoming projects, but then you haven't actually put the symbol against them :-)
    • If the tables are to be sortable then anything starting with "The" needs to sort under the next word
    • Images need Alt Text
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

2018 AFL Women's Rising Star[edit]

Nominator(s): – Teratix 13:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

After raising the 2017 Rising Star award to FL, I'm following up with the 2018 edition. The winner, Chloe Molloy, dominated her first season in the AFL Women's, winning just about every accolade for first-year players and becoming the first (and so far only) player to earn the maximum 50 votes in this award. The version at the time of nomination has three images, but there is also a four-image version; I would appreciate feedback on which is preferred. – Teratix 13:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - for the record, I prefer the version with three images -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The Hours[edit]

Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's been eight years since User:Courcelles and myself brought The Hours to FLC, and it's been largely untouched since that failed nomination. But, with the help of, I was able to replace that pesky questionable source. I've also improved the article to match recent film award FLs, and I'm willing to carry out any further work suggested. I would love for this one to pass the second time around! - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • "The screenplay is based on the eponymous novel" - I don't think eponymous is the right word here. An eponymous novel by Michael Cunningham would be called "Michael Cunningham". Better to say "the novel of the same title".
  • "the ceremony saw" - a ceremony cannot see anything, it doesn't have eyes. Find a way to re-word.
  • "a LGBT-oriented" - "an LGBT-oriented", surely
  • Refs should be centred
  • Recipients column sorts on forenames, it should sort on surnames
  • Also I think the title of the film should sort under H
  • Neither notes is a complete sentence, so neither needs a full stop.
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man[edit]

Nominator(s):  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Marvel's Spider-Man is a 2018 action-adventure game for the PlayStation 4. I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all parts of the FL criteria, covering the plethora of awards and nominations received by Marvel's Spider-Man whilst also following accessibility guidelines. I would appreciate your feedback on the List. Kind Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro
  • Table has scope cols but still needs scope rows per MOS:ACCESS
  • Make sure all refs are archived (I can pinpoint a couple that aren't)
  • I believe "Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018" is listed twice in the bibliography section
  • Does "Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"" have a pub date?

Rest looks good for me. Great job on this! Absolutely loved that game. – zmbro (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, @Zmbro: I have made some changes based on your suggestions and here. I have Added Scope rows, Archived all sources, Removed duplicate reference (Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018), and added the date on the reference (Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Happy to support. Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "the game received twenty-one nominations and went on to win three awards for:" - don't think that comma needs to be there
  • "Spider-Man appeared on several lists of the top video games of 2018, including first place by Wired" (and so on) - this reads a little oddly to me. Personally I would use say "being ranked in first place by Wired" and so on
  • "one of the top-30 games of the year" - don't need that hyphen there
  • Any reason why "runner-up" is not coloured the same as second/silver? Surely being runner-up is the same as coming second? Or does that award have multiple runners-up?
  • Note a refers to "the Metacritic". I think this should just be "Metacritic"
  • Notes which are not full sentences don't need a full stop.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude, I have made all the requested changes here except to the colour of the "Runner-up" Result since Runner-ups are given to multiple games. However, I have changed it so when it is sorted by Result "Second" will appear above a "Runner-up" result here. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now updating oppose rationale, see below. Please implement the award inclusion criteria as described by User:Dissident93 at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Undertale/archive1 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Request_for_comment_by_WPVG_editors_at_an_FLC. As a general note, I'm not pleased with the recent trend I'm seeing of editors unilaterally splitting out lists and then rushing them to FLC. The rush leads to sloppiness, as evidenced by comments above. FLC/FAC should be where a piece of content gets put through its final paces, not act as a first time peer review or copyedit. The best content on Wikipedia takes time and, more importantly, collaboration to get to that point. In this case, you also copied a tremendous amount of work from Spider-Man (2018 video game) (without attribution in the edit summary) without consulting or even notifying Darkwarriorblake who was the primary contributor there. FL is not an "easy chit" to add to your editing resume. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Consensus for these type of Lists (Video game accolades) has been to include these as seen the last three FLs of this type: Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last of Us and Grand Theft Auto V. One user does not get to simply overturn years of consensus. In regards to your second point, in hindsight I probably should have notified User:Darkwarriorblake but in end decided not to when I made a good-faith edit to the lead and was met with a rather rude edit summary [1]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • You don't get to avoid attribution and credit just because you perceive someone to be rude to you. That's not how this place works. Consensus can change and this and other discussions are evidence that the consensus, if any existed at all before (n.b. there was no specific WP:MOS/VG guideline on it as of this writing), is not what you think it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Interesting, I have not heard of that guideline here before, I have added a contribution message on the Talk page since I cannot alter my previous edit summaries. In regards to your second point, yes consensus can change but there is currently no significant evidence of it changing. Perhaps an RfC could be set up?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Angeldeb82 too, they found most of those awards and were a star in sticking to the referencing structure used throughout the article to maintain its integrity as an FA. Given that most of the content was made in the initial edit, a lot of that work was probably done by Angel. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. Point stands that this FLC is tantamount to taking credit for other people's work. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per failing FLC#3c: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Per WP:SIZERULE, the main article Spider-Man (2018 video game) is only 43kb of prose and does not warrant a split of this nature. The lead is largely a copy of the parent article but the table should be merged back. No one was clamoring for this bold-split-and-immediately-nominate-for-FLC. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • However, this split is useful. Firstly, the reader can see an overview of the awards won by the game in prose on its respective article. Secondly, yes the readable prose on Spider-Man (2018 video game) is 43.8 kB. Thus is falls between 40 and 50 so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be split (it should be noted that this is a guideline so "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" and not a strict policy). However in this case with a large awards table the general consensus has been to split. For example: On Grand Theft Auto V the readable prose is 37kB and yet the accolades table (FL) has a readable prose of 2.9kB. So in theory it should be put on the same page per WP:SIZERULE. However, the reasons why these tables have been split is not to with the readable prose it is to do with the large visual size they take up on the page. In general is more benefical for readers to have a concise overview of the awarads on the respective page and then to have a large table of all their awards on a separate page. Some other examples of this include:
    • The Last of Us readable prose = 36kB; accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.5kB
    • Red Dead Redemption 2 readable prose = 44kB; Accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.8kB
    • Uncharted 4: A Thief's End readable prose = 25kB; Accolades table readable prose = 2.7kB
    • Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • This is an FLC about List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man, not a FLRC on other FLs. It is not relevant that you seem to be arguing that those lists should be merged back to their main articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. To summarize: All of those examples were to show that they may not strictly meet WP:SIZERULE but despite this they still deserve to be standalone lists. This is becuase of the large visual space accolade tables have and thus it is generally better to have them on a separate page including for this FLC. If the the readable prose were simply plaintext (or standard prose with no table) then it would not have made sense to split however the large visual size these tables have it makes sense for them to be split off.
        • Furthermore, Spider-Man (2018 video game) has a readable prose of 43.8kB. Thus it falls between 40kB and 50kB so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful per WP:SIZERULE. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be kept or split.
        • Pinging @Rhain: for some input, since he knows far more about Video game accolades tables than me. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Barry Sheene Medal[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This list concerns the Barry Sheene Medal, the most prestigious award in the Supercars Championship outside of its drivers' championship trophy. The equivalent to the Brownlow Medal and the Dally M Medal, it is named after the two-time Grand Prix world motorcycling champion and motor racing commentator Barry Sheene. I believe this list meets the criteria to be at a featured level and look forwards to all comments and concerns. MWright96 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • "cast votes of three, two and one points towards a driver" - this reads really weirdly to me. Maybe "award three drivers scores of three, two and one points". Also, does each member of the panel separately award 3-2-1, or does the panel as a whole award one set of such marks?
  • "Many considered it highly prestigious after the drivers' championship" => "Many considered it highly prestigious, second only to the drivers' championship". Also, could you clarify who the "many" are? Drivers? Journalists? Fans? All of the above?
  • "and is frequently likened" => "and it is frequently likened"
  • "He took his maiden drivers' championship" - I would simply say "first", as this reads weirdly like he won the championship of driving maidens ;-)
  • "and Ford's first since the 1997 season" - now admittedly I know nothing about motorsport, but where does Ford come in? If his team was Stone Brothers Racing, where does Ford fit in?
    • Ford was Stone Brothers Racing's supplier of racing cars. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me. Good work overall, and pretty cool that we have five different pictures of Lowndes to use ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things[edit]

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Stranger Things is a critically acclaimed series that has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Brojam (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • "All episodes of the first season were released on Netflix on July 15, 2016,[3] while the second season was released in its entirety on October 27, 2017" - I would avoid using "while" there, as that suggests two things happening at the same time, which clearly isn't the case here
  • "and a Peabody Award nomination" - I think the last word is redundant here as it is part of a list of nominations, so obviously it is a nomination
  • "one of its Top 10 television programs of the year" - either it should be written as "Top 10 TV Programs of the Year" to match the table or else "Top" shouldn't have a capital T
  • Character column in the first table sorts on forename, it should sort on surname
  • AFI Awards are initially listed second, presumably because it stands for American Film Institute, but it you re-sort on that column it jumps to the top because it sorts under "AF"
  • Same with IFMCA Awards, which jumps about when you re-sort on that column
  • TCA Awards are listed before Teen Choice, but if TCA stands for Television Critics Assoc, then I would have thought it should be alphabetised based on that to be consistent with AFI and IFMCA, which are alphabetised based on what they stand for. Either that or alphabetise the other two based on the actual initials.
  • People's Choice Awards should not be listed before Peabody Awards
  • Think that's it from me. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback. I have addressed all your comments. - Brojam (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

  • Add a short description.
    • Add a short description of what? Since I already have one for the show. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The claim it has recieved "Critical acclaim" needs a significant number of references per WP:PEACOCK.
  • Swap out the "E! Online" article with a different one that is more reliable per WP:RSP.
  • Add some more references/inline citations for the lead (2nd and 3rd paragraphs) to meet WP:V particulary the second paragraph: "Stranger Things has been nominated for many awards, including 31 Primetime Emmy Awards (six wins)..."
    • No references are needed here since the content is already sourced in the body of the article per WP:CITELEAD. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The Efn notes should state "Also awarded to" not "Tied" since it is not a race.
  • IGN should be in italics.

That is all I could find so far but may have a deeper dive at a later date, good work. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Spy-cicle: All your comments have been addressed above. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • All those changes look good. The only other thing I have found is the that runner-ups are considered wins? I understand they are special recognition but conflating them with full on wins is somewhat confusing for readers if they want to find out how many actual wins Stranger Things has won at glance. Perhaps, if you wanted to note how many runner-ups + wins they recieved you could do that in an efn note separate to the wins tally.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • This is addressed with the note in the infobox: Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients, have runners-up and have third place. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally. - Brojam (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Polish cardinals[edit]

Nominator(s): — Kpalion(talk) 17:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete, up-to-date, stable, well-referenced, has a sufficiently-detailed lead, is well illustrated with free images. In short, it meets all the criteria. — Kpalion(talk) 17:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose – I don't believe this meets the FL criteria yet. – zmbro (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • No lead image?
  • The table should definitely have its own heading
  • FLs do not say "This list..."; done in this meta fashion multiple times
  • Almost all paragraphs in the lead should have references, especially if you wanna say "Karol Wojtyła was the only Polish cardinal to be elected pope. As Pope John Paul II, he elevated ten of his compatriots to cardinalate, the largest number of Polish cardinals created by a single pope."
  • References are the biggest problem here.
  • Everything in the ref col should not be externally linked
  • What is Miranda?
  • Ref 3 is a dead link
  • Wikisource is 100% not an RS; honestly don't know if most of these are RSs
  • Almost every reference is primary when you need a mix of different sources
  • The table:
  • Could benefit from being sortable
  • Needs scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS
  • Image col should be next to the name

All I can pinpoint at the moment, but for now this is sadly nowhere near ready for FL. – zmbro (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the advice! — Kpalion(talk) 18:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose mainly on sourcing. Almost everything in the article is sourced to and/or a site referred to as simply "Miranda". Both just seem to the personal website of some random person (and, for the record, both look like Geocities sites from 1998). Clearly neither can be considered to meet WP's definition of a reliable source, so unfortunately I have to oppose at this time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... It meets every criteria for FA. Simple and not overly detailed, yet a complete filmography with very strong sourcing. Also features an "reception" section, backed up with proper sourcing and detail. Lead is straight to the point, and covers the content below.Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per content fork (3c). The key information in this article could be placed in the main article in one table. There is no need for a separate filmography article. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
You could make the same argument for so many filmographies that are FA, including some of the lists you have been working on (James Cameron's filmography is just as short, all that could go in the main article as well). But I'd ague that a complete filmography, put toghether in one scheme, would be way more confusing for the average reader looking up what films Nolan has made. Also, another reason for splitting was that the main article was 180k at one point, Wikipedia recommends splitting up over 140k. (edit: Thanks for the feedback, not my intention to seem ungrateful here) Sammyjankis88 (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sammyjankis88: I've created an example of the table in my sandbox User:Cowlibob/sandbox. The current size of Nolan's article is approx 97K. This table is 4.5K (with the caveat it would increase with refs to I'd estimate to max of 8K). Cowlibob (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Thanks indeed. I do not understand why you think that scheme would make it easier for the average reader on his main article (?). I can see the argument on the filmography article, sure. It's much better with a simple list of the films he has directed on the main page; that is obviously what people search for. Only the very interested will care if he served as executive producer on a short film or appeared in a documentary. With the sources and 'Reception' section, that would be closer to 15k, not 8k. Let's not forget that his main article will grow with Tenet in 2020 (and further projects), so were right back at pushing 140k.. The reason why the current size of Nolan's article is 97K is because I've further split his filmmaking section (71,829 bytes) and his filmography (20,173 bytes). I do appreciate your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: Thank you very much for the table, I have updated the filmography article. (still very close to 20k). :) Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the table and your work on the Nolan articles thus far. I've had a rethink and consulted the WP:SPLIT more closely especially the rule of thumb table which I hadn't seen before which recommends almost always splitting if at 100k which the main one is pretty much at and have struck my oppose. Having said that, the other main issue I noted was that this filmography contains a reception table which to my knowledge is not included in any FL filmography. I think it would be better if the info re: reception is summarised the lead rather than as a separate table. For example discussing whether the film was commercially successful or generally received critical acclaim/ awards or the opposite. I'm happy to have a go at writing an example lead in that format if you'd like later this week. Cowlibob (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated that you have taken the time to look at this. I'd be very, very happy if you could take a crack at the lead, I agree that it would be better for the article if the "reception" section could be transformed or merged into prose in the lead. Best regards! Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Just went ahead and removed the reception-table. I will try to incorporate your lead when that is done. All the best. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Anne Baxter on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Anne Baxter was an American actress who had extensive film, television, and stage career over five decades. This list discusses her career. She received the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for The Razor's Edge (1946) for portraying a bereaved woman who suffers from alcoholism. Perhaps her best known roles are as an ambitious understudy in Joseph L. Mankiewicz's All About Eve (1950) and an Egyptian princess in DeMille's The Ten Commandments (1956). As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "she also appeared in Fritz Lang-directed film noir" => "she also appeared in the Fritz Lang-directed film noir"
  • "as Egyptian princess Nefretiri in Cecil B. DeMille-directed" => "as Egyptian princess Nefretiri in the Cecil B. DeMille-directed"
  • My only other comment is that it doesn't say which episodes of Batman she was in - is this information not available? Theoretically it could currently be interpreted that she was in all of them......
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review. Hopefully the above is resolved now, have amended lead and added in episode titles.Cowlibob (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • "in film, television and on the stage." I think just "on stage" would be better (so there's not just one stage)
  • "at the age of 13 on the stage in the Broadway play" same here
  • "Two years later Baxter" → "Two years later, Baxter"
  • Why no note for the Hotel TV series?

Rest looks good. Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Thanks for your review. I think I've made amendments for the above. Cowlibob (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me. Care to check out my current FLC? – zmbro (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zmbro: I'll see if I can find some time later this week, it's a large list so may take me some time. Cowlibob (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by the Beatles[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Beatles. The ultimate British act. 2 years and over 500 edits later (yes I'm serious), I have finally brought this page up to where I think it's FL worthy (it's gone through probably 3 major revamps). While it's definitely not as big as McCartney's song list, this has been my biggest project yet. The lead took the longest; what the Beatles did to music can't be summarized in 4 paragraphs, but I believe I have tried my best to cover the majors. The list includes all their core songs (all the stuff released on their studio albums and Past Masters), other released songs since 1970, as well as unreleased songs that have been mentioned by various authors. I'm really looking forward to all of your comments and concerns. I can't wait to see what's in store after this. Happy editing :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


Only got time to look at the lead right now, but here goes............

  • "of which include live songs" => "which include live songs" – fixed
  • "the group's music [....] were primarily responsible" => was primarily responsible – fixed
  • "Throughout their career, every band member contributed to songwriting" - this might be massively pedantic, but the band's career included members other than John, Paul, George and Ringo. Is there a better way of saying "all four members of the group from the point where they signed their first recording contract"...........?
  • Great point. I somehow always forget about Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best (and the other Quarrymen member if we wanna go back further). How about something like "Following their signing with EMI, each member of the "Fab Four" contributed to songwriting."? I think mentioning them as the Fab Four would make more sense, since only John, Paul, George, and Ringo were known as the "Fab Four".
    • Sounds good to me, but maybe say specifically "Following their signing with EMI in 1962"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "introduced numerous innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century" - this doesn't make sense. Should it be "introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century"
  • Reading it back yeah that didn't make sense. Changed to "more"
  • "Some of these innovations" - no need to repeat the word "innovations"
  • "The opening chord of "A Hard Day's Night" and the ending chord of "A Day in the Life" are viewed as particularly striking and memorable" - this bit seems to sit in the middle of a section about the Beatles' innovations but isn't really about innovation itself. Could it be moved somewhere else?
  • I just removed that. I thought that needed to be mentioned but there's really no way you can fit literally everything they did into 4 paragraphs so we'll just ditch that.
  • "unreleased songs have seen release" => "unreleased songs have been released" – fixed
  • Think that's it on the lead.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Further comments
  • "primarily due to different practices in both countries at the time" - this is very vague - what "practices", exactly? TBH I am not sure this clause is actually needed.
  • Yeah I mainly found that reason on their "North American releases" page. I tried to find out what that meant exactly (to expand it) but I couldn't find much. I just removed it since none of the US albums (except MMT) are relevant today
    • My understanding is that it mostly boils down to the fact that US albums at the time usually contained fewer tracks than was the norm for UK albums, so the US labels would chop tracks off the albums, and then release additional "patchwork" albums with the material they had chopped off, bulked out with singles and stuff. But, as you say, not really worth mentioning given that you only talk about the "core 14" in the article.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and a few other rarities" - I'd just say "and other rarities" – done
  • Against All You Need is Love - "(A-side of "Baby, You're a Rich Man")" - this doesn't seem right. Why denote it by what was on the B-side? This applies elsewhere too. Denoting songs which actually were the B-side seems right, but this just looks odd......
  • I originally just had the B-sides noted but was thinking it'd be helpful to list which ones were A-sides so it wasn't showing just the album. Now thinking about it more it definitely seems odd. I'll remove those one I'm back on my desktop.
  • First table gives the original artist of cover songs but the second does not - any particular reason?
  • That's a great point I actually have no idea. I'll fix that on e I'm back on desktop.
  • If "Isn't it a Pity" was a solo performance by George and didn't appear on any Beatles record, is it really a Beatles song.....?
  • Technically not but I think the same situation applies to "Come and Get It". Solely McCartney but released under the Beatles name on Anthology 3 and Abbey Road super deluxe. But since "Isn't It a Pity" was actually Harrison solo and never under the Beatles name I'll remove that.
  • Note a - you wouldn't normally say "these include" and then give the entire list. I would change it to "these consist of" – changed
  • Note b - not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop. This may apply to other notes too. – fixed
  • Think that's it from me. Excellent work all round....or should I say "fab"? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude Mostly done with a few comments above. I'll take care of the bigger things once I'm back on my desktop. Thanks very much for the comments :-) – zmbro (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude Everything's taken care of. While I was looking at the cover songs I found that many did not really have a definitive "original artist", since many were written by someone then given to dozens of artists; sometimes the original artists were complete unknowns so I just removed the original artists on the main table to make it easy. – zmbro (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be a pest, but it still says "Throughout their career, every band member contributed to songwriting." Everything else looks great, and I am OK with removing the original artists for covers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Comments resolved. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Ojorojo

This is impressive. Separating the tables (Main, Other, & Unreleased) is a very good approach. Also, identifying the core albums places more focus on the songs rather than complicating it with all the various releases.

  • "Main songs":
  • Intro: in the first sentence, "United Kingdom (UK)" is unnecessary; UK and US are well-known enough to be used later without first being identified (see MOS:ACRO).
  • "plus the 1964 EP Long Tall Sally and other": without a comma, this can almost be read as "in addition to", i.e., the catalogue includes both Past Masters and the EP; maybe "along with the 1964 EP LTS,(comma) and other".
  • "Song" column: Singles were very important in their early days; maybe highlight them all instead of just those "originally released as a non-album single". (see next)
  • "B-side of": UK & US often had different A/B sides. Maybe in the key, use "Indicates song released as a single A- or B-side in the UK or US" and add more detail as a footnote if important.
  • Since several songs have footnotes with alternative releases, maybe the songs on the Long Tall Sally and Magical Mystery Tour EPs should also.
  • "Lennon McCartney" is repeated for several entries in a row. Would rowspan= for 3 or 4 give it a less cluttered look?
  • "Other released songs":
  • "Key": Since it's a separate table, add "Indicates song not written by the members of Beatles" and colors (shouldn't the live recordings also be highlighted?).
  • Intro: "On top of their" this sounds awkward to me, maybe "In addition to".
  • "Song" column: I think this should be wider for more emphasis and consistency with the Main table (could the "Year" columns be narrowed by using <small>?).
  • "Songwriter(s)" column: I find the sort function useful, as in the "Main" table. One can see all the songs by a particular writer grouped together.
  • "en dash": this is used for three "lead vocals" entries, but isn't explained, such as in a footer at the bottom.
  • "Instumental": These are highlighted using {{N/A}}, but I'm not sure why.
  • "Notes" column: I wonder if sometimes there's too much detail. The year recorded is already given and, since all the songs are linked to articles and the albums list where and when recorded, is it really that important to add the rest? It gives more of a sessionography look.

Over all, great work. More later. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Daft Punk discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Philroc (c) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it exhaustively covers Daft Punk's releases since the start of their career in 1994, including remixes, production credits and music videos. It is also accessible and reliably sourced wherever possible. I believe that all concerns from the past two failed nominations have been properly addressed. Philroc (c) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "French electronic music duo Daft Punk has" / "Daft Punk released their second studio album" - so is Daft Punk singular or plural? Pick one and be consistent
  • "They subsequently recorded several demo tracks with each other" => "They subsequently recorded several demo tracks together" would be better
  • "Indo Silver Club" needs a reference as it didn't chart anywhere
  • That's all I've got. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: All addressed, thanks for your comments! Philroc (c) 20:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

East Bengal F.C. league record by opponent[edit]

Nominator(s): SabyaC (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is comprehensive and accurately produces data with proper reliable citations. This list features all time league record for East Bengal F.C. against all opposition it faced in the National Football League and the I-League till date accurately. I believe this list should get the featured list title. SabyaC (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The first thing that jumps out is.....if the club was formed in 1920, where are all the matches from the first 76 years of their history? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I've just noticed the collapsed key, expanded it, and noticed it says "The records include the results of matches played in the National Football League (from 1996 to 2006) and the I-League (from 2006 to the present day)". Why are all the results from before 1996 excluded? It seems weird to have a list which purports to cover the club's complete league record but excludes over 75% of its history...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, National League was started in 1996, prior to that in India there was no national league happening just mere state leagues as East Bengal FC used to participate in the Calcutta Football League, which is not a national level tournament. -SabyaC (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Existing FLs Cardiff City F.C. league record by opponent, Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent, Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent and York City F.C. league record by opponent include periods when the clubs played regional football. In the case of East Bengal, such a massive chunk of the club's history is missing that I would find it hard to support..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment from zmbro
  • I have to agree with Chris as well. If other FLs of the same nature list every year, even when they weren't at the national level, I find that hard to support as well. On top of that, 22 out of 24 references listed are from "" while the other two are "East Bengal Football Club". You tend to want a variety of primary and secondary sources so that probably won't fly either, as everything here is primary. The other FLx Chris mentioned each have books that give some info so perhaps there's a book or two available? – zmbro (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Michael Jackson videography[edit]

Nominator(s): Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has improved greatly from its previous failed nomination... Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1972[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The latest list of country number one songs by year. So far this little project of mine has produced 35 FLs and another is close, so here's the potential #37........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am uncertain about this sentence: "At the start of the year, the number one single was "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" by Charley Pride, its fifth week in the top spot." It reads a little awkwardly to me, and I think it could be made more concise. Maybe something like the following, "At the start of the year, Charley Pride's "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" spent its fifth week in the top spot.", would be better?
  • I have a question about this part: "totalling 11 weeks in the top spot with "My Hang-Up Is You", "Bless Your Heart" and "Got the All Overs for You (All Over Me)". Is "totalling" intentionally spelled like that? I am not sure if it is a spelling variation on totaling or a typo so I wanted to ask to make sure.
  • This sentence, ""My Hang-Up Is You" had the longest unbroken run at number one, spending six weeks at the top of the chart in the spring, twice as long as any other song spent at number one in 1972.", reads rather awkwardly to me, specifically the phrase beginning with "twice...". I understand what you mean, but I am wondering if it could be revised to read a little better. Apologies for the somewhat vague comment, but I am not entirely sure how I would reword myself.
  • It may be better to revise this part, "Jerry Wallace achieved the only country chart-topper of his career", to something like the following, "Jerry Wallace achieved his only country chart-topper", to be a little more concise with the prose.
  • For this part, "after being featured in an episode of the TV show Night Gallery", I believe it should be "television show" instead of "TV show".
  • For this part, "Tillis co-wrote the song with Webb Pierce, whose version went to number 2 on the chart in 1959,", I would spell out "2" as "two" since numbers under ten are spelled out with words rather than numerals in other parts of the lead.
  • Since you specify the year in two of the image captions, I would do the same for the ones for Hart and Fargo.
  • When I first read through the list, I noticed a few odd spacing issues where there were sometimes double/triple spaces left between sentences. I think that I have corrected all of them, but I would encourage you to check again and see if I missed any other instances.

Awesome work as always. Your productivity and consistently good work is very admirable. I enjoyed reading through the list, and it inspired me to check out some of these artists in the future, specifically Donna Fargo since I have a preference for female singers. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: many thanks for your comments, which have hopefully been addressed to your satisfaction. With regard to "totalling", that's how I would spell it but then I am British and I appreciate that this article should be written in US English. I am not 100% sure what the correct US spelling would be, so I have used alternative wording which hopefully avoids the issue altogether..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Upon further investigation, the totaling/totalling difference is really just an American/British spelling difference. I guess American English drops the double l for a single l. Either way, have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Great as always. – zmbro (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Margaret[edit]

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The list is well sourced and includes songs from all Margaret's albums + other notable songs she recorded during her career. If anyone has any suggestions how it can be improved please let me know. Looking forward to reading your comments. ArturSik (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I have a suggestion for this sentence: "The majority of her repertoire is in English, which she attributed partly to the fact that her songs sound better when sung in that language". I know what you mean by "repertoire", but I think it would be best to just say "music" and be more direct in this context.
  • I have a comment for this sentence: "Before her mainstream debut, Margaret recorded songs for television commercials, and released an independent album with her band Margaret J. Project called This Is Margaret (2012)." In the main Margaret article, the band is referenced as "the Margaret J. Project" so I would change either instance for consistency (i.e. depending on whether "the" should be included or not).
  • I would avoid using "the singer" in the lead. It is more of a stylistic and personal judgement, but I agree with the essay, Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, that it can sound somewhat awkward. Just wanted to raise that point, but if you would prefer to keep the current phrasing, then that is also fine by me.
  • The phrase "extended play" is wikilinked twice in the lead. After the introduction of the EP acronym, I would be consistent with just using that for the rest of the lead.
  • For this part "All songs from All I Need were later included on her debut studio album Add the Blonde released in 2014.", I would say "All the songs" instead of "All songs".
  • I would revise this sentence, "Some songs, including the album's third single "Heartbeat", were co-written by Margaret.", to something like the following, "Margaret co-wrote some songs, including the album's third single "Heartbeat". I am suggesting this to avoid having two sentences in a row start with a similar beginning, and I would imagine that emphasis should be put on Margaret writing these songs anyway.
  • I have a comment about this sentence, "The album was reissued in 2016 and contained new songs "Cool Me Down", "Elephant", and a cover of Robin Beck's song "First Time" titled "Smak radości" recorded for Polish Coca-Cola commercial.". The last part about the Beck cover reads rather awkwardly to me so I would recommend looking back on it.
  • For this sentence "It contained first two original Polish-language songs recorded by her, "Byle jak" and "Nie chce".", I would remove "recorded by her" as it can be assumed from context.
  • For this part "Most songs on the record were co-written by Margaret.", I think it would read better to say "A majority of the record" or something similar.
  • I have a suggestion for the chart. I have seen similar lists use "Non-album single" for instances in which a song is not released on an album as opposed to "None". I do not think it matters either way so it is up to you, but I just wanted to raise that point with you.
  • Would it be beneficial to add some images next to the table? I have seen featured lists on this topic do that.
  • I do not think the acoustic versions of songs should marked twice in the chart. I would instead put that information in a footnote.

I hope my comments are helpful. Once they are addressed, I will read through the list another time and most likely support it for promotion. Have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • For this part (Margaret co-wrote some songs, including the album's third single "Heartbeat"), I would clarify the exact number of songs that she co-wrote for the album rather than using some.
  • For this part (as well as Margaret's Polish-language version of Robin Beck's song "First Time" titled "Smak radości" which was used in Polish Coca-Cola commercial), it should either be "Polish Coca-Cola commercials" or "a Polish Coca-Cola commercial".
  • For this part (It contained the first two original Polish-language songs, "Byle jak" and "Nie chce".), I would replace "the" with "her".
  • I would add a citation for this part of the image caption (He co-wrote some of her most successful songs including "Wasted", "Cool Me Down", "What You Do" and "In My Cabana".) to support the information about the songs' commercial success.

Thank you for addressing my comments. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Aoba47 thanks for your comments. it's all done now. I removed the informations about the songs' commercial success as I didn't find a specific source. when i was writing it I just looked at the songs' chart positions but i guess that's not enough. either way it's all sorted. thanks again and best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. Either way, I support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Aoba47 thank you so much. I will have a look at your article by the end of the week. best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • In addition to Aoba's comments above......
  • "Polish singer and songwriter Margaret recorded songs" - as her career isn't over (a far as I can see), this should be "Polish singer and songwriter Margaret has recorded songs"
  • "recorded in a collaboration" => "recorded in collaboration"
  • "It contained first two original" => "It contained the first two original"

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Aoba47 and ChrisTheDude: thank you for your comments. I think I've addressed all of them. please let me know if there's anything else. best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro

Always love seeing other songs lists. Just a few things:

  • Make sure all images have alt text (Margaret's photo does but the other don't)
  • Don't think the Ś is needed in the content box but that's my opinion
  • I would change "Album(s)" to "Release(s)", especially since some listed are tv series and films
  • Going along with the previous point, I would list which ones are those (i.e. Smurfs: The Lost Village (film))

Rest looks good. Great job to you :-) – zmbro (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Zmbro Thanks a lot. All done. Best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Support – All good for me. – zmbro (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Norway[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 18:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Norway has a bunch of interesting World Heritage Sites, and not all of them are fjords (though some are!). The style follows that of a series of other countries, the most recent promoted being Austria. Per comment on one of the previous nominations, this time all descriptions are written from scratch and not only modified from exisitng article (when those articles were first created, there was a tendency to simply copy the description from the UNESCO site). Tone 18:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "The church combines the influences of the Celtic art" => "The church combines the influences of Celtic art"
  • At the end of the Rock Art section, there's an unnecessary gap before the reference.
  • "people were harvesting" => "the inhabitants harvested"
  • Transnational sites are denoted only by colour, they need a symbol too
  • "a series of triangulation pointes" - points, surely (as indeed it is in the next sentence)?
  • "They are to be classic examples" => "They are classic examples"
  • "above the sea level" => "above sea level"
  • "The industrial complex in towns" => "The industrial complex in the towns"
  • You use harbour (British English) but also fertilizer (American English) - be consistent
  • "They consist of chiefly of" => "They consist chiefly of"
  • "the bird cliffs on Røst and Værøy are especially famous" => "the bird cliffs on Røst and Værøy being especially famous"
  • "The islands have been used as whaling stations and by miners for centuries, now there are permanent Norwegian and Russian settlements" => "The islands have been used as whaling stations and by miners for centuries, and now there are permanent Norwegian and Russian settlements"
  • "This is an transnational" => "This is a transnational "
  • "Bouver Island" - wrong spelling
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • SUpport -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro (Just a few minor things)
  • "over 10 000 years." → comma missing...?
  • Make sure photos have alt text
  • Could the lead be any longer? Seems a little short, but maybe that's just me.

Everything looks good. – zmbro (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    • @Zmbro: Done, the first two. As for the intro, I find it tricky to add something really meaningful and not to repeat the content in the table too much. --Tone 21:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Makes sense to me. Happy to support – zmbro (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by Undertale[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Undertale is an indie video game created by Toby Fox. The game was crowdfunded via Kickstarter. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Support Comments from Alexandra
  • I will be posting comments here soon.--Alexandra IDVtalk 06:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As Harrias already mentioned below, this is currently a content fork of the parent article's Accolades section. I do think that it can be justified as a spin-out article, but the parent article should then not contain the accolades table, and should link to and summarize the list page.
  • WP:VG/REC says to not use GameRankings other than in cases where a Metacritic score is unavailable (ie older games from before MC was created and became the industry standard).
  • I believe there is a lot of extraneous information in the lead. It is good to introduce the topic to the reader and give context, but do we need to know details like how and when the development was funded, and how much the crowdfunding campaign made?
  • Steam Spy makes estimates of sales based on checking how often it is included in public Steam user profiles - I think it should be clear that these are estimates, and not official numbers. As they are estimates, I also think a specific number like 530,343 is inappropriate - round to "over 530,000".
  • "Nitendo" should be "Nintendo", and is here a publisher rather than a work
  • The same year at Steam Awards the received the nomination - you are missing a word here
  • The last paragraph in the lead is quite tedious to read, and is essentially just a list written out in sentence form. I would recommend summarizing what kinds of awards it won (story, game of the year, etc.), and mentioning any particularly major awards directly.
  • I cannot support this just yet - ping me when the above has been addressed, and I will take a second look.--Alexandra IDVtalk 17:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexandra IDV: I have made changes to the list as you suggested. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in returning to you on this. I am happy with the changes you implemented, and support the FLC.--Alexandra IDVtalk 02:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but after having seen Dissident's breakdown/removal of the invalid entries, I can no longer support this. I Oppose and recommend merging it back with the main article until (if) the game wins/is nominated for a significant amount of awards that would make for valid entries.--AlexandraIDV 09:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias
  • Harrias CAPTAIN MEDUSA I think an easy solution to this would be to get rid of everything under accolades on the Undertale page and list the main article as this page. Pretty easy solution that's definitely not worth an oppose (to me at least). – zmbro (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle[edit]

Currently I have to Oppose until some parts of the article are fixed. I have not fully checked all the references on the table but here are my comments so far:

  • Gaming publications/magazines need to be in italics. This includes IGN, Destructoid and GameSpot.
  • Currently the Undertale logo is too large and takes up too much space. I suggest you reduce the size significantly.
  • Currently the lede paragraph could do with improvement. Currently it is "Undertale is a role-playing video game created by American indie developer Toby Fox. Players in the game can freely roam the underground world filled with towns and caves. The underground is the home of monsters, many of whom challenge the player in combat. Players control a human child and choose whether to kill, befriend or flee the monsters. In 2013 the game was crowdfunded through the website Kickstarter." Currently the first sentence is generally fine. The others could be less redundant and the paragraph would look something like (changes in bold): "Undertale is a role-playing video game created by American developer Toby Fox. Players control a human child who can freely roam the underground world filled with towns and caves. The underground is the home of monsters, many of whom challenge the player in combat. Players can choose whether to kill, befriend or flee the monsters. In 2013, the game was crowdfunded through the website Kickstarter."
  • References should wiki-link their respective Gaming publication.
  • I could not find anything in the first Rock, Paper, Shotgun reference to state is was crowdfunded by Kickstarter
  • I am going to need more references to state that the game was critical acclaimed and is a cult video game per WP:PEACOCK.
  • The Ars Technica reference should cite the fourth page. Here is a URL citing the fourth page [2]
  • Not sure how reliable the GamingOnLinux source is I would suggest swapping it out for a different one.
  • Swap out the Eurogamer article and Japanese reference about PS4/Vita/Switch release since it is was about its upcoming release date. Citaitons of Release dates have to be after the game is out per WP:VG/DATE.
  • "In 2016, at the 2016 Independent Games Festival the game..." One of those 2016's is redundant.

Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA Thanks for the speedy reply and changes. Currently, the introduction to the list has significantly improved. These are the additional comments I have upon further inspection of the list.

  • "Funniest Game on PC from Rock, Paper, Shotgun" I could not find that within the cited soured.
  • The archived source for IGN PC Game of the Year brings up a 404 error.
  • "Game of the Year from ... IGN." I think it should state PC Game of the Year since IGN could have a different game for the overall game of the year regardless of platforms.
  • "In 2016, at the Independent Games Festival the game won Audience Award, and garnered three nominated for Excellence in Audio, Excellence in Narrative, and Seumas McNally Grand Prize" The cited claim does not support the nominations and only the won award.
  • The D.I.C.E Awards should have the . s in between and should be linked to its dedicated page D.I.C.E. Awards
  • Currently the table is ordered by date. I suggest ordering it alphabetically by Award as seen on List of accolades received by Red Dead Redemption 2 since the left hand column is the award column. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Whilst the quality of the List is high I am going to have currently strike my previous !vote due to the current uncertainity of whether this meets FLC#3c due to the relatively small number of entries on the list, especially since Dissident93 has removed further entries. However, I am not sure if all of those were justified. For example: British Academy Games Awards makes sense to be included although I do not think the same can be said for The Jimquisition. Although, others like IGN and GameSpot do somewhat make sense and have been featured on previous FLs like List of accolades received by Red Dead Redemption 2.

Regardless I am going to vote Merge back into Undertale for the time being. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "freely roam the underground world" - I would suggest an underground world
  • "and PlayStation Vita later on 15 September 2018 for Nintendo Switch" - this doesn't make sense. For which platform was it released on that date? If it was both, why does it not just say Vita and Switch together?
  • "Review aggregator Metacritic, assigned" - no reason for that comma there
  • "assigned the game a normalised score" - as it is a US topic, normalized should be spelt with a Z
  • "receiving Game of the Month, and Funniest Game on PC" - again, no need for a comma there
  • I would put "and" before "Game of the Year for PC", as it is the last item in a list
  • "Matthew Crump Cultural Innovation Award" => "the Matthew Crump Cultural Innovation Award"
  • Remove the comma after that award
  • "from SXSW Gaming Awards" => "from the SXSW Gaming Awards"
  • "from National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers awards" => "from the National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers Awards"
  • "Undertale was nominated for Innovation Award" => "Undertale was nominated for the Innovation Award"
  • "at Game Developers Choice Awards" => "at the Game Developers Choice Awards"
  • "the game won Audience Award" => "the game won the Audience Award"
  • "and garnered three nominated" => "and garnered three nominations"
  • " and Seumas McNally Grand Prize." => " and the Seumas McNally Grand Prize."
  • "The same year at Steam Awards" => "The same year at the Steam Awards"
  • Note a - "Date is linked to the article about the awards held that year, wherever possible." - is there really any point in this note given that not a single date is linked?
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude — Done. I have also looked at the uses of the article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - hopelessly and unaddressably fails FLC#3c "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Accolades lists are generally only split from a main article when they reach a certain (vaguely defined) length. This list does not meet that minimum. This list consists of a lead that is mostly copied from the parent article and the list itself which is less than a page and a half long. When it was still part of the main article, it was in a drop down list that took up even less space. There is no conceivable way for this list about a four year old game to expand to meet minimum standalone list requirements and honestly should just be merged back to the main article post haste. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Axem Titanium. As it states on WP:SIZERULE > 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided. The current size of the article is 71,498 bytes and with table 31,819 which adds to 103,317. Some parts of the article need to be copied such as plot, award, and logo. The list originally was hidden so there is no impact reader. Also per MOS:DONTHIDE Scrolling lists, and collapsible templates that toggle text display between hide and show, can interfere with readers' ability to access our content. Such mechanisms are not to be used to conceal "spoiler" information. If the information is important and the concern is article density or length, consider dividing the article into more sections, integrating unnecessarily list-formatted information into the article prose, or splitting the article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
First of all, the table, before you removed it from the main article, was only 17kb out of a total article size of 89kb. Second of all, according to WP:SIZERULE, "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)". The readable prose in Undertale is only 22.5kb. I don't have a preference between a hideable table and not; I was merely reporting its state before you removed it. This split was done unilaterally by Captain Medusa on November 19, 2019, after zero discussion and with no prior indications from any editor that a split was necessary or desirable. I will refrain from speculating about the motivations of the author to make such a split and rush it to FLC just 2 days later. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Should I rewrite the list or start a discussion. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I would withdraw the nomination and merge the table back into the main article as a start. Ordinarily, I would revert it myself via WP:BRD but you've gone ahead and nominated it for FLC so that makes reverting more challenging. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Giants2008 PresN A user is claiming the nominator should withdrawal this nom and merge this list into the main article's page even though it currently has three supports. I think we should get at least one or both of your opinions on this matter before the nominator does so. – zmbro (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
We haven't had a lot of video game accolade lists come to FLC, but I remember seeing somewhere that movie/music accolade lists of under 25 items were prime candidates to fail 3b, as they could be merged into parent articles. This list has 27 items, so it's a very borderline case either way. More input from the community would be nice here, as it's a case where the FLC community, and not merely the leaders of FLC, should decide whether a separate article can meet 3b in this scenario, where it isn't clear-cut. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree; this seems borderline to me, but I honestly am not a fan of accolade lists at all so I feel I'm not 100% in step with the community on this issue. I'd also like more comments here on this issue; additionally, I'm going to post an invitation at WT:VG for subject-area editors to chime in as well. --PresN 03:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge back to Undertale. Some of the entries on this list are simply editor opinions (WEBSITE's GOTY) or fan votes, and not real, jury-weighted awards. If they aren't supposed to be added in full articles, why should they be allowed here? Once you remove them, the list goes down to eight entries, which is way too few to support a split. I really don't see how or why somebody thought this list was worthy of becoming featured. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge There's no SIZE issue with this information in the original Undertale article, and thus the split to try to get this as FLC seems disinguine. (This is per a request from PresN at WT:VG for input). --Masem (t) 04:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge with Undertale. There is next to no reason to have this as a separate article considering how little there is in the way of actual content. This should not be a Featured List, or a Featured List candidate, whatsoever. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge the list is very small and there is no need to be separate from the original article.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
FLC  Request withdrawn. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@PresN and Giants2008: Nominator wishes to withdraw FLC. Cowlibob (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Seven years after the last failed nomination, I bring this one back for your consideration. I'm a bit out of touch over here, as my last nomination was in January 2018, so bear with me!

Giants2008 opposed this last time around as a 3b violation, so let me address that point. List of first-class cricket records has a section entitled Highest individual score, in which seven of the ten entries here appear. However, the two lists are different statistics: the one listed here is every score of 400 or more. The Highest individual score list records only those scores that became the highest ever first-class score. This currently stands at 501, so any future scores between 400 and 500 would not enter that list. Giants2008 brought up the idea that "Is having a 10-item list there really a stretch?" This appears a reasonable point; but as laid out, these are different statistics: to include the missing three items would change the nature of the list. Another query was: "And could the content here reasonably be included in a potential List of first-class cricket triple centuries?" As I laid out in the previous nomination (before I withdrew it), there are over 175 triple centuries in first-class cricket, so such a list seems trivial and unlikely to be created.

Further issues were raised by Testing times. Some of these I have worked on and addressed in the article, while other parts of it I don't think are necessary or feasible, so those have not been included, but I am more than happy to be challenged on those points. As always, all comments and input will be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – I'll say that I am still not certain about whether 3b is truly met, but won't oppose to avoid putting the FLC's chances in question right away. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

List of World of Darkness video games[edit]

Nominator(s): Alexandra IDVtalk 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, having done my best to satisfy the FL criteria. The list covers all video games in the World of Darkness series – including those game projects that were announced but never finished – organized by sub-series, and with annotations providing information about each entry. Although I have done several GAs and one FA before, this is my first time going through the FLC process, so I hope that I have not made any obvious mistakes, and appreciate any advice and constructive criticism.--Alexandra IDVtalk 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Captain Medusa
  • Add a short description.
Once the short description is added I will more than happy to support the list. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Done - this is something new to me, so I hope the description is satisfactory.--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I Support this nomination. I have also nominated List of accolades received by Undertale for featured list; your feedback is welcome.~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Cheers! I will take a look at your nomination later tonight.--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - couldn't spot any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – looks great to me – zmbro (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle[edit]

  • IGN should be in italics.
    • IGN is in italics when referring to the work, and not when referring to IGN the company, which is the publisher of the website GameSpy.--AlexandraIDV 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think that Metacritic needs to be in italics.
    • This is to my knowledge just how the website parameter of Template:Cite web works, and I don't know how I can circumvent that, or if I should be doing that.--AlexandraIDV 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I suppose it does not really matter, perhaps I am being pedantic. The only thing that really needs changing is some of the sources to the release dates.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that some of the release dates are sourced from sources prior to their release. Per WP:VG/RELEASE Release dates should be discussed in the body of the article (typically, as a section within "Development" or "Release"), and should include citations published after the game or content has been released to verify that the product came out as expected. Game reviews may be suitable for this, but not pre-release reviews. Once those sources are swapped I will happily support this nomination - Great work. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I will take a look at these.--AlexandraIDV 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
      • FYI: I looked at the MOS, and am not 100% sure on how it is actually meant to be interpreted. I started a thread on the VG MOS talk page about it and am hoping for clarification/input from other editors, so if it takes a while before I get to this point, it's because I'm waiting for a response and not because I have forgotten or abandoned it.--AlexandraIDV 21:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
        • No worries, after all Wikipedia has no deadlines (I put my personal interpretation on the thread already but either should be fine; but it will be interesting to know what other editors think for future reference).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1971[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the latest in my ongoing country number ones project, which has produced 35 FLs to date. I now present 1971, a year in which a little-known girl singer called Dolly first topped the chart. I wonder whatever became of her......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am a little uncertain about this part (The first number one of the year was "Rose Garden" by Lynn Anderson, which was in its second week at number one) since "which" is placed directly after the singer's name rather than the song itself. Maybe change it to Lynn Anderson's "Rose Garden" instead to avoid this?
  • For this part (and remained at the top for four weeks in 1971.), is it necessary to repeat the year? I think it could be understood from the context of the sentence.
  • I have a question about this part (Charley Pride spent the highest total number of weeks at number one in 1971, spending 11 weeks in the top spot with "I'd Rather Love You", "I'm Just Me" and "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'".). Would it be possible to avoid repeating spent/spending? Maybe condense the sentence somewhat to (Charley Pride had the highest total number of weeks at number one in 1971, with "I'd Rather Love You", "I'm Just Me" and "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" topping the chart for 11 weeks)? Just wanted to offer a suggestion.
  • For this part (She scored a number of hits with duets with Wagoner as well as solo singles), it might be better to just say (She scored hits with...) and remove the "a number of" as it could be seen as somewhat filler text.
  • This sentence (She scored a number of hits with duets with Wagoner as well as solo singles, and in 1971 achieved the first chart-topper of a career which would lead to her being regarded as the most successful female country performer of all time, as well as achieving considerable success in pop music and acting.) is quite long. Maybe it would be best to separate the part about Parton's later success into its own sentence?
  • For this part (Hart had been an active recording artist since the early 1950s), I do not think "active" is needed. I understand what you mean, but I feel like whenever someone is described as a recording artist or singer, then it is generally assumed that they are active and it is clarified when they are retired (or something similar). However, I could be wrong so let me know.

Great work as always with the list. I hope that my comments are helpful. A majority of them are rather nitpicky suggestions on things that I noticed while reading through the lead. I am sure we will be hearing more about Dolly when the inevitable biopic/Oscar bait comes out lol. once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks as ever for your comments, all of which I have addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the random message. Just wanted to add that I have seen some editors dislike the use of "hits". I do not have a strong opinion about it, and I am not saying you have to remove it, but I just wanted to raise it your attention. If you have used "hits" previous FLCs, then I think it should be fine here. Again, sorry for the randomness, and I still support the list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I suspect pretty much every one of the 34 previous FLs has used the word "hit" somewhere and nobody has ever had an issue with it......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Understandable. Just thought I should point it out after I thought of it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries. Have a pleasant rest of your day -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Another fine list. Well done ChrisTheDude. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Great job as always. – zmbro (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

List of presidents of the National Rifle Association[edit]

Nominator(s): –MJLTalk 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an exhaustive list of all 67 presidents of the NRA and six of the past executive vice presidents of the NRA. All presidents are included, but only executive vice presidents that have a page are also included. The primary list is sortable by year elected to office, last name, and type of occupation a person had, and the specific name of that occupation. Additionally, it is color-coded to represent backgrounds of Activism, Business, Law enforcement, Legal, Military, Nature, Politics, shooting sports, or other general fields. The primary list has 5 high quality images which accompany it, and the article has two images side-by-side depicting the current president and executive vice president. There are a total of three red links on the page and 3,732 words in the article (of which roughly 302 of those words represent readable prose). It's the highest quality list article I have ever created, so therefore I am nominating it for featured list status. –MJLTalk 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment: The table looks like a rainbow and does not include any type of symbol, which are needed for color blind people. Also, all caps in the refs need to be removed; MOS:Caps. More comments later. Lirim | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The all caps issue has now been fixed. I'm not sure how to best address your first comment, though. I would be willing to just axe the colors altogether since the table is already sortable in that regard. I'm open to suggestions there. –MJLTalk 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The colors are superficial and don't tell me anything that the Background column doesn't tell me already. Should be removed.
  • The Ref. Column should be titled {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
  • president of the National Rifle Association/Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association do not to be fat text
  • Executive Vice Presidents of the NRA should also be in a table like the Presidents of the National Rifle Association
  • The pictures are way too large (200px is large enough)
  • The lead is too short
Lirim | Talk 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: I removed the colors, titled the heading {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (no period), reformed the exec VP list as a table, resized the pictures, and expanded the lead. I have no clue what you meant by "[NRA president/Exec VP of NRA] do not to be fat text" so I left that alone. I think you are referring to the bolded black text? If that is the case, I will state having it bolded is simply my preference, but I will remove it if needed. –MJLTalk 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Edited: 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


  • First, I know it's tough editing a controversial topic like this, but for FL consideration you really need to watch your word and sentence choice per WP:W2W and WP:SYNTH. Let the facts do the talking. Troublesome examples that immediately pop out to me are:
  • "... the group's was exclusively to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis. However by 1977, the NRA had been heavily involved in lobbying ..."
  • "Today, it is considered one of the most influential special interest groups ... and a powerful force ..."
  • "... the NRA has had several presidents make controversial statements ..."
  • "... they provide the appearance of legitimacy ..."
  • etc
  • That brings me to my next point, keep of level of detail about the organization itself to the minimum amount possible. For a list of people in group Y, you shouldn't be discussing how groups X and Z think group Y is the best/worst/etc. Nor should you discuss the history of the organization itself, it's official stances, controversies, etc. Leave that content to the article on group Y. The same thing can be said for controversial statements made by individudal members; leave that content to the people's respective articles. (In other words, delete most of the first two paragraphs in the lead.)
  • Instead: give a brief set of explanations on what an NRA president is, what their duties are, how they've changed through history (if they have), etc. (Similar to how the VPs are discussed)
  • Briefly talk about the history of the presidential nomination/election processes. Has it remained the same throughout the organization's history? Did any presidents have their status revoked, and if so, why? Did any presidents die during office? What's the longest the office has gone unfilled, and why? Etc.
  • In addition to talking about who the current president is, also mention the first president, the one who held the most terms, the shortest term, oldest, youngest, the wealthiest, the poorest, who owned the most guns, etc. Stuff like that. To be a featured list it really needs to be comprehensive.
  • In short, by the time you're done, it should be impossible confuse the NRA article with the article on the list of presidents of the NRA.
  • This is also written from an American-centric perspective. Try writing for a broader international audience.
  • Example, instead of saying "oldest president "in the country", which can be confusing for international readers, say "oldest president in the United States" or "in the NRA".

VF9 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to have to address this when I get back from school. –MJLTalk 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@VF9: Here's the deal... I just spent like idk how many hours looking into the election process at this point. The best I could do was the current iteration of the article which involved a little way too much research. If you want to know what I am talking about, here is an actual investigative article just to find know who served on the nominating committee in 2013 (if you read the article carefully, you'll see this footnote). Quite frankly, it was a miracle I managed to find a WP:RS that explicitly says that the president serves at the will of the board. Most people talk about this stuff in hushed tones and/or on crank blogs. Wild. –MJLTalk 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: If there are no reliable sources on some of the information I or other reviewers want to see (such as a brief history of the election process in this case), that's a perfectly valid reason not to mention it. As per criteria 3a, comprehensiveness is defined by the scope of the sources, and it mostly applies to the list itself. Per criteria 2, a short yet reliably sourced lead can be acceptable for a FL, as long as it's not off topic and defines the scope. VF9 (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@VF9: Oh, good!! How is it doing in the off-topic department btw? I'd like to believe I cut out the right bits and added some more relevant info. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 05:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: The first paragraph definitely looks a lot better, and I have no more complaints there. The second article could still use a bit more work. The information is engaging and isn't necessarily off-topic, but it does need better re-wording. Try explaining "political status quo," such that someone unfamiliar with American politics would understand. Also, the way the second sentence is worded, it's unclear if the NRA makes the presidents say what they say, or if they say it on their own accord. VF9 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@VF9: I could tighten up the now unnecessary transitional phrase "In recent times," but besides that I think it provides the necessary context. If someone looking to understand why the NRA might want to intentionally provoke outrage, it would be as simple as clicking a link! :D –MJLTalk 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: That's definitely an improvement! The first sentence is still a bit grammatically off though: "The choice ... to provide ... to intentionally provoking ..." Needs a bit more rewording. "In recent times" is fine, but look up comma usage when saying "such as," and possibly include another quote or two. VF9 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@VF9: Fixed. I sometimes tend towards a rather... archaic style of grammar. I end up using commas like a 19th-century lawyer. –MJLTalk 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed an issue with the first paragraph. The second sentence isn't grammatically correct, and I just fixed it myself as explaining it would be more work. VF9 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
My bad on the sentence fragment there. I don't normally do that. Crushing to my personal standards on excellent writing, really.I can still laugh at myself.MJLTalk 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @MJL: One further nitpick, not all of your sources are archived. Due to the controversial nature of some of these sources, they may not last much longer. I'd hate to see this become a former FL in the future due to something as easily prevented as WP:LINKROT. VF9 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    All articles that can be archived have currently now been. I have saved the article multiple times in the Wayback machine as well as all its outgoing links. The bot can take care of any future dead links, I assure you. Face-smile.svgMJLTalk 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Excellent! VF9 (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Drive-by comments:
  • There needs to be consistency in your "background" column. First what do you mean by background? Second, why do you sometimes have U.S. Senator, and other times specify the state (U.S. Senator from Wyoming). What does "activist" mean? It doesn't seem to match the others in this column which appear to be occupations? Some generalships are included in background, sometimes they are not.
  • You can use the term Businessperson and link to the article
  • First Executive Director of the NRA-ILA is mentioned in a note, but nowhere is ILA defined.

Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Last two notes are fixed, but to your first point... Well, I wanted to list everyone's day jobs because this is an unpaid position, but not everyone had day jobs. Some people also had like fifty day jobs, and I didn't know what to say for them either. Church, for example, was both a journalist and a soldier (like at the same time). What I did was just approximated to whatever reliable sources said and hoped for the best. –MJLTalk 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What's going on with some of the refs? Ref 78 contains refs 76 and 77? Never seen that before............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: I'm really... lame because I wanted to keep citations in the table two or under. I therefore bundled the citations. –MJLTalk 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • When you do that I don't think you are supposed to put ref tags around the citation templates within the refn. See the example edit I just did to Gutermuth's row (fabulous name by the way :-)) - I think it's meant to be done like that.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Basshunter videography[edit]

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

After successful nomination of Basshunter discography I'm nominating his videography. According to sources, videography is complete it meets the criteria for a featured list and passed GOCE. Structure is after similar featured lists. Eurohunter (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a 2018 animated film from Sony Pictures Animation. It received a number of accolades including the Best Animated Film Oscar. I have gone through the article, added missing awards and references. Reworded the lead. I welcome any constructive comments on how to make it better. Cowlibob (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Everything looks really good with the list. I am only looking through the prose and the table as I will leave the sources to whoever does the source review. I just have a quick question about the "Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Feature" category for the Visual Effects Society. I am a little confused on why Miles Morales is in italics. The wikilink goes to the character, and characters are not presented in italics. I was wondering why the italics were used in this instance? I have admittedly not seen this film (I am not much a comic book film fan myself) so apologies if this is rather obvious, but it is the only thing that really caught my eye while reading through the list. Once this question is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 Thanks for your review. I've changed them to quotation marks, there was no reason for Miles Morales or Graphic New York City to be italicised. Cowlibob (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing this. Why is a character's name put in quotation marks? Is the name of a section of the film or something like? Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: It was just to highlight that the award was for their animation work for that particular character, and for that particular environment rather than the whole film. Cowlibob (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, but I do not think Miles Morales or Graphic New York City should be in italics or quotation marks. I think they should just be represented as Miles Morales or Graphic New York City. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Changed. Cowlibob (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing this. I support the nomination for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "many of them in Best Animated Feature category" - I think this should be "categories", as it refers to multiple awards. If you are sure it should be shown in the singular then it is missing the word "the"
  • Sort order on the Result column is Won/Runner-up/Nominated/4th place/2nd place. As 2nd place is the same as runner-up, surely they should sort together? I would also suggest that 4th place should sort before merely being nominated
  • That's it from me - good work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review. I've changed the line to add "the" as it was particularly for that category. I've changed the 2nd place to Runner-up and the 4th place to nomination as that awarding body doesn't specifically highlight a 4th, 5th etc place as notable. This should hopefully fix the sorting order. Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Loved the movie and love the list. Great job to you :-) – zmbro (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look fine, and the link-checker tool reveals no issues. Spot-checks of refs 28, 35, and 47 showed no problems either. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters[edit]

Nominator(s): – Rhain 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the characters featured in Red Dead Redemption 2 and providing insight within the game and in a real context. The article provides a detailed overview of the characters' roles within the game, as well as the development process that was undertaken for the characters. I believe that the article is good to go all the way, and would appreciate your thoughts. – Rhain 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Support - as mentioned, fantastic work, and very enjoyable to read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the images.
  • For this part "native-American hunter Charles Smith", I believe "native" should be capitalized. Also, is the dash necessary? I have more commonly seen the phrase as "Native American", but that could just be from my own personal experiences. It is already done this way for this part "as well as Native American tribe members" in the lead.
  • I am a little confused by this descriptive phrase "widow-turned-gunslinger". Widow is not a job title so she is still a widow when she becomes a gunslinger. Just something about it is off to me.
  • I do not think that this image caption, "Some of the main cast members of the game: Roger Clark, Alex McKenna, and Rob Wiethoff.", should have a period as it is not a full/complete sentence.
  • For the "Creation and conception" section, I would use a character's full name whenever you mention them for the first time as this would be the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article. Examples are: "and each character's relationship with Arthur" and "in which Dutch is described as an equitable leader".
  • For this part "The actors sometimes improvised some additional lines, but mostly remained faithful to the script.", I do not think "sometimes" is necessary as it is already clear from the context of the overall sentence.
  • Since "Western" is wikilinked in the lead, I would do the same for this part "felt more appropriate for the narrative structure of a Western." in the body of the article for consistency.
  • I would clarify that the "first game" in this part "Some lines of dialogue from the first game" is Red Dead Redemption and wikilink it.
  • I noticed that the sections for individual characters have large uncited portions about their storylines. Is the game being used as a primary source/reference for this? I am pretty sure that it is okay, but I just wanted to make sure.
  • For this part "despite watching the Dollars Trilogy (1964–1966) he did not take much inspiration from", I believe there should be a comma before "he".
  • The lead says that Arthur Morgan is the lead character of the game. Is there a reason why he is second on the list instead of first?
  • I was a little confused by this sentence "John Marston (Rob Wiethoff) is the secondary protagonist and playable character of Red Dead Redemption 2.". The last paragraph of the "Creation and conception" section mentions how "the team decided that the player would control one character in Red Dead Redemption 2," so the mention of a secondary protagonist/playable character here took me by surprise as someone who has never played any of these games before.
  • I also agree with ChrisTheDude's comments above.

Great work with the list. I will do another read-through tomorrow to make sure that I caught everything, but this is everything that I noticed when reading it for the first time. I hope my comments are helpful and that you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoba47! I've made some edits based on your suggestions. Dutch is the leader of the gang and Davis is listed first in the credits, so I felt that listing him first was more suitable (despite Arthur being the lead playable character). As for the unsourced plot paragraphs, you're right in that the game is the primary reference for this. I've asked Chris above as well, but if you'd like sources for the in-game missions, let me know. – Rhain 23:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response! Your explanation for the listing order makes sense to me. I think that the sourcing should be okay as it currently stands since it is pretty consistent throughout the list as a whole. I will review the article momentarily and put up my second (and hopefully last) round of comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is a "face camera"? It i used referenced in the part about motion capture in the "Creation and conception" section, but I am not sure how a "face camera" is different from other cameras.
  • For this sentence, "During the events of Red Dead Redemption, in 1911, John tracks down Bill, Javier, and Dutch, before being killed.", I do not think the comma between "Redemption" and "in" is necessary.
  • This may be a silly question, but would it be helpful to wikilink "reservation" to the Indian reservation article to help any unfamiliar readers?

Thank you for your patience with the review. I only have three relatively minor comments, and once those are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I will definitely have to check out these games sometime in the future. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. No worries if you do not have time or interest. Hope you are having a great day and/or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Aoba47! I've made some changes based on your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more concerns. I'll try to find time to check out your FAC sometime soon! – Rhain 23:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Eurohunter[edit]

  • It doesn't looks like list and could be rather moved to "Red Dead Redemption 2 characters". Eurohunter (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: Check out other featured lists for video game characters. This is a common format. – Rhain 01:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from The Rambling Man[edit]

  • Oppose while the huge mass of white space as a result of the TOC remains in place. It looks terrible and undermines what is essentially a reasonable piece of work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I have addressed this on the talk page. – Rhain 01:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Can you see my comments at the talk page as well? Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
TOC is better now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by David Fuchs[edit]

After having read through this list, I am inclined to argue that it fails criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL. This is 63KB article—10,000+ words—about the characters of a single video game. It's bigger than the article about the actual video game. There's no third-party sourcing that demonstrates that the characters of Red Dead are notable outside reception of the game's story in general, and it's stuffed full of plot that definition runs afoul of our fiction guidelines. It's an improper spinout from the main article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: The list is larger (in word count) than the main game article because the latter has been split into several other articles due to its size. Would you be able to point me to the fiction guidelines to which you're referring? The plot descriptions here seem no different to what I have seen in the past. Similarly, the third-party sourcing here seems no different to that of other video game FLs, made up of mostly interviews with the developers/cast and reviews of the game/s, both of which demonstrate notability in this context. – Rhain 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd have similar issues with excessive detail about those other subarticles, to be honest. I'm mostly referring to the Manual of Style's entries on fiction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Any suggestions on how to stick to the MoS a little better? For example, would changing the in-universe perspective ("Arthur retrieves Jack...") to a real-world format ("In the game's third chapter, Arthur retrieves Jack...") work better? – Rhain 23:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle[edit]

Superb list it is well referenced and uses a good range of media. The only thing I found that needs improving is the ciation to the book. It should really use the "cite book" template with something along these lines: Price, James, ed. (October 26, 2018). Red Dead Redemption 2: The Complete Official Guide — Collector's Edition. United States of America: Piggyback. ISBN 978-1911015567.. I will happily support this nomination once that is done.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Spy-cicle. I've replaced the book citation. Let me know if you have any other concerns. – Rhain 23:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The only other thing I noticed was: "The secretive nature of Rockstar's development processes meant that the actors and the director were unsure of the future of the characters during production" Does this refer to one specific director or should it refer to multiple directors. If so I think some clarity may be needed and is also repeated under Creation and conception Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: Good catch. I've clarified that Rod Edge was the director for the majority of production (though I don't feel as though that's important enough to include in the lead). Let me know if there's anything else! – Rhain 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I could not spot anything else, Great job. I now Support this nomination. (Not required but I currently have a FLC on an accolades table for Marvel's Spider-Man your feedback would be appreciated especially in regards to how WP:SIZERULE is applied to video accolade tables).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

List of centuries in women's Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In the newest form of the centuries old game, this feat has only been achieved 20 times by 16 female cricketers. Following on from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket, I believe that this will be a great addition the cricket featured lists on the women's game. I await your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "the two teams play a single innings, each of which is restricted...." - I know what this is meant to mean, but it doesn't make grammatical sense. I would suggest "each of the two teams plays a single innings, which is restricted...."
  • "The Twenty20 format was originally introduced by the England and Wales Cricket Board for the men's county cricket competition with...." - add a comma before "with"
  • "Dottin's innings set the record for the fastest WT20I century" - well obviously it set a record as the fastest, if it was the first ever. Do you mean that it is still the fastest?
  • It is still the fastest, reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and is most aggressive" => "and is the most aggressive"
  • "with a strike rate with 248.88" => "with a strike rate of 248.88"
  • "Batting at number six, this was also one of two occasions...." - bit of a grammatical mess here, as the occasion didn't bat at number six. I suggest "Dottin batted at number six, and this was one of two occasions"
  • "by player batting at number five or lower" => "by a player batting at number five or lower"
  • "with two each centuries each" - don't need "each" in there twice
  • "when she reached 124 not" => "when she reached 124 not out"
  • "While at the age of 16 years and 233 days" => "At the age of 16 years and 233 days"
  • "Posting a total of 148 not out, this is highest individual score in a WT20I match" => "Healy's final total of 148 not out is the highest individual score in a WT20I match"
  • "There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match including Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka" - until you get to the next sentence, the singling out of Atapattu here seems very random. I would suggest changing this sentence to simply "There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match." and then having the next one as "Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures in the second innings of the first match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019, her team lost the match"
  • "This match was also one of three occasions where two T20I centuries were scored in the same match" - WT20I, surely?
  • "20 centuries have been scored by 16 different players from 789 WT20I matches"W => "20 centuries have been scored by 16 different players in 789 WT20I matches"
  • "Centuries have scored at 13 different grounds" => "Centuries have been scored at 13 different grounds"
  • 4 and 3 in that last sentence should be written as words
  • Think that's it from me. Can't see any issues with the table or refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much ChrisTheDude for your review. I have addressed each of your comments above. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Teratix[edit]

  • a score of one hundred or more runs by a batsman I'm not too familiar with the terminology of women's cricket, but given the subject of the article, isn't it appropriate to use "batter" or "batswoman" throughout?
  • As per the Summary of changes to the Laws of Cricket 2017 Code released by the MCC in April 2017, "The new Code of Laws is written in language applying to all persons, regardless of gender. The new Code includes an increased use of generic nouns like "fielder" and "bowler" and uses "he/she" when required, together with a broadened disclaimer covering all genders. The term "batsman" remains, however." So, it seems that those who were consulted on the updated Laws were happy for term to apply to the fairer sex, so that is the term that we shall use. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) is an international cricket match between two teams, each having WT20I status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). In a women's Twenty20 match, each of the two teams plays a single innings, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. Switch the order of these sentences, so the format is explained first, and shorten: "In a women's Twenty20 match, each team plays a single innings, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. A women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) match is played between teams with WT20I status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). " Also put the A and B footnotes here.
  • an international cricket match between two teams ... each of the two teams plays a single innings ... New Zealand defeated England by nine runs "cricket", "innings" and "runs" have already been linked in the first sentence.
  • was scored by Deandra Dottin of the West Indies who scored reword to avoid "scored" twice in close succession
  • Dottin, Danielle Wyatt of England and Australia's Meg Lanning and Beth Mooney all lead the list with two centuries each the sentences before are talking about WT20I centuries scored by players batting at number five or lower, so it's not immediately clear what "the list" refers to here.
  • Reworded and moved to the end of the paragraph – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The oldest player to score a WT20I century is New Zealand's Suzie Bates who was aged 30 years and 277 days I would put a comma after "Bates", just to break up the sentence a bit.
  • during the Tri-Nation Series with England this sentence is already long; is "with England" really necessary?
  • North Sydney Oval in Sydney in October 2019 cut "in Sydney", as the venue name makes that clear.
  • Healy's final total "total" implies "final"
  • Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings of the opening match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019, Sri Lanka lost the match This sentence takes a very long time to come to its key point. Change to "Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings, Sri Lanka lost the opening match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019".
  • a team was defeated with player scoring a century change to "a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century."
  • 11 of the 54 teams that hold women's Twenty20 International status any reason why the abbreviation is dropped here?
  • Only so that the abbreviation is not used twice in the same sentence – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • and that have played a WT20I match cut "that"
  • Alyssa Healy holds the record for the highest innings score shorten to "Alyssa Healy posted the highest innings score", as "highest" already implies "record".
  • In the key, the meanings of "player", "team", "opposition", "venue" and "date" are so obvious they can be deleted altogether
  • In the table, use "Inn." to signify the term has been abbreviated.
  • "Ref" -> Ref. ({{abbr|Ref.|Reference}})
  • full women's Twenty20 International status to all its members as 1 July 2018 "on July 2018" maybe?
  • No player of the match was awarded "named" sounds a bit more natural
  • Otherwise it's excellent. A comprehensive, well-researched list. Well done. – Teratix 04:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Teratix, I have addressed each of your comments inline above. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Two tiny issues I just noticed: per MOS:IMGSIZE, specifying image widths in px is deprecated, use the "upright" parameter instead; and there's several line breaks underneath the key for no apparent reason (looks especially ugly on mobile). – Teratix 09:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Necessity of paid subscription citation? Better remove refs. 41 and 46 already 40 and 45 showing the stats.
  • This was to show that no player of the match was recorded in either ESPNcricinfo or Cricket Archive. But I happy to remove it. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Repeated links of ground and places, link once, like that of Manuka Oval, Canberra or County Ground Taunton per MOS:LINK.
  • As per MOS:REPEATLINK, links can be repeated in tables which I have done here. Every link only appears one in the body of the article. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match. You must include the other two centuries here and seeing the importance of Danielle Wyatt's centuries and both the centuries were scored in second innings and a record itself. Include it before (Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings, .....)
  • Include Beth Mooney century, which is the only and first instance to lost match after a player scoring a century. Include after (– one of only two occurrences where a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century.)
  • (This match was also one of three occasions where two WT20I centuries were scored in the same match.) After including above information, this line become insignificant and will be included in the last line, before that include (This is the first (the line is about Beth mooney's century) out of three occassions where two WT20I centuries were scored in the same match. The second instance was when Prosscovia Alako and Rita Musamali of Uganda scored centuries against Mali, which is also the only instance where two centuries scored by players of same team in a match. The third instance was on 29 September 2019 when Beth Mooney scored her second century in the first innings and Chamari Atapattu scored her century in the second innings.)

That is the full picture of the records that should be in the lead. You can modify with better wordings. These are the concerns which need to be fixed. I will be happy to support once the issues fixed. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96
  • Perhaps mention that the ICC is cricket's world governing body for those who are not as well acquainted with cricket?
  • "Dottin's innings is the fastest WT20I century, reaching the milestone from 38 deliveries[12] and is the" - a comma is needed before the references in this section of text
  • "Healy's total of 148 not out is the highest individual score in a WT20I match[22][23] and the" - same query as above
  • "one of only two occurrences where a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century" - the word only is redundant here
  • The third footnote in the notes section will need to be referenced so that the information within it can be verified
  • This information is referenced at the end of each entry in the table. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That's all I found in the prose. The table itself has no issues. MWright96 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi MWright96, thanks very much for the review. I have addressed each of your points above – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Have no further issues to raise. MWright96 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

  • "The first century in a WT20I match was scored by Deandra Dottin of the West Indies, posting 112 not out against South Africa in the opening match of the 2010 ICC Women's World Twenty20 at Warner Park in Basseterre." Consider splitting the sentence as the construction looks a bit clumsy.
  • "The other was Harmanpreet Kaur of India posting 103 against New Zealand during the 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 coming in at number five." – Again, the sentence reads a bit odd here. Maybe something like "The other was when Harmanpreet Kaur of India posted 103 ..." might work.
  • 'aggressive' and 'triple figures' don't sound encyclopaedic.
  • "Alyssa Healy posted the highest innings score ... " –> Alyssa Healy posted the highest individual score ...
  • twice –> two times

Vensatry (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

List of India national football team hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, the article has a good lead written as prose, introduce well to the subject comprising all needed informations and events along with all necessary reliable citations, well structured and follows WP:MOS and is stable, most information are backed by multiple citation, so to give more stability to the article. I hope the article is well enough to get promoted. Dey subrata (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

And please take note that, the article is reviewed and corrected, all discussions are there at the Talk page of the article. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - you already have two FLCs open, you shouldn't really be starting another until at least one of those has been closed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Yes I understand your concern, thats why I was waiting to get it listed here, as by suggestions at WP:FLC, "....until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." So, as the first two lists got 3-4 supports which I must say substantial enough as going through all "Older nominations" I found that there are 2-3 supports and even 1 support in some of them. Anway, I will not add any more further in the list to get promoted, I have few more to add, will surely wait untill all these get closed. Dey subrata (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I was advised by the FL director that a user should not have more than two FLCs open at a time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
So, what to do now. Dey subrata (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Giants2008:, could you kindly confirm? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
That is correct, Chris. While I have no problem with a second FLC being opened when a nominator's list has 3–4 supports, I'd be reluctant to allow a third nom. That does go against the spirit of the instructions, which help to keep the size of FLC manageable and help ensure that most lists receive enough reviewer attention. If any one editor has five noms, for example, that just makes it harder for any individual list to get enough reviews to gain a consensus for promotion, making the process slower for everyone. Dey, my suggestion is that this be removed from the main FLC page and brought back when one of the existing FLCs concludes. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, sure. Dey subrata (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Giants2008 , can I move it to the main page now. Dey subrata (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Dey subrata: It looks like you still have two FLCs open, including one where I gave a source review. There was one reviewer who never returned to that FLC after the initial review who I was waiting on before closing the FLC. Let me ping them to see if their concerns are resolved; if so, that FLC would be on track for promotion this weekend, and you could then nominate this list as your second nom. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The first footballer" - I would say "the first player", to avoid saying football twice in one sentence
  • "to score a hat-trick (three or more goals)" => "to score a hat-trick (three or more goals in a match)"
  • "He achieved the feat in a friendly match against Australia on 24 September 1938, at Sydney Showground but India" => "He achieved the feat in a friendly match against Australia on 24 September 1938, at the Sydney Showground, although India"
  • "This is also the only instance for India to lose a game after a player scoring a hat-trick for the team." => "This is the only instance when India have lost a game in which a player scored a hat-trick for the team."
  • "Lumsden is also the only footballer" - "Lumsden was the only footballer"
  • "the final match of 2008 AFC Challenge Cup " => "the final match of the 2008 AFC Challenge Cup "
  • "helped India to win the cup title" => "helped India to win the cup"
  • After 1956 Melbourne Olympics there is a gap before the refs - remove this
  • "and with four goals in three matches" - sentence shouldn't start with a lower case letter, or with the word "and", so change to "With four goals in three matches"
  • "Branko Zebec was the first player to score a hat-trick against India while scoring four times" => "Branko Zebec was the first player to score a hat-trick against India, scoring four times"
  • "As of 5 September 2019, ten players have scored a hat-trick for the national team" - why is the first part of this in italics and the rest not?
  • "Only FIFA-recognized international matches by India national football team" => "Only FIFA-recognized international matches played by the India national football team". Also, is recognised/recognized spelt with a Z in Indian English?
  • HTH - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed all issues, and yes recognize is the correct form of the word, its used in India, UK and all commonwealth nations, even google (US) shows "ze". Dey subrata (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dey subrata: the Z is most definitely not used in the UK. I am British and can confirm that the British English spelling is recognise, with an S (eg in this headline). That's why I checked, because I assumed that Indian English would mirror British spellings..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: May be then UK (only) don't use but India, US and Commonwealth nations like Canada and Australia use ze...thats more correct form. Here the Cambridge dictionary 1, thats Merriam-Webster 2, and here UK's Oxford 3. The actual entry was recognize, so far I know. Dey subrata (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Thats what Grammarist say, here. So most user use ze actually. Dey subrata (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was only checking.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 :-) I am also learning things or two. Dey subrata (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that you have re-arranged the images to have three in a horizontal line at the bottom of the lead. IMO this really doesn't look good. The images of D'Souza and Chhetri should be alongside the first table, but one above the other not side-by-side. And the image of Zebec should be alongside the second table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Done. Dey subrata (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you double check that you have actioned all my points above? I notice that the article still says "This is also the only instance for India to lose a game after a player scoring a hat-trick for the team", which I indicated needed changing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Yup fixed, I thought the change was for "the" only, changed the line and "also" in the next point removed and but => although done for third point. Dey subrata (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I made a few minor tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


  • The alt text for Mewalal's image is a bit choppy and legendary is a WP:PEACOCK term.
Fixed changed the line.
  • "helped India to be the first Asian team to reach the semi-finals of the tournament", a little clunky perhaps. "Helped India become the first..." maybe?
  • "India have conceded thirteen hat-tricks to date", to date leaves this open to interpretation. Use an as of date so the reader knows when the list was last updated.
Both the table have dates.
True but the user would still need to read the entire text to get there. See Wikipedia:As of for further info. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you're piping Ashraf Nu'man's link to use his full name even though his article doesn't?
  • "after conceding a hat-trick happened against Yemen", occurred rather than happened perhaps?
Above both fixed.
  • Refs 1, 12 and 23 use forename/surname format for the authors while all other refs use the opposite. Use one style for consistency.
  • The formatting for refs 1 and 23 is leaving no gap between the last two authors. You can use last1, last2, last3, etc for multiple authors in refs.
  • Refs 7 and 47 have an author available.
  • Refs 11 and 19 have a publishing date available.
Above all fixed.
  • Some of the external links don't seem particularly relevant to the article. For example, the "Football tournament of the Olympic Games−Overview" only mentions India once and seemingly has no relevance to any hat-trick?
"Football tournament of the Olympic Games−Overview" is kept for the fact that rather than two Olympic article only Overview page seems logical to keep as you can there in the overview page list of all games are there, if anyone one to see both the 1952 and 1956 (whose references are made in this article) can directly open from that overview article. Same with the "Olympic football tournament final" by FIFA. Similarly rather than including all the world cup qualification article in the external link better to keep the "World Cup Archive" where on can open any world cup qualifying tournament (this also helps in not including anymore links in the external link as if any hat-trick scored in world cup or the qualifying tournamnet it will be automatically updated in the "World Cup Archive"), same with AFC Asian cup.
I'd consider it a little overkill but it's not something to get hung up about, no further concerns on that point. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

A few points from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Addressed all above, please check. Dey subrata (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I've made two minor copyedits on grammar. One further point, "for the AFC Asian Cup after 27 years in 2011" might be worth changing to something like "for the AFC Asian Cup in 2011, the first time in 27 years that the team reached the final tournament". After 27 years on it's own is a little vague perhaps. One further reply on the "as of" note also. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kosack: Well I think that looks more constructive, changed the line accordingly, and added date to "as of" issue. Dey subrata (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
All of my issues have been addressed. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Kosack Thank You for all the needed corrections, and support, would appreciate your comments at the other one List of highest individual scores in ODIs. Dey subrata (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Chris and Kosack have taken care of everything for me. Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Hassan Maatouk[edit]

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Having recently scored his 21st international goal, making him the all-time top goalscorer for his country, I have created Maatouk's list based on other FLs such as Ibrahimović's and Drogba's. I'm open for any suggestions and comments, so feel free to let me know if anything needs to be changed. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Happy to Support. Kosack (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


  • I did some improvements on the table already. Some comments are coming later, not much time right now.--Lirim | Talk 20:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Lirim.Z Hey, I was just wondering if you had any comments regarding the nomination. Or even, if you support it (or not). Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Ref 1 excessive use, add any other citation to reduce the use of citation to 4 times.
# With that I want to bring Giants2008 to decide on the authenticity of it. Same the Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann website "National Football Teams" reference is used. And in this case we don't have any RSSSF article yet. Even if I make one now for RSSSF it will be uploaded after several months. Thats why I was saying, the site is important for many wikipedia article as not all players have RSSSF article. And its authenticity as I described before to you already. Would ask you to consider it again, I think it will help a lot articles and afterall all the stats are correct here.
  • Ref 1, 12 change (website=National Football Teams) to ( or (work=National Football Teams)
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 2, 7, 22: change (website=The AFC)=> (publisher=AFC).
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 5,9,13,14 to better remove website and include (publisher=FIFA)
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In all other references templete, correct the website to website names like (Elsport News to or remove (website) and include (work/publisher).
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If Giants2008 allow to keep the NFT citation then include the same in the external link, seeing the importance of the citation.
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would ask to change "Caps" to "Apps" in the "Goals by competition" to maintain consistency with "Goals by year" and to include "Apps" in the "Goals by opposition", otherwise thats looks incomplete.
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dey subrata: Actually, I have a problem with adding the caps to the Goals by opposition table, because either we put all the teams Maatouk played against (including the ones against which he didn't score) or we just keep the goals scored. If we were to add all the teams, the table would be ridiculously long. What do you think? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Nehme1499 I really missed this one, I did not see. No it will not be long brother(after all he will score more goals right, the table will get long in time, you can't stop it from getting long, he scored just 21 now, many more to come, right now in two frame the article is over. Its not at all a big article, so don't worry). I asked you to include in the same Table of "Goals by opposition". It will be more interesting for reader to see how many goals scored in how many matches against a particular country. Thats after all the full information. You can check List of Sunil Chhetri which I get promoted, and compare with Messi, which one you find more interesting, might be Chhetri's but if you compare with Ronaldo's list you will find Ronaldo's list is more interesting as it got "Goals by confederations" but not asking to include that cause Ronaldo have significant number of goals against different confederations. I think you must add, that will make the article more interesting and more informative. Dey subrata (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Dey subrata to be honest he won't really score that many more goals, he's 32 and has an average of 0.25 goals per game. Maybe he'll reach 25 goals, not more though. Anyway, I added the caps to the table and added the countries against which Maatouk has played but not scored. I still think that the table is a bit long, so I'll try to find a way to make a collapsible table inside the table itself so that it only shows (uncollapsed) the countries against which he scored, and hide (collapsed) the ones against who he didn't (and still show the bottom totals bar with 21 goals in 84 caps). Nehme1499 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove He made his debut for Lebanon in a 2–1 away win over Saudi Arabia on 27 January 2006., not required as seperate info. And write, He is the country's all-time top goalscorer and most-capped player. Since debuting for Lebanon against Saudi Arabia on 27 January 2006, Maatouk has scored 21 goals in 84 international appearances, as of November 2019.
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also include the important information in the second paragraph, latest goals against Sri Lanka on 15th October which made him the highest goal scorer of his country surpassing Roda Antar's 20.
  • In the image template both alt line & display line are same better change the line for alt (alt=Hassan Maatouk playing against Saudi Arabia) or change the display line "|Hassan Maatouk playing against Saudi Arabia in 2019" to "Hassan Maatouk has scored 21 international goals for Lebanon."
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

For now these are my concerns. Dey subrata (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: I should have fixed all of your concerns. I'm still not fully clear about the national-football-teams problem though. For what I know, the source is reliable. Otherwise, I could replace it with an official table issued by the AFC which shows the goals and caps of all the players prior to the 2019 AFC Asian Cup (obviously, it's non updated to today as is shows statistics as of December 2018). Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I know the NFT website is correct, but recently I had words with the FL director Giants2008, where he was skeptical about it. Because the same thing will be repeated here too. So let him take a call here, or if he wants to take a consensus among editors. Lets wait for him to response. And I would ask you if you have any AFC reference as you are mentioning above then use it where ever your can to reduce the use of NFT reference, because its still showing 6 times, reduce to 4 times with the use of AFC reference if you have. That will be better. Dey subrata (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Link Saudi Arabia team in the first para. And you missed the 2nd last point of including goal against Sri Lanka (21st goal) which made him the highest goal scorer of Lebanon. Dey subrata (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 Done Nehme1499 (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, the AFC table won't be updated in the future. It shows 19 goals in 72 caps, as of 31 December 2018. The RSSSF reference will be updated in December, and will show Maatouk having 21 goals in 84 caps. Until then, the only reliable source in NFT. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Giants2008 , I think you are busy, but if you please take little time to address the issue, this one is different from my nom. In my nom. there were other alternative citation, like that of RSSSF. Same the Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann website "National Football Teams" reference is used here. And in this case we don't have any RSSSF article yet. Thats why I was saying, the site is important for many wikipedia article as not all players have RSSSF article. And its authenticity as I described before to you duing last discussion. Here the nominator also agree with it and the reviewer who also reviewed my nom., Kosack and ChrisTheDude seems to agree. Would ask you if you can consider it again, I think it will help a lot articles and afterall all the stats are correct in the site. Or any suggestion to the best of your knowledge. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, my opinion of National Football Teams hasn't changed much from the previous FLC where it came up. I don't believe it is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, as useful as it may be, and think alternatives should be sought if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Giants2008 I find it strange to hear someone who says that isn't a realiable source: actually, it is arguably the most reliable source for national team data. May I know the reasons why you believe to not be reliable? Nehme1499 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
NFT is a generally useful site but there have been discussions in the past regarding whether it would qualify as a reliable source, several of which would suggest that it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. See here, here and here. Kosack (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I contacted Robert Mamrud of RSSSF, and he said that he will update the records page on December and will also add a personal page for Maatouk listing all the matches he played, the goals he scored and detailed statistics. Until then NFT is the only solution, albeit temporary. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sussex Wildlife Trust[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts. It is in the same format as other wildlife trust FLs, such as Norfolk and Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from CAPTAIN MEDUSA
  • When talking about a currency can you include &nbsp which adds Non-breaking space. For example £5.7 million (please view this in edit mode)
  • Remove all of the unused parameters from the Infobox Organization.
  • Done. I have not done this before and I trust it is OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • All of the sources need to be archived.
  • As always, I have run the archiving tool but a few sources do not archive. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unused parameter from ref 7 can be removed (date=)
  • foxes can be unlinked as they are common terms.
  • The image in infobox needs more info in caption i.e. when it was taken, and where it is located.
  • Added date and wikilinked to the article which explains the location. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Once the comments have been fixed. I will be more than happy to support.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "This site has ancient woodland and species rich unimproved grassland. The wood has standards of pedunculate oak and coppice" - in this context, what is a "standard"? And should "coppice" be plural?
  • I have added a note explaining. Is it clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "All three British species of woodpecker breed breed on the site" - duplicate word
  • Think that's it from me - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Category 1 Pacific hurricanes[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 20:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC), Cooper 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is now a complete listing of all confirmed Category 1 hurricanes in the Pacific. NoahTalk 20:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "a low-pressure area known as the Aleutian Low, are present" - no need for that comma there
  • What version of English is the article in? I notice spellings like "categorize" and "organize", which are American, yet the word "autumn" is used instead of "fall"
  • "In addition to those, 7 systems" => "In addition to those, seven systems"
  • "The Aleutian Low's retreat in late-April" - no need for that hyphen
  • "La Niña events increase wind shear and decreases" - the subject is "events", so the last word should be "decrease"
  • That's what I have on the lead, I will look at the tables later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Those should be fixed. NoahTalk 20:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I'm just pinging you since it has been over a week since your initial comments. NoahTalk 22:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away on holiday. Promise I will catch up........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
My only comment on the tables is that it looks weird for the "Deaths" and "Damage" columns to be centred where is no data but left-aligned where there is data. I suggest that all should be centred. I would also centre-align the refs column -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I will work on that over the weekend. I need to update Lorena as well since the TCR came out today. NoahTalk 02:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Cool :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly to do for centering those columns. NoahTalk 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I don't know exactly what needs to be done coding wise in order to fix the issue. NoahTalk 22:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Just add align=center before each cell where there's an actual value, so for example |{{sort|00.200|$200 thousand}} becomes |align=center|{{sort|00.200|$200 thousand}} -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay... I was trying to center the column as a whole. I will do this on the weekend. I spent 8 hours doing lab reports yesterday (with classes until noon) and still have 2 chemistry homeworks + a paper to write. The joys of college lol. NoahTalk 11:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I know you already supported, but I just finished aligning all of them. The holiday has resulted in me getting extra time at work. NoahTalk 15:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick drive-by comment. There are lots of hurricanes before 1949, but you only list three. Considering you mention in your nomination statement that it contains all "confirmed" C1 hurricanes, I suggest limiting the article to the storms in HURDAT (1949-present). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, why are there no dates for Hurricane "C" in 1962? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Hurricane "C" isn't in Hurdat and there isn't any kind of BT so dates can't be used. Also, removed the pre-1949. NoahTalk 16:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for removing pre-1949. Have all of the stats been updated? (such as the overall number) Also, for Hurricane "C", maybe just say something like "August 1962" and add a note. It's odd that it's the only one that has no dates listed, even if it isn't explicitly known. Also, the text highly implies that the date was August 24th, but that's not explicitly said, so you can get away with "August 1962". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Yes, it should be updated now. Note that storms at Cat 1 over multiple months are counted for both months when it is broken down. NoahTalk 22:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, maybe my math is wrong, but you might wanna double check your total number of storms. I got 257. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I got 247 upon recounting. NoahTalk 00:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah and Hurricanehink: I get 237 using Ctrl+F and inputting "mph" or "km/h" for the Systems section. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I added up the storms by month, which adds up to 257. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: That is how many have existed at Cat 1 intensity during each month, not reached it. A storm that maintains Cat 1 from September to October is counted for both months. NoahTalk 16:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense, thank you Noah! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Support - I looked through the article again, and I don't see anything that stands out or needs to be addressed for me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review
  • Yes. NoahTalk 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be fixed. NoahTalk 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose by Jason Rees
  • This list needs some love before it can be listed as a featured list imho, as it feels like it has just been slammed together without any love or fact checking.
  • For starters I feel that one specific table listing all of the category 1 hurricanes would be a lot better than the four currently in the article. It would allow us to view all the Category 1 hurricanes at once and allow us to answer important questions like which TC caused the most damage or lasted the longest easier.
  • Done (got sorting adjusted). I will do a bit tomorrow and some after my English final on Wednesday. NoahTalk 01:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • While looking through the list, I notice that there isn't any consistency in how a reference is formatted. Some are first name first while others are first name last.
  • I feel that the duration column would be more accessible if it was broken up it up into days and hours rather than just hours. For example: At a brief glance would i be able to tell that 102 hours is 4.25 days?
  • The areas affected need to be looked carefully. For example: Henriette 2007 should probably be updated to just list Mexico since you are basically saying that Northern, Southern and Western Mexico were impacted. Barbara 2013 surely impacted Southern Mexico since it listed as it is listed as impacting Southwestern Mexico & Eastern Mexico?
  • I randomly decided to look at Isis 1998 in order to verify the data and I note that the list says that it impacted Baja California Peninsula, Northern Pacific Coast of Mexico, Southwestern United States, Northwestern United States and that it caused 14 deaths as well as $10 million in damages. When I look at the TCR which is the only reference cited, I can verify that it caused 14 deaths, impacted Baja California and the Pacific Coast of Mexico, however, I can not verify that it impacted the United States or caused $10 million in damages.
  • Why are you using a report from 1982 to verify note which says Prior to 1988 for the Eastern Pacific and 2001 for the Central Pacific?
  • Added NHC text document to support years stated and kept the report from '82 which discusses how pressure readings were taken for older storms. NoahTalk 23:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • All Eastern North Pacific Hurricane Season of XXXX articles need to be cited up as a journal and as a part of the Monthly Weather Review rather than as reports.
  • I would remove Hurricane C as there isnt any BT Data for it and thus can not be verified as a Cat 1 TC.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed "C". NoahTalk 23:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I find it interesting that you include the Revillagigedo Islands in your areas affected for Lorena, but not for any of the other entries on the list. I would personally wouldn't have included it as we can only cover the broader areas affected, but it's up to you just make sure its sourced and can be easily verified if you do include it.
  • I would like to see Flossie's non-damages to Hawaii sourced, as I know that Flossie impacted the islands with heavy rain. I would also like to see it listed as None and None rather than N/A.
  • I like the usage of Template:N/A but feel that its usage needs to be restricted to just systems that didnt impact land and even then im not sure, im a fan of it being used in terms of deaths since deaths can occur at sea.
  • Thats it for now - More later.Jason Rees (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by KN2731

  • and 7 in November – 7 should be spelt out
    • Completed. Cooper 22:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Preliminary reports and TCRs should have dates of publication
  • Double daggers should be in the same column, same goes for daggers
  • Collectively, Category 1 hurricanes have killed at least 913 people – from the tables, I'm getting a minimum of 912.
    • Completed. Cooper 22:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That's all the issues I've found besides those raised by Jason Rees. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

List of highest individual scores in ODIs[edit]

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because,

  • Written as prose with a good lead, introducing readers briefly about the ODI format and also accounts important records chronologically.
  • The article is comprehensive with all necessary informations related to the ODIs and individual matches and the innings and batter's batting profile for that match in which runs are scored and also provided with citations per WP:RS.
  • Have a organised structure of the list table, cosnisting with proper sections and heading per WP:DTT and names are sorted per Sort.
  • Complies with WP:MOS.
  • The article is stable, as all information are well tabled and with citations, there is very little scope of edit wars.

Other than fulfilling the criteria, want to bring to notice that the article has been here since 2015 and other related articles like as listed in the (see also) section are now FL article, and as most crierion are satisfied, i think the article has a scope to get listed as FL. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • Any reason why "Deepti Sharma" does not have a reference?
  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the image.
  • Any reason why this part (since then there have been over 4,000 ODIs.) does not have a citation?
  • This is a rather long sentence: (On 16 December the same year, Australian women cricketer Belinda Clark broke the 200 runs mark and set the highest individual score of unbeaten 229 runs in One Day Internationals against Denmark at MIG Club Ground, Mumbai which remained unbroken for almost 17 years till Indian batsman Rohit Sharma broke the record on 13 November 2014 scoring a 264 runs against Sri Lanka on 13 November 2014 at Eden Gardens in Kolkata, which remains the highest individual score in the ODIs but Clark remains the highest individual scorer as a captain and her score remains as the highest individual score in Women's World Cup.) I'd recommend breaking it up to avoid having such a long sentence.

Everything else looks good. I know absolutely nothing about cricket so I can only focus on the prose. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Fixed all the issues, alt text added, citations added for both, long sentence broken. Dey subrata (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything so quickly. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, with regard to the bit about Anwar's score of 194, I acknowledge what you say, but based on that I would change it a bit. I would start that paragraph by saying "The first score of 180 in an ODI was achieved by Viv Richard in 1984" and then give the rest of the information about that, then say "Saaed Anwar broke the record in 1997 with the first score higher than 190" and then give more info about that. Then talk about Clark being the first to score 200. Does that make sense? BTW on the subject of Sir Viv, he is listed in the table twice and has a different forename each time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I think resolved now, but "C" in cricket used in the link because its specifying the game, Cricket, used a proper noun so capital is used, where as in other links its uses in phrase, One Day International cricket is used so small letter. And I will change the "unbeaten" runs, but don't find any reason why, its not a journalistic word used here, its a term of cricket, we use "unbeaten" when someone remains not out. Not a journalistic word used, for example "follow on", "appeal", "snick", "square cut or cut", "beamer" even "silly" is a cricketing term, looks journalistic but not at all when used in cricket. Dey subrata (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The article title is Lists of cricket records, therefore it should appear in the "See also" section as Lists of cricket records. There is no reason to change the title to have a capital C (or to take the s off "lists") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok I am changing it. Coming to above point, the question will be raised why not 170 or 160, we need to consider a bench mark, its 200, so before 200 what is the score thats it, other wise, after a century thats 100, every number is significant in cricket. Just like why hat-trick which is just 3 goals is considered one of big achivement in football, because its because very few people can do it, right. Similary 200 run is very tough I must say near impossible thing to do in ODIs as there are 300 balls in ODI, and one idividual scoring 200+ runs means he need to face atleast 150 balls thats 25 overs, which is hell lot of balls and near impossible, you can see those few who did it are in recent years as the introduction of T20 happened, the strike rate of players seems to have increased due to different rule change and faster game which made it possible, otherwise, the great name that you have taken Sir Vivian Richards, he is that guy who have highest strike rate in Test(50+)(if you don't know, its a 5 days long game and on average 90 overs are thrown, on an average 200-300 runs are scored in an innings, strike rate is very low, its a different format) but that legend did maintained a 50+ strike rate which is tough, but Viv Richards could not score 200 runs in ODIs, and trust me he is one of the few Greatest batsman the cricket has ever seen, and he had the ability, so you know how tough the 200 runs to score. so yes I think its better to consider 200 as bench mark rather than any other score. Dey subrata (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I am not going to labour that point. I will see what others think.
  • Other points:
    • "held by Pakistani cricketer" - better to say Pakistani batsman, it's obvious he's a cricketer, given that the article is about cricket
I will change.
    • "Australian women cricketer" - still needs to be changed to "Australian female cricketer". Actually "Australian female player" might be better as per the above.
ICC don't use "female" always use "women".
"Australian women cricketer" is not grammatically correct, because "women" is plural, so you can't describe her as "women". If you prefer not to use "female" then the correct word to use would be "woman", not "women" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "In men's cricket Zimbabwean cricketer" - "cricket....cricketer" doesn't sound very good - change "cricketer" to batsman
will change
    • "managed to equal Anwar's record" => "equalled Anwar's record"
will change
    • "but failed to reach 200 runs mark" - well obviously if he scored 194 he didn't reach 200, there is no need to say this
its because he was not out at that time,
That doesn't matter. You don't need to say "he scored 194, but didn't score 200" because it's totally obvious that if he scored 194 he didn't score 200. It's completely redundant language. It's like saying "my son is 5'10" tall but he isn't 6' tall" - the second part is redundant because it's totally obvious from the first part -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "after breaking Anwar's 194 runs record" - also unnecessary
ok will remove.
    • Refs after "age of 17" are not in the correct order
ok will fix
    • Same with the refs after "2015 Cricket World Cup"

ok will fix

@ChrisTheDude: fixed. The above two cases, can we add.."but failed to reach 200 runs mark as Zimbabwe reached the targeted score before he could achieve the feat"
But they didn't win, they lost :-) You can't imply that he would have scored 200 had the innings not ended, because it had gone on for another over he could have been out for 195 or 196. It would be OK to say "Charles Coventry equalled Anwar's record against Bangladesh at Queens Sports Club ground in Bulawayo when Zimbabwe's innings ended with him on a score of 194 not out" That makes the point that he was "stranded" on 194 but doesn't imply that he would definitely have gone on to reach 200 if the innings had been longer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Yup, they played the first innings :-) Dey subrata (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Please check, ok now? Dey subrata (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
For Belinda clark, what to do?? it really looks odd in cricket, female player, never heard someone saying such or in any article, always used women cricketer or in women cricket a player who bat is called "batter". Please let me know. Dey subrata (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"Woman player" would be OK, but you can't say "women player" because "women" is plural, so you can't say "a women (player)". See for example this, which refers to the "Australian Woman Player of the Year" award -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Yup correct, it should be "woman". Dey subrata (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I made a small tweak and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, your recent edit making sense, its more clear now. Dey subrata (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello all editors here, can you please consider to put your comments here. It will be helpful for promotion. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro
  • Is "one innings" grammatically correct?
  • Make sure the table has scope rows per MOS:ACCESS

Honestly can't see any other problems. Very well-written, should be an FL in no-time (sorry it's taken so long). Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Yes one or an innings is correct, its a singular term and also a plural term. Fixed table with scope row. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I figured it was just wanted to be sure. The scope rows are currently reaching the first 3 cols (I think that's because of the way it's coded). Just the first or second col would suffice. – zmbro (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zmbro:I think first and 3rd will be better, as its about highest individual score. Fixed accordingly. Dey subrata (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Idk it seems odd to me to have two separate cols be bolded like that. I'd leave it just as the first col. – zmbro (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zmbro: Ok, fine. Kept in first column only. Dey subrata (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – All good now. Happy to support – zmbro (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment from Vensatry[edit]

@Vensatry: Thank for your comment.Because of the sheer number of centuries scored, we can't include all, it will be ridiculously long article, 1000s of centuries scored. Secondly, as this is about highest individual scores, a sample space of around 25 highest centuries taken in this case which lead 180 to be base line and 180 is also helpful to keep a constant and logical lead for the article and also not much centuries scored above 180 mark. It can be very easily understandable from this- If you just consider to reduce the base line to next 10 digit, i.e, 170, you will find there are 25 more centuries with in 170 to 180, which will be unnecessarily long. And yes I agree with that, the List of double century is redundant. Dey subrata (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Er, that's not my point – I'm asking what made you fix the 'cutoff' at 180? Also, I see that you've included scores from Women's ODI. Surely, that doesn't belong here because both formats are not comparable. Vensatry (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I have discussed it in the second line, if you had read it. This summarizes highest individual scores, not a article which shows list of centuries in ODIs. For this we need to mark a base line and need a minimum sample size to represent the statistics to summarize the topic. Here the sample size taken is 25 which lead to 180 as base line. Secondly, if we push below 180 say 170, there are around 20-25 centuries within this small sample size, almost the same size of centuries between 180 and 264, which will be meaningless to add, its goes increasing with every 10 digit. A sample size of 25 is more than enough. With that I have added the progression of record, so that no question arises on how record progressed over the time along with dicussing in the lead too. Secondly, as I have said we are discussing about highest runs in ODIs, we are not gender differentiating or comapring. ODIs in both women and men case is same, every rules and regulation are applied same. Its the same format of cricket played. Along with its a unique article also as fist 200 runs attempt in any ODIs (men or women) was a woman and and was record highest runs for almost 20 years. Thus its very precisely sticking to the topic and gives more clear picture of the topic "highest individual scores". Along with this, it also summarises how the record progress from the 200 runs mark to 264 over the years. And the lead of the article also describes the same very clearly. Dey subrata (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you even understand the question? Anyways, about WODIs the fact that men's and women's format follow the same set of rules/regulations doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense to compare both formats unless both genders get to compete against each other. ODI is DIFFERENT from WODI. Otherwise, why do we need articles on Women's Test cricket and Women's ODI in the first place? Going by your logic, the following articles are redundant: Women's Test cricket records, Women's Test cricket records, Centuries in Women's Test cricket, Centuries in Women's One Day International cricket, Centuries in Women's Twenty20 International cricket, et al? Vensatry (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
In case, you don't follow the game: [3], [4], [5] Vensatry (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I understand your question very well. Didn't you able to get answer to.."what made you draw the line at 180?" I have discussed that clearly, I don't think it needs any more clarity on it.
(1). Dear, I follow cricket very much, I want to let you know your example factually wrong as women test is different format from men's test match. Women's test match is of 4 days while the men's is of 5 days game. Thus a seperate article is necessary for the different formats. So such a point does not count here. Here both ODIs are of same format.
(2). List of centuries in women odi or T20 is similarly necessary the way, list of centuries in world cup, or champions trophy are created because it keeps record of different tournaments not different formats. So such list does not become redundant. Secondly, we are talking about highest individual scores which comprises of few highest scores which shows top highest scores in this format and how the highest individual score progressed over time. AND all those lists that you have added summarizes every single centuries in a specific tournament not a format. So this article is totally different from those lists, by topic and by structure.
(3).I don't follow news article much, but I follow primary and most reliable sources, this is the way world cricket body ICC 1 specifically describes such It was the first double-century in one-day international cricket, by a man or a woman, if it were different format, they should not have publish record as the first 200 in ODI, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2 described, She was the first player, male or female, to make a double-century in a one-day international, this is how Cricket Australia 3 described Belinda Clark became the first person to score a one-day international double century., even news meadia; this is how The Statesman 3 described Belinda Clark of Australia was the first batter in the entire world to score 200 runs in an ODI innings. Its many more if I go, from ICC to reliable source, everyone describes it as highest or first irrespective of both in ODI not in WODI.
Finally, the describe about ODIs not men's or women's. Already mixed gender cricket started, so highest records are highest i the format is same. And the lead of the article clearly describe about when who created the record. It gives a very clear picture or the records and don't give a scope of any confusion. Thank you.Dey subrata (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point very well. I'm asking what made you arbitrarily fix the cutoff at 180 (i.e. 25 innings). Have you previously discussed this at WT:CRIC (or any other related Wikiproject)? Frankly, it would've at least made some sense had this been named "List of 180 plus scores in ODIs" – similar to List of bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket (an FL) and List of bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in One Day International cricket. Second, taking into account the rate at which such "high" scores are made in ODIs, we might have to raise the "bar" (which now stands at 180) periodically. Your point about men's Tests and women's Tests being different is not relevant here because I believe we're talking about ODIs Vs WODIs (I'd only brought that up as an example). But then, WODI differs from ODI in terms of ball weight (and size), (shorter) boundaries, field restrictions et al. In any case, it surely doesn't make any sense to have both stats in a single table as there are plenty of issues. Vensatry (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well we are talking about formats, not about how much boundaries and weight, there are many cricket stadium which have very small boudaries like that of NewZealand's Eden park and some have very big boundaries like of MCG (highly variable thing, its always mentioned "generally" it should be this and that not a mandatory) We are talking about basics of formats. Most importantly, I don't think as long as ODIs is concerned, and the record is about highest individual score and as long as ICC and Wisden and relaible news medias saying it as highest and first in ODIs, its a problem in anyway. Now coming to real issues, we can move the page from @Vensatry: List of highest individual scores in ODIs to List of individual scores more than 180 runs in ODIs but before that I have a question. Where is the difference between the two, both are describing the highest scores. Secondly, in the latter case, we need to emphasize on 180. It will be absurd. (The following table lists scores of 180 or higher.) on the top of the table actually telling you there are many centuries but as the list is about "highest scores", scores upto 180 is taken. Secondly, in the first table the question immediately comes, then how can one know about the progression happened, thus the progression table is placed. Everything is cristal clear now as I have added the progression table. I want to give you another example, "List of centuries in ODIs" and "List of highest individual scores in ODIs" what will you expect in these lists. In the first you will expect all centuries (which does not exist due to same reason) and in the second you will ofcorse expect few top scores (thats why top 25 scores are mentioned). Lastly, I think for this table there can be two case, keep a minimum of scores(which already exist) or scores above 170 (as 171 was first score above 150 barrier, but it will need 25 more centuries to be added). Which one do you think is more feasible, I think the minimum of scores which justify the topic.Dey subrata (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias[edit]

  • Should this list be merged with List of One Day International cricket double centuries?
    • Well that list is actually redundant, merge or delete any one of the case.
      • @Harrias: IMO, yes. Drawing the line at 200 (the figure is NOT subjective) is the best way to go about in these lists. Vensatry (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "One Day International cricket (ODI cricket) is played between international cricket teams which are Full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as well as the top six Associate and Affiliate members." This is only true for men's cricket, not women's cricket.
  • "ODI cricket is List A cricket, so statistics and records set in ODI matches also count toward List A records." This seems superfluous.
    • Any response to this point? Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes ODIs counted against List A records. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of false titles in the article, please rewrite to avoid these. Some useful information is provided in this article.
    • This is unresolved. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Please specify which one you need to be fixed, you are directing me to a third party links. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
        • This is a review towards Featured status, not a peer review, or copy edit forum. I have provided a link which identifies what false titles are, and how to avoid them. Other resources are available via Google. Harrias talk 22:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "In men's cricket Charles Coventry equalled Anwar's record after 12 years when Zimbabwe's innings ended with him on a score of 194 not out against Bangladesh at Queens Sports Club ground in Bulawayo." This sentence needs breaking up, it is trying to do far too much.
  • "In ODIs, the.." This whole article is about ODIs, I don't think this clarification is necessary.
  • The prose is generally very clunky, there are a lot of busy sentences that need breaking up more for ease of reading.
    • The prose quality is still low, featuring a lot of repetition and busy sentences. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Broken sentences and remove repetition of ODIs whereever possible, only kept in 2 places where if removed looks odd. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed all above.
  • Per MOS:DTT add table captions.
  • Kerr's strike-rate needs two decimal places.
  • Per MOS:FLAG, the use of flags in the venue column is non-compliant.
  • There is a lot of overlinking of place names in the Venue column; Melbourne, Kolkata etc don't need links.
    • This is unresolved. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • There is no repeat link now in the table, every single place is linked once. I are firm follower of MOS:OVERLINK, but all other FL cricket lists linked the places in tables even repeated links. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "MCG, Melbourne, Melbourne" Is clunky. Melbourne Cricket Ground will suffice. Similar for "National Stadium, Karachi, Karachi"
    • This is unresolved. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry, fixed, i thought you were talking about table 2. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed all above.
Source review
  • "Clark's score remains the highest achieved by a captain" The reference provided does not support this claim.
    • This is unresolved. The sources provided demonstrate that she was captain, but not that her score is the highest made by a captain. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • 3 scorers have more runs than her. I have added other 2 highest scorer links (Sharma and Guptill) where its written they're not captain, in her links its mention she is captain and Kerr was not. Thus no possibilities of confusion. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "as well as the highest individual score in the Women's World Cup" The reference provided only supports this "as of 2017".
    • This was me being an idiot, as there hasn't been a Women's World Cup since 2017. *eyeroll* Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • No need to curse urself man, we all learn here, if u are from US, let me tell you I have zero idea about baseball or nfl records n tournament, but thats not make idiot. Chill, everyone learn new things everyday.
        • I literally attended the 2017 Women's World Cup. Harrias talk 22:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't just use web addresses for publication titles; ref #4 should have India Today as the work and Living Media India Limited as the publisher. Check the rest too.
    • This is unresolved for refs #7, #12 and #24. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • ref 7 is of Cricket Australia (Australian Cricket Board), they are not a publishing house, so should be kept as work and website. ref 12 fixed, website based media, kept accordingly. ref 24 fixed. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed all above.

Okay, that's a few things to get going with on a skim read; I can provide a more detailed review once these have been addressed. Harrias talk 09:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: Addressed your issues. Dey subrata (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I have responded inline above. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: Responded above. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Cartography of Jerusalem[edit]

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the history of maps of Jerusalem is one of the most important topics in cartography, this is the best resource for the subject on the internet, the article has collated images of every single one of the most notable maps of the city, it clearly explains the reasons for the notability of each, uses the most respected sources on the subject, and this is the best of wikipedia's lists of maps and so may inspire further effort on an under-represented topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • "This article also is a list of maps of Jerusalem" - sentences like "this is a list of....." have been deprecated for many years and should not be in the article
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
You now have "This article chronicles the known maps....", which is essentially the same thing. Articles basically should never say "this article....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Green tickY now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "More than 12 maps" - seems oddly specific. Maybe "at least 12...." would be better?
Green tickY amended. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vellum is wikilinked the second time it appears - should be the first
Green tickY moved, and also wikilinked the other materials. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "between the late-1400s to the mid-1800s" => "between the late-1400s and the mid-1800s"
Green tickY done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and few of the mapmakers had travelled to Jerusalem" - this should be a new sentence
Green tickY done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a random exclamation mark in the header of the first table
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't bold sentences or sections of sentences in the tables
The intention here is to highlight those maps which are at the highest level of notability (e.g. they were the first of their kind, or considered the most accurate of their generation). Do you think there could be another way we could achieve this?
Green tickY now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Today, more than 12 such maps are known" - why "more than 12"? How many is it actually?
I have changed to “at least” per the comment above. The sources (both the same author) say "more than a dozen survive today", but provide no further information, and there are no other specialist publications on the Crusader maps topic recent enough to clarify.
Green tickY Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sentence fragments such as "Thought to be from the 14th century." should not have a full stop
Green tickY removed full stops from all fragments. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: thank you for the excellent comments. I have made all the changes except the debolding – I have commented on that above, and would be grateful for your thoughts. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I based that comment on WP:MOSBOLD, which says "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text". I can see where you are coming from, but I can't really think of an alternative approach. Let me muse on that (and also see what other editors who comment here think)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Green tickY @ChrisTheDude: I have now removed the bold per Aoba47 and your agreement on the topic. Thanks again for your input here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I spotted one more thing - against the very last entry, the two refs are not in the correct numerical order, and ref 31 needs formatting properly using an appropriate citation template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the lead image's caption, I do not believe it should have a period because it is not a full sentence.
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would suggest adding ALT text, but I do not believe is a requirement for a featured list and there has been some dispute in the past about this subject. I wanted to raise this to your attention though.
Green tickY added alt text to all. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with ChrisTheDude that the list should not refer to itself in the prose as it is done with this sentence: "This article chronicles the known maps of Jerusalem until the rise of modern surveying techniques".
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Would a wikilink for ancient times be helpful just to clarify the time period being discussed in this part: "the creation, editing, processing and printing of maps of Jerusalem since ancient times".
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with ChrisTheDude that sentences or sections should not be put in bold. I believe that this is typically discouraged. I have seen items put in bold for a lead to help identify redirect targets, etc., but I do not think I have seen it done in the body of a featured list or a featured article.
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think this part "Ground plan from De Locis Sanctis drawn for pilgrims, showing relevant Christian sites in relation to each other." should have punctuation as it is not a full sentence.
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I noticed that some of the "date" columns have a reference while others do not. Is there any particular reason for it? I am not saying it needs to be changed, but I was just curious about your reasoning for it.
Green tickY this was because some of the refs for the exacts dates were different to the refs for the descriptions. I have now added these where they were missing, so it is consistent now. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about the current citation format. There are instances where the page number is given in the "References" section with a link to the "Bibliography" section with the full book citation, and other cases where the full book citation and page numbers are put in the "References" section. See Reference 3 vs. Reference 25 as an example. Any particular reason why it is done this way?
Green tickY fair point - I have fixed these and moved all the books and journal articles into the bibliography. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that the list mostly does not use the Oxford comma as in this part "including parchment, vellum, mosaic, wall paintings and paper", but the Oxford comma is used in this list "original factual maps, copied maps, and imaginary maps" so I would remove it for consistency.
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the list overall. I hope that it inspires other editors to work on more cartography lists, and it is awesome that you have updated is what is most likely an extremely helpful online resource on the subject. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for your generous and excellent comments. I have put them all through. I also hope that others follow this article - it would be great to see articles like this for all the other major cities worldwide. One day perhaps. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. I support this list for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Reywas92
  • I really like this list but I don't see how this passes criterion 3a. The crusader maps are based on a catalogue, but the other three sections appear to be entirely subjective inclusion criteria. They're very interesting examples but how do I know nothing important is missing? If the Illes Relief is included why is the Holyland Model of Jerusalem relegated to a see also? Isn't the city model at city hall relevant to modern cartography? The Jewish Virtual Library has many more maps that seem important to the history of the city's cartography.
    • One of those lists the Brandis map as being the first printed map, pre-dating the Reuwich map by a decade (though with less detail of the city itself)
    • There isn't really a broad storyline connecting these maps either, such as discussing differences between the maps, how they improved over time, and how they were used. This is more of a "List of [selected] maps of Jerusalem" instead of "Cartography of Jerusalem", which I would expect to go into more detail about the study and process of mapmaking and the relevance to Jerusalem.
  • Hi @Reywas92: thank you for your thoughtful comments, and for addressing what I think is the single most important question for this FL proposal. This was the question I was most focused on from the moment I began this article. Per the comments from other editors above I have had to remove a couple of self-referential sentences which tried to explain the scope of the article.
In summary, this article lists all the maps which progressed the cartography of Jerusalem; that is its broad storyline. It does not include “imaginary maps of ancient Jerusalem” (a topic which could certainly merit an article; this would include the Brandis map, the Holyland model, and most of the Jerusalem maps listed at JVL [which is usually non-RS btw]), nor does it include either copies of existing maps which didn’t progress it in any way or maps which were materially less detailed than maps already in existence. It stops at “the rise of modern surveying techniques” because after that mapmaking became commoditized. My conviction in building this article with this scope is that an attempted list of every map ever made of Jerusalem – if it was even feasible – would dilute the impact of the maps which were historically significant in the cartography of the city, making it harder for readers to “see the wood for the trees”. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense but the lead needs to define these inclusion criteria, best with a clear explanation for how we can trust that what's listed here is comprehensive and tells the story of cartography rather than just being a selection of maps. The commented-on part above mainly concerned "This article" and the rest can be rewritten. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Reywas92: thank you. Could you help me understand how I should write this without self-referencing? I have read MOS:SELFREF which says what not to do, but doesn’t say how to explain the scope of a list to readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Could be something like "The maps below represent the progression of mapmaking across the history of the city...They are the most historically significant..." or "All maps marking milestones in the cartography of Jerusalem are listed here...This is a collection of the most important maps, because they show how mapmaking and surveying improved and outsiders could better understand the city." (Don't use my exact words but just omitting the word "article" while still talking about the list itself is fine). But the comments on each map could use a little more detail to corroborate why they're chosen. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Reywas92: thank you. I have added an explanation at [6]. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You didn't have to quote me but that looks good! Reywas92Talk 02:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Today, at least 12 such maps are known" – "such" simply being Crusader-era? This section description doesn't line up with those listed. (5) München is missing, and Cambrai and Sanudo-Vesconte are added to Röhricht's catalogue, but these numbers still don't add up then for what's included.
  • Map (5) is the Arculf map, already in the section above. I have added a sentence to explain. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No colon after "labeled"
Green tickY removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92Talk 00:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Thank you for your very helpful comments. I believe they have now all been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes but not the elaboration on the map descriptions themselves that relate them to what makes them important. E.g. the Hague map is called "the most famous" but does not give any detail why and I don't have access to the cited book to learn more about its importance. The Willenberg map says where it was published, but not how it progressed cartography. Reywas92Talk 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • There is no point in having the Madaba map as the lead image as it is shown identically immediately below. You need some variation, such as a different image, part of one of the other maps or a much larger image of the Madaba map.
Green tickY very fair point. I put a modern photo instead for comparison purposes. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Most extant maps known to scholars from the pre-modern era were prepared by Christian mapmakers for a Christian European audience." This implies that there are a significant number of non-Christian maps but ref 2 says that there are almost none. I suggest changing to "hardly any". Are any non-Christian maps known?
Green tickY changed to “almost all”. I think the reason the sources don’t say all/none is because there are likely a few known non-Christian sketches or illustrations on bigger maps like this one, but none which advanced the cartography. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You should state your criteria for inclusion in the list, as you set out in the discussion above.
Green tickY @Dudley Miles: thank you. I have added an explanation at [7], following the suggestion of Reywas92. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Early religious / pilgrimage maps" It would be helpful if you added dates to this sub-heading.
Green tickY done Onceinawhile (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The dates in the left hand column should be as c.680 when the exact date is not known.
Green tickY done. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The table heading 'Description' is misleading. 'Comments' would be better.
Green tickY done. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The text in this column is very brief, particularly as it is such a short list. "Dated to the mid 12th century" just repeats the date column. It would be helpful to expand the information, although I realise that in some cases information may not be available.
Green tickY I have expanded these throughout where information is available. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The comments still look too brief. There must be more information available about maps which are significant enough to meet your criteria for inclusion in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: thanks for your copyedit, which I am fine with, and for your comment above. Re adding more detail to the descriptions, most of these maps have enough written about them that they could justify an entire article on their own. How much detail would you consider appropriate in the table? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
See for example List of local nature reserves in Somerset. This has 2-3 lines but less where details are not available. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Brief update[edit]

@Dudley Miles and Reywas92: thank again for your very helpful comments. I have put through almost all of them, and am currently finalizing the comments re adding further description where available. It is taking some time but I am not far from being finished now. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Denmark[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 15:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A new list from the series of World Heritage Sites, it follows the standard format, it is up-to-date and complete. I have currently the Austria nomination open but I was told that it is fine to go with the next nomination since the support there is solid. Probably it will require some copyediting but I can take care of it during the nomination process. Tone 15:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • "practiced par force hunting, hunting with hounds." Should be colon not comma
  • Kujataa: Replace hyphen with a dash
  • Can you make the descriptions more original please? Now I feel like I've been negligent on this in previous reviews but most of them are extremely close paraphrases of the general descriptions on the UNESCO website. Lists I've written have also come mainly from the primary sources but I try to mix it up a bit more with info inspired from our WP article and subpages of the source, rather than doing just enough to avoid a copyright violation. See if you can summarize what's in the "Outstanding Universal Value" sections of the website in your own voice instead of relying on rewriting the brief description at the top, even if that's the highlights. Reywas92Talk 19:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am aware of that, I am trying to balance the creativity with the facts. Sometimes the descriptions are really bland and contain little facts that can be used, other times there is so much info that it makes sense only to summarize. I'll see what I can do, I am trying to make the descriptions at least a bit different. --Tone 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "inscribed at the 18th Session of the World Heritage Committee, held in 1994 in Phuket, Thailand." - source for that? The ref against the site in the table gives the year but not the location or the session number
  • Paragraph 2 ends with a comma for some reason
  • "Seven sites in Denmark are cultural and three are natural" - clarify in some way that these figures don't include the tentative sites
  • There's a stray space between the full stop and the reference at the end of paragraph 3
  • "The cathedral is the early example" => "The cathedral is an early example"
  • "with furter military modification" - typo in "further"
  • "followint the recovery after the mass extinction" - another typo
  • "harboring species such as harbour seal, grey seal, and harbour porpoise" - the spelling of the first word suggests that US English is being used, in which case the next two usages of the same word are spelt incorrectly. Best to check for consistency of the variety of English throughout.
  • In that same cell, there's another stray space before a ref
  • "The peak activity was reached between 17th" => "The peak activity was reached between the 17th"
  • "The design the forests" - think there's at least one word missing here
  • "As of 2019, Denmark recorded 4 sites" => "As of 2019, Denmark has recorded 4 sites"
  • "The main square contains four identical maisons" - other than being French for house, what is a "maison"?
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: It took me a while but I'm through. I went with British spelling article-wide. I also modified some descriptions per the above comment. --Tone 09:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this image caption (Locations of World Heritage Sites in Greenland.), I would remove the period since it is not a complete sentence.
  • I have a question about this part (As of 2019, Denmark has 10 sites inscribed on the list and a further 4 on the tentative list.), I have generally seen numbers ten and under written in words as opposed to numerals. Is there any reason for the numerals in this part? It seems to juxtapose with the next sentence (Three sites), which represents "three" in words rather than numerals.
  • I am a little confused by the links for "Denmark" and the "Kingdom of Denmark" as they both go to the same article. I am uncertain if the "Kingdom of Denmark" part should be linked.

Great work with the list. It seems that a majority of the issues were already ironed out during ChrisTheDude's review above. I just have three relatively minor comments, and once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. I am completely unfamiliar with Denmark (although I have a weird fascination with Greenland) so I very much enjoyed reading this list. I hope that it attracts more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed all, thank you for your comments! @Aoba47: --Tone 17:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Viking Age Ring Fortresses: In this entry's description, the hyphen in 975-80 should be an en dash instead.
  • En dashes are also needed in the titles of refs 19 and 22. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Done! --Tone 09:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – My couple of small nit-picks have been addressed and I think this meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "The two burial mounds are pagan sites while the massive stones with runic inscriptions mention the Christianization." This does not seem right. The citation says that the runic stones are pagan and the site illustrates not mentions Christianization.
  • Roskilde Cathedral. I think the first two sentences should be swapped. It is better to say the date before saying that it is early. Also the citation says earliest, not just early.
  • Sermeq Kujalleq can be linked.
  • The citation is out of date on the 65 million year date of the end of the Cretaceous. It is now dated to 66 million year ago, as shown in the ICS chart. (You may say "what does a million years matter?" but it is still better to get it right!)
  • "Baroque landscape planning trends". "trends" does not seem the right word.
  • Kujataa Greenland. I think it is worth mentioning that the Norse settlements disappeared by the fifteenth century.
  • The Category Northern Europe is too broad. It should be in Category:Denmark-related lists.
  • A first class list. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Dudley Miles: Done! The runic stones (further in the text) state "King Harald bade this monument be made in memory of Gorm his father and Thyra his mother, that Harald who won for himself all Denmark and Norway and made the Danes Christians", so this is correct. And the Roskilde Cathedral is the first church in Scandinavia while "Roskilde Cathedral is an outstanding example of the early use of brick in the construction of large religious buildings in Northern Europe." So this is fine as well (not sure of any earlier brick churches in Northern Europe, depends how one counts North Germany, I suppose, but that's in the reference). Thanks for the comments! --Tone 20:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

List of cyclists with a cycling-related death[edit]

Nominator(s): Shearonink (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on it since I stumbled upon it in July 2010 - this is what it looked like back then. I think it has been improved, statements have been researched, the main Table is sortable, the images have alt texts and so on. The memorializing of cyclists who die while participating in races or while training is an important part of cycling's culture. These cyclists and their feats are remembered by cycling fans and historians of the sport, their memorials are places of pilgrimage. I confess - this has been the only List I have made meaningful contributions to, I've gotten some articles to WP:GAs but this List has always been something special to me. I feel a personal responsibility to these men and women - they deserve verifiable facts about their lives and that is what I have tried to do. Thanks in advance for all your feedback on how to improve this List. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • fix dashes.
    • I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the dash-placeholder for the blank images? I fixed that down below. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to "-" to "–" some i.e. Case 36-74. Walrave and Koch -> Case 36–74. Walrave and Koch.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Working on it - this will take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Went through and checked all the hypens/dashes both dash-em & dash-en, adjusted when necessary. So far as I can tell (and I might have missed some), the hyphens that are left aren't incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink For future reference, install this script and you can fix dashes with one button. – zmbro (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • remove unused "publisher=" from refs.
  • publisher=ABC (newspaper) - > ABC
  • | -> Piet Dickentman biography
  • no shouting in ref.
    • Heh, ok, I just took the refs/titles exactly as I found them, so if a title was all in caps (not unusual in early 20th C newspapers for instance) I left it alone but Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • archive sources.
    • So. Just to make sure I understand before I set down this long road...I need to convert the approximately 160 simple cite webs to wayback urls, correct? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
You can use this tool [8].___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Working on this one too, it'll take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Cycling related deaths including professionals who died during training section (why are some date in brackets and some are not)
    • Are you referring to some being set off by periods? I have made the date-style in that section consistent - does that address your concerns? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring below the image some dates have brackets on them however other two don't.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh! You're referring to the 4 photos in the training section. The parentheses for the 2 photos are a stylistic choice for those photos - I didn't have a firm date for them, just a decade for the one and a year for the other. The dates without parentheses are for the two dated photos. Using the parentheses for this gallery isn't incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • in the table it contains dash, some don't have the dash
    • Done. The dash is a placeholder for possible photos. Which, sadly, can be very hard to find. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • overlinking in table
    • I need more info on this particular bullet point, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying is overlinked. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Countries are overlinked.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Countries are you mean in the Nationality section of the table, that just the Name of the country should be linked and the flags should be unlinked? Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

For example you mention France which is linked, than you mention France which linked too.. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking (with Flag & country) has been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • remove format=mdy from the article. it already says it on top.
    • With the dts coding, that's the way the table was set up, so when people put dates in they all come out the same - keeps things simple. Every so often, the List sees a flurry of activity. That code should stay there so if folks are adding a new entry to the table section they can just follow the other entries as a template above. I did remove df=mdy-all from where I found that parameter. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • it says MDY but it isn't consistent i.e. "collided with his pacer during a 11 October 1903 race on the Dresden"
    • Fixed what I could find. Are there any others? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
comments ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
* publisher=Channel News Asia |accessdate=7 August 2019 |date=4 August 2018
* website=California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside |publisher=(Los Angeles Herald, Volume XXX, Number 236, 31 May 1903) |accessdate=August 14, 2019 |date=31 May 1903
* publisher=The Sydney Mail |accessdate=August 14, 2019 |date=28 September 1904
* website=Newspapers.Com|accessdate=15 August 2019 |pages=1, 2 |date=22 June 1907
* has a different date of death - 18 October 1908. See "Opgevouwen
* to death on his bike") |accessdate=August 18, 2019 |date=22 February 2012
* Geschiedenis24/History 24/Nederland 24 |accessdate=17 August 2019
* ongeluk-in-Het-Stadion.html |archivedate=11 August 2011 |date=5 August 2007
* History Workshop Journal |accessdate=17 August 2019 |page=166 |date=18 January 2015
* Melbourne, Victoria |date=12 August 1936 |page=10
* The Sporting Globe]] |location=Melbourne, Victoria |date=10 December 1938
* |date=1915-04-29 |accessdate=2012-07-17
* in sources as being in 2 different months in 1952 - 28 July
* publisher=ABC |accessdate=17 August 2019 |date=5 August 1958
* publisher=BBC|accessdate=8 July 2014|date=18 July 2005
* =The Independent|accessdate=8 July 2014|date=19 July 1995
* 20Deaths%20ABC.pdf|archive-date=8 September 2008
* publisher=Cycling News |accessdate=17 August 2019
* language=fr |date=12 February 2014 |url-status
* round of Enduro World Series|last=|first=|date=2015-08-02||publisher=|language=en-US|access-date=2016-09-26
* publisher=Farrelly-Atkinson Limited|accessdate=7 April 2017
* publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited|accessdate=31 March 2017
* Immediate Media Limited|accessdate=29 April 2017
* Roubaix | | date=8 April 2018 | accessdate=8 April 2018
* Belgian elite race incident|work=CyclingNews|date=19 March 2019|accessdate=9 August 2019
* heart attack|first=Jonny|last=Long|date=26 April 2019|website=Cycling Weekly|accessdate=6 May 2019
* race|last=Williams |first=David |work=CNN|date=30 July 2019|accessdate=7 August 2019
* |work=CyclingNews|date=5 August 2019|accessdate=5 August 2019
* Hugh McLean, September 3 1909 -> add comma.
* accident |publisher=ESPN |date=2012-12-16 |accessdate=2012-12-16
* |date=2012-12-16 |accessdate=2012-12-16}}
* death |title=Driver to face trial over Burry Stander's death |publisher=Times LIVE |date=2013-07-30 |accessdate=2014-08-12
* in-training-crash_304886|accessdate=3 October 2013|publisher=Velonews|date=3 October 2013
*  overreden door bus aan Noxx|date=18 February 2014|accessdate=18 February 2014
* dies from crash injuries] Julia Wright, 28/12/2016, CBC news
* Gazzetta dello Sport|date=22 April 2017
* publisher = | accessdate=22 December 2017
Ah, within the references. I think I got them all - Done.Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • add a short description.
    • If you are referring to Tim Johnson, Josef Schwarzer, Ernst Wolf (all in 1907), Hans Schneider (1920) and maybe any others I am missing atm the early cyclists are especially difficult to find out any details about. What you see is literally what I have been able to find. I am waiting on a German collaborator who has access to original documents to see if there is possibly any additional information available, but the bare bones of what is there might be all that we can get. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to Wikipedia:Short description which you put at top of a page. use one like {{Short description|List of deaths of cyclists during competition or training date.}}___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Duh on me - of course. Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • roughly translates to "Verbist, if you hadn’t ridden your bike, you may not have ended up in a coffin." -> hadn't
    • ?Sorry I don't understand this one...what you posted above is identical to what is already there... Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
see the comment left below___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • pacing event, Stuart’s front tyre blew -> Stuart's
    • ?Don't understand...I changed the spelling of tyre but? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
see the comment left below___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • injuries claim Casarotto’s life -> Casarotto's
    • ?I am not sure what issues you are pointing out with this and the previous two bullet points. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was pointing out " ’ " to " ' " -> Casarotto’s -> Casarotto's.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
these are the some issues.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your notes, greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink I have added some more notes.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
CAPTAIN MEDUSA I have fixed all the points above with the exception of three two areas: I am still working on archiving sources & fixing dashes and I have a pending question about what you specifically mean by overlinking in the Table. Re; overlinking - I don't want to change something if it isn't what you're concerned about. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Finished hyphens/dashes fixes, I think I caught them all. Am taking a break but hope to finish up sometime next week. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Much thanks to Zmbro for lending a hand. The hyphens/dash-em/dash-ens should all be corrected now. Shearonink (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

for archiving ref, you can use this [9] which automaticly archives all the refs in the page. Also see the comments that I've left above.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA I think of your issues posted above have now been fixed. Archive cites, dates, overlinking, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink thanks for fixing the issues. Also you're welcomed to review my FLC sumbsion here Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sanjay Dutt filmography/archive1___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • some further comments.
  • Scheuermann posed on bicycle from between 1905–1906. -> between 1905 and 1906.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Stahurskaya Dies In Training Accident, Says Coach -> Stahurskaya Dies in Training Accident, Says Coach
? I'm sorry but I don't see what you are stating needs to be changed here... Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Head injuries claim Casarotto’s life -> Head injuries claim Casarotto's life
Done. I must say, though, that I am such a purist on quoting text & material that I don't even like to change punctuation, say from a ' to a ' in what had been an exact rendition of a title... Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • shrines to cycling’s fallen heroes -> shrines to cycling's fallen heroes are scattered
Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hugh McLean, September 3 1909 -> Hugh McLean, September 3, 1909
Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Julia Wright, 28/12/2016 -> Julia Wright, December 28, 2016
Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
some comments added.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • One obvious thing that jumps out at me - any particular reason why one section is a table but the other is just bullet points.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The List has gone through many generations of designs. The present layout makes complete sense to me though - splitting the two sections - the during a race and the during training - into two completely different designs sets them off as being different. The Table is laid out as just the facts, all those deaths happened during a race when cyclists are racing on a public roadway or on a track in supposedly controlled environments surrounded by fellow cyclist and with safety protocols. And yet...and yet they sometimes have accidents, and yet sometimes they die. The deaths in the during training/bullet point section happened on mostly everyday roads in normal everyday environments. The individual listings, the sheer numbers of professionals or competitive/notable amateurs, the people who have died during an otherwise normal day while on our shared roadways - especially since 1994 - is mind-boggling. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude See my response on this matter to Zmbro below. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I take your point below that FLs have differing styles, but I can't see any compelling reason to have differing styles within the same article when the subject matter is essentially the same. For example, in a musician's discography, I wouldn't expect to see the albums in a table but the singles done as bullet points..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude (& also zmbro per a comment below) I see what you're saying about a discography, that does make sense. But I've been thinking about this and those discography Lists are all about one person's or one band's performances (and since the content used in a single is repeated in its album the actual digital files or recordings in these cases are not just essentially the same, they are exactly the same, the presentation is just different). The discography Lists are not about different activities by different people. To my mind - though they are (of course) related - racing is not the same as training, being in a race is not the same as being on a public road, and dying months or years from the aftereffects of a horrific accident that happened during a race is essentially different from dying instantaneously during a race. And regarding not expecting...why not? There are already Featured Lists that co-mingle text/bullet-point lists with Tables like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (especially between their Projects in development sections and various Table sections) and Audie Murphy honors and awards. Does co-mingling Tables + bullet-point lists/text paragraphs in a List specifically go against or specifically not fulfill WP:FLCR? Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well they could be said to be the same but they don't seem the same to me. An overwhelming number of the bullet-list deaths happened on regular roads, usually in completely-mixed traffic. To set the deaths off as being in different conditions is not a compelling reason? Is there a compelling reason to have all the information presented in exactly the same way in different sections? Let's say that the different death conditions are not a compelling reason to have the sections be different...then what is the compelling reason to have it all be the same. The WP:FLCR says about structure: "It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities." It doesn't say table sort facilities are required. The text list seems as easy to navigate as the table, they're just different, neither one is better over the other. I don't understand why they must be the same...I'll have to think on this quite e a bit more. Shearonink (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro

Since I've been helping you out with dashes and archiving I'll go ahead and leave some thoughts:

  • To me, the lead seems a little short, especially for how long a list this is. Maybe add a paragraph or two on notable cyclists who have died and/or the most common causes of death? Just some ideas
I'll have to work on that. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. I expanded on the concepts of *different rates of death at different eras and *the memorializing of dead cyclists by fans. Take a look and tell me what you think. Shearonink (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the image col would look better after the name col (have the names first); that's how I've seen many other lists of this nature
  • Having "Notes" as the heading seems a little broad, as most individuals have their location of death first then notes, while others only have location of death and others have none at all and just a reference. Perhaps change it to "Location of death and notes"?
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Would be interesting to see the ages everyone died at. I know that might take a while but having just their death date and no birth date seems a little odd (to me at least). Doesn't have to be its own col, maybe below the death date.
I agree, it would be interesting but it might not be feasible to have an age for everyone, especially for some of the early cyclists - for a lot of them there just isn't any more information than what is already here. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Going along with a previous point, some notes, like Hubert Sevenich, read "Died as a result of a collision with a pacing motorcycle during a race at the track in Brunswick, Germany." (a complete sentence) while others, like Josef Schwarzer just read "Düsseldorf track". Another one reads "Tour of Portugal. Died of dehydration during race." instead of "Died of dehydration during the race at the 1958 Tour of Portugal." I'd make them all complete sentences. A good reference is how User:Dudley Miles has been crafting his lists on SSSIs, etc. (see List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire for a good example (how there's a complete description for each site))
Will work on that, I agree. Should have it done within the next day or two. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll do what re-writing & editing that I can but there is something that I must mention. Many of the early cyclists - starting with Hubert Sevenich in 1905, Tim Johnson/Josef Schwarzer/Ernst Wolf in 1907, Theile (1911), Bachmann/Lange/Kraft/Max Hansen in 1913 and so on - what you see here in this List is probably all there is. Many of these early cyclists, especially the Germans, only seem to have received coverage in Sport-Album der Rad-Welt a German-language sports-newspaper which is (so far as I know) only available in Germany, is printed in German, and only available in its physical form. I would have loved to included more information on the individuals who only have a place of death listed but in many cases it is not accessible to me and is apparently only available to librarians who have access to certain archives. In Germany. I will do what I can to coax the fragments into complete sentences but I think you should know that some of what you're asking of me just might not be possible. Shearonink (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Have finished re-crafting the following:
  • Andrei Kivilev
  • Brett Malin
  • Garrett Lemire
  • Juan Barrero
  • Tim Pauwels
  • Alessio Galletti
  • Bob Breedlove
The following entries with somewhat-truncated "Died of" sections have references that are in 1)German, 2)Only accessible in paper form, 4)only accessible to researchers & librarians in archives in Germany, & use either Sport-Album der Rad-Welt or Illustrierter Radrennsport. Giving more details on the following's manner of death, etc. might prove to be impossible:
Tim Johnson Track cyclist (coach), Ernst Wolf, Josef Schwarzer - 1907, Fritz Theile - 1911, Max Hansen - 1913, Bachmann & Lange - 1913, Hans Schneider and Emanuel Kudela - 1920, Franz Krupkat - 1927, Emil Richli - 1934.
I have been trying to find more details but it is proving to be very difficult to find out any information beyond the bare-bones/facts about these cyclists already posted because of the source-material being used as references and the way the sources were initially posted. Shearonink (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
CAPTAIN MEDUSA and zmbro I've done all that I can do with the "Location of death and additional information" parameter for the following cyclists:
  • Huhndorf, Tim Johnson, Schwarzer, Ernst Wolf, Fritz Theile, Hans Bachmann, Hans Lange, August Kraft, Max Hansen, Max Bauer, Hans Schneider, Kudela, Walter Ebert, Franz Krupkat, Emil Richli, and Stefan Veger.
I am still working on:
  • Kaminski, Ravasio, Connie Meijer, Saúl Morales, Espinosa, Manuel Galera, Jean-Pierre Monseré, Valentín Uriona, and José Samyn. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some individuals don't have a competitive status listed. Some of these individuals have WP pages, such as Stan Ockers, which says he was a "Belgian professional racing cyclist." That sounds like a status to me, right? I'd make sure there's a status for everyone where applicable, and if not, just put "N/A"
I'll work on that, just got overlooked. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with ChrisTheDude, it's weird seeing one section in a table and another in prose. I think they should both be in a table
I'll have to think about that. Before I nominated this List as an FLC, I looked through various Featured Lists and I realized something...there are many different forms in Featured Lists - some are one big Table (List of tallest buildings in New York City), some are in Separate Tables (List of Mesopotamian deities and List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse), some are bullet Lists-only or have paragraphs about each separate subject or sub-section (List of culinary nuts, List of vegetable oils, and Snow in Florida), some seem short (Robot Hall of Fame - File size: 131 kB) and (List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Washington University in St. Louis - File size: 112 kB), some are long(List of West Virginia state parks - File size: 599 kB), some have a short lead section (Ed Chynoweth Cup and List of retired Pacific typhoon names), some have linked sections in table without extensive text (Ed Chynoweth Cup again)...I understand other editors' hesitancy about the present form but...I'll have to think about it. Just because WP maybe hasn't done it before doesn't mean we can't have different but acceptable forms for Featured Lists. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see above reply to ChrisTheDude. I've pinged you on it to make it easier for you to find. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe this was mentioned previously but date formats should be consistent – note 8 and 16 are UK-style while the rest of the articles is US-style (there's also a script to help with that)
Date-issues have all now been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what I got so far. I'm sorry if this may seem overwhelming but I'm more than happy to help out when I'm available. Best of luck :-) – zmbro (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Table vs bullet points[edit]

@Shearonink: @Zmbro: As two of us have raised this concern, I thought it might be worth centralising the discussion in its own section rather than having it in two separate places above. To my mind having half the list in a table and half as bullet points looks a mess. The second section could easily be converted to a table and then the article would look much more polished and much closer to exemplifying WP's best work (IMO). I personally don't believe that the slightly different scope of the two sections justifies having them in wildly differing formats, but that is just my opinion and I am prepared to be swayed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your posts. It just never occurred to me in all the years I have worked on this List that the different styles of the two main sections would be a concern. To me, as the List's structure exists right now, everything simply fits. I dunno, I suppose I could possibly even convert the table to a bullet-list so the different sections would be in the same format. Maybe, but anyway, I'm taking a few days off to think about it. Thanks again. Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I personally think tables look better in these types of lists but that's just me. – zmbro (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the differing deaths can be dealt with in different ways - there isn't a FL criteria or a List guideline that states either a text-list format or that a table-list format must be completely adhered to within a Wikipedia List. It is a stylistic/editorial choice to have the 2 styles in the one List. In my opinion, it is more powerful to have the names one after another, no lines, no sorting, no clinical boxes around the info, As a matter of fact I've never been fond of the sortable tables style but that was introduced by another editor and I can see how the sorting could be helpful in the professional section so I went with their choice.
There is a difference of opinion about having 2 different styles within a List so it seems that I have hit an impasse. If other editors commenting here at this FLC aren't convinced by the depth of coverage, by the relentless sourcing, by the extensive changes I have made to the text per reviewers' suggestions, by the way that I have dealt quickly with their various concerns then I don't know what else I can possibly persuade anyone with. I was prepared to be queried relentlessly about the sourcing, about the text-content, about the images and so on but it just never occurred to me that the differing styles of the two sections might be a possible issue. This is probably the only List I will ever attempt to bring to a Featured List status because it is the only List I have done such extensive work on. If the different formats of the two sections of this list are what is holding folks back from possibly supporting this List to Featured List status then that is the way it is. As the nominator and editor who has done most of the work on this List I am not convinced that completely overhauling either section to bring the two sections into stylistic agreement with each other - either all Table-List or all bullet-point List - is the best way to proceed. So far as I can tell - not that this is a "vote" - 2 editors support this List being a FL and 2 do not. Unless someone else weighs in and the consensus turns overwhelmingly one way or another, I am content to let this FLC sit for a while and see if I change my mind. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Anyone else care to weigh in? Short of completely changing the second section or completely changing the first section so they would both be in the same style I don't know what else I can say or do to sway other editors' opinions... Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Lana Turner performances and awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is properly sourced, covers the subject's entire filmography, and has appropriate images. Drown Soda (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part (and appeared in several films for the studio before signing a contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), I would us the exact number rather than "several".
  • I do not think the wikilink for "comedy film" is necessary.
  • For this part (by casting her in several youth-oriented comedies and musicals), I would also wikilink "musicals" to "musical film" since "comedies" is wikilinked.
  • For this part (including Dancing Co-Ed (1939), Ziegfeld Girl (1941),), I would replace the first comma with "and".
  • I would add ALT text to the image in the lead.
  • I would wikilink "film noir" since "comedies" was wikilinked the previous paragraph so it would be consistent to wikilink all genres.
  • The lead should have references. Since there are several parts that require citations like Lana's discovery at age 16. Additionally, claims like (Turner's role as a femme fatale in the film noir The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) advanced her career significantly and established her as a dramatic actress.) needs a reference. I would add sources for every sentence in the lead. See a similar list, List of Emily Blunt performances, which includes these references.
  • For this part (before being cast in a recurring guest role on the television series Falcon Crest between 1982 to 1983), I would clarify that Falcon Crest was a soap opera.
  • I have never seen a box office parameter in a filmography list so I would remove it.
  • Since the tables are sortable, everything should be wikilinked (lik Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Warner Bros.).
  • Since there is an entire section devoted to Lana's radio work, then it should be mentioned in the lead.

I hope this helps. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In the whole lead, only one sentence is sourced - pretty much everything else needs sourcing
  • "including Dancing Co-Ed (1939), Ziegfeld Girl (1941)" - if there's only two examples listed, then they should be separated by "and", not a comma
  • Personally I would combine the "By decade" film tables into one
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude and Aoba47: Hello all, I've addressed these concerns above--for some reason it never occurred to me that leads for list articles needed citations, as the contents of the article don't adequately source the summary of the lead. Long story short, I've added appropriate sources for all of the sentences in the lead, aside from the film count in the opening sentence, which is self-evident (and sourced throughout). --Drown Soda (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • I don't see any major issue, but the Awards and nominations table should follow guidelines; scopes shouldn't be used to highlight anything, a scope is the first column of table
  • The NYT is linked once in the Refs but the Chicago Tribune, The Province, The Pantagraph are not. If one work/publisher is linked in the red, all should to be linked.--Lirim | Talk 01:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick comment – The Finler book isn't being used for any cites as far as I can tell, so that should probably be taken out of the source list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me – zmbro (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments and source review by Cowlibob

Firstly well done on a great list on a screen legend!

  • "Discovered in 1937 at age 16, she signed a contract with Warner Bros. and appeared in several films for the studio before signing a contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" This sentence doesn't seem to match the film table where she seemly stars in one film for Warner Bros before starring in one by MGM and UA.
  • How did Ziegfeld Girl establish her as a leading performer? Was it commercially successful or was her performance praised?
  • How did The Postman Always Rings Twice establish her as a dramatic actress, was her performance praised?
  • "At the time, her films with the studio had collectively earned over $50 million[12] (equivalent to $460,771,114 in 2018)." Using inflation adjustment for box office figures can be problematic. Is there a way her box office performance could be measured against her peers?
  • I think commercial success sounds better than box-office hit.
  • "Turner's final starring role was in 1966's Madame X," What do you mean by starring role as she seems to still have 5 more film credits after this film?
  • " In 1982, she was cast in a recurring guest role on the television soap opera Falcon Crest, in which she appeared in several episodes." The bit after crest seems redundant as she had a recurring role then it is implied that starred in several episodes.
  • In the table heading Role --> Role(s)
  • I'd probably remove that second photo from The Postman Always Rings Twice as there's already a much better one in the lead.
  • For the unrealized projects, are her roles in the first three films in the table unknown?
  • Television and the radio roles don't sort properly. The sorting is also not present in the rest of the radio table.
  • There is no sorting in the theater table currently and also I'd probably rename this section to stage
  • In terms of source review, AGF on the offline sources, I do not have access to them.
  • Ref 7, please specify the time that her credit is mentioned. Also ref 51 is the same as ref 7, they should be combined.
  • Ref 10 just verifies that she starred in the film with Gable not that it was their last work together.
  • Ref 37 verifies that she was due to star in the film but not that it was never made.
  • Ref 38 verifies that she was due to star with Gable but not that it was eventually made with Russell and retitled.
  • Ref 41 doesn't verify that she was due to star with Louis Jordan or that it was never made
  • Ref 48 doesn't verify that she was co-starring with Barrymore.
  • Ref 66 needs a page number

Cowlibob (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Austria international footballers[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I currently have one FLC active however, it currently has three supports and no outstanding comments so I believe it's OK to move ahead nominate a new page. This is another international player list, this time a slightly longer one given the history of the nation. I believe it meets the standards of the previous lists and is ready for FLC. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "The team is governed [....] and compete" - singular/plural disagreement
  • "Austria have played 777 international matches since its debut" - and again
  • "including three hat-tricks and six braces" - "brace" is not wikilinked, and I suspect many people would not know what it means
  • "his final international goal but, Horvath went on to score two more goals" - I think the comma should be before "but", not after
  • "If the number of caps are equal" - the subject of the sentence is "number", which is a singular noun, so plural verb is inappropriate
  • Note a (at least on my screen) has a line break in it. Can't see any need for this.
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review Chris, I've amended all of the issues above I believe. Although, I can't see a line break on either my mobile or laptop? Do you know what's causing it? Kosack (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed the issue with the note. I would still like to see "brace" (in paragraph 2) either wikilinked to somewhere or else clarified in prose, as I don't think every reader will necessarily know what it means..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Woops, thought I'd added that in for some reason. Linked it now. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Of these Austria have won 40..." Add a comma after "these".
  • The key table needs col and row scopes.
  • Is the "Notes" column necessary when there are no notes for any player?
  • Apply title case to the titles in references 3 and 18 to match the others.
  • All else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@NatureBoyMD: Thanks very much for the review, I've addressed all of the issues above. I've added some notes about dual-representation to make the notes column worthwhile as well. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


  • List: The heading of the section is self-explanatory, as it is obviously a list. Something like Players or Footballers would be better. - Done
  • What makes (ref 20) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Although I'm unsure of the actual publisher of the site, it is widely used across football articles and is included in WP:FOOTBALL's list of recommended links. The site also lists a substantial sourcing section including archives of the periodicals used. Kosack (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm still not sure about this site, as not knowing who publishes it doesn't fill me with confidence. I'll leave it unstruck for others to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Radiohead[edit]

Notified: User:Gary, WikiProject Alternative music

This list was promoted back in 2008 (when In Rainbows was only a year old) and has aged poorly since. Apart from a six sentence lead (that has zero references), there are only 13 references total. Before I archived 10 out of 13, some of them led to 401 pages. Most of the tables only have one ref that doesn't mention every nomination/win, but rather just one or in some cases only describing the awards themselves. One of the tables also has its own ref col while the rest don't. Also inconsistent grammar and no periods in some spots. Clearly no longer worthy of the star. – zmbro (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist Serious sourcing issues. Lead needs a whole rework. List does not meet current standards. Cowlibob (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Fantasia Barrino discography[edit]

Notified: Candyo32, WikiProject Discographies

This list has several issues. The lead has a "citation needed" tag, and it does discuss three of Fantasia's albums (The Definition Of..., Christmas After Midnight, and Sketchbook) or its related singles. The structure of the lead's third paragraph is also odd. By putting a lengthy part on "When I See U", the second single from Fantasia, before its lead single "Hood Boy" and third single "Only One U", the chronology is not entirely accurate. I would think the word "hit" would be discouraged for a featured list. The "music videos" table needs to be updated because Fantasia has released several music videos since "Without Me" back in 2013. There are also several issues with the citations. Reference 2 and 21 are marked as "permanent dead links", and there are bare urls (i.e. References 12, 13, 16, and 22). I believe all of these issues combined indicate that the list no longer meets the FLC criteria. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep it took a few moments to fix the bare URLs, the use of "hit" and the [citation needed] in the lead. The rest needs more expertise, but probably doesn't amount to a delisting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comment. I believe the absence of information on three of Fantasia's albums and their related singles in the lead is the biggest issue. It means the list is no longer comprehensiveness and does not fulfill a main point of the featured list criteria. I do not think that incorporating this new information into the lead would be an easy fix. Thank you for taking the time to look at the nomination. This is my first time nominating a featured list for removal so apologies for any mistakes made in the nomination. I would have tried to fix these issues myself, but I am trying to limit my Wikipedia time and I found the task of rewriting the lead to be too much for me right now. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response, and that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Digimon video games[edit]

Notified: Tezero, WikiProject Video games

Reading through this I notice a glaring number of errors that featured lists pages do not, and should not, have. These being the following:

  • GameFAQs is used a multitude of times throughout the article, which is not considered a reliable source per these discussions
  • Infobox should list all companies that developed Digimon games, yet it only lists Dimps and Namco Bandai
  • Several links are not archived
  • Several links are missing dates, authors or publishers, sometimes all of these
  • Lead is not written that well and is a bit hard to read. Examples being: "Digimon is a series of role-playing video games and other genres (such as fighting, action and card battling)", "The series started in 1999 (in the West) with the game Digimon World for the PlayStation, but released in 1998, there was a Japan-exclusive...", etc.

Article does not seem up to snuff with the Featured List criteria, and as such I vote to have it demoted. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey it does not look like you informed the original nominator and WikiProjects about this. GamerPro64 14:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just something that you can fix yourself. If you see something you don't like, just be bold and make those improvements yourself. Personally, I am not a huge Digimon fan, so I would have little knowledge of how to fix the lead and make it better. According to your name and user page, you are a big Namco fan, so this seems like something you could do better research on than me. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 18:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
KingSkyLord see below, I don't think your assertion is actually as realistically implemented as you believe. Would you revisit this please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep a few dubious sources need to be replaced, but otherwise it's okay. A pity the nominator couldn't fix said issues rather than attempt a delisting here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
But that's the thing, before nominating this for a delist I spent a long while combing through Google and the Internet Archive to find info on these, and turned up with nothing. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Well in that case I'll move to support delisting. Thanks for your efforts to try to resolve this. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per Namcokid47. The sourcing of it no longer matches up with Wikipedia standards.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

List of cetacean species[edit]

Notified: WP:CETA, WP:WPLISTS, User:Dunkleosteus77

  • "The following is a list..." archaic and discouraged wording
Do you have any recommendations?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the subject matter enough to recommend an alternate, but "This is a list" is frowned upon. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it not a list? You shouldn’t feel compelled to avoid recognizing it is in fact a list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that it is a list is not the point. TPH is correct that "This is a list..." or the like is not an appropriate way to open a Featured List. But I think the revised current opening to the list is fine. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
While I'm not the FL nominator, I disagree. Lists are not articles, and their style reflects that. Saying "this is a list of ..." (followed by short explations of key terms) is common encyclopedic list writing, as it's short and to the point. Current FLs that state they're lists include: List of countries without armed forces, List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, List of mammals of Canada, List of mammals of Florida, List of European Union member states by political system, etc. VF9 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead overall is way too short. Three sentences for such a huge list.
I expanded it a little, but this is a list so the lead doesn't have to be so big   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Vast stretches are entirely unsourced. I get that it's a summary of content largely sourced elsewhere, but it still feels undersourced.
Where specifically? If you're talking about the footnotes, it's the IUCN website which is already hyperlinked in the table   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Way too many footnotes with poorly written trivia like "Virtually nothing is known about the abundance of Baird's beaked whales, except they are not rare as was formerly thought" which is also unsourced.
Seems like appropriate usage of footnotes to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's still unsourced, vague, and informally written. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
that reads pretty formal to me, and the IUCN link is the ref. To create a footnote ref would be redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The "cetacean needed" thing is cute, but I don't think it lends credence to a supposedly "featured" content
this was already discussed as a harmless note   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Several sourcing errors, including a "missing URL" error and otherwise incomplete citations.
I see just the 1 ref with an error, are there any other incomplete or otherwise incorrect citations or is it just the 1?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist – per nom. Clearly no longer FL worthy, especially just based on the lead. – zmbro (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think it's not bad, I'd like to see MOS:ACCESS applied to the tables for row/col scopes, and units converted, but otherwise it's alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I did the unit conversions but what specifically about scopes are you looking for?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Also column headers in the middle of tables which is all over the article. While these accessibility fixes are pretty straight forward, if the article doesn't do them, I fail to see how its status can be kept when it clearly fails FL criteria #5. I'll note that it's been over 3 months since this issue was raised here. --Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
That never seemed to be a problem at FLC   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: does the FL criteria care about following the guideline about column headers mid-table? --Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, FLC does concern itself with technical compliance to things like ACCESS. This is a particularly esoteric example. I'm going to ping User:RexxS to see if that element of ACCESS still needs such consideration, given I've seen mid-table headings all over this place and wasn't particularly aware of the accessibility consequences. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The mid-table headings are sub-section headings, not column headings, so won't cause a problem if the actual column headings are marked up with scope. I've now done that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)