Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the 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 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 the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose 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 felids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In a complete break from my usual video game-by-company or scifi award lists, as well as my usual editing, a couple weeks ago I decided to start a new project and build up a taxonomic list article instead. I pulled the data into a file, wrote a program to build wikitables out of it, and here's the result: List of felids, a list of all 41 species in the Felidae family, otherwise known as "cats". I based the format on the relatively recent FLs List of parrots and List of fruit bats, and the taxonomic structure on the thankfully recent IUCN classification update, like our articles (mostly) do. I got some small but positive feedback from people who work more often in the biology area, so I'm hoping that this FLC will be a good proving for what I hope to turn into a series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I love these animal lists! A few thoughts:

  • What is the purpose of the colored boxes? I see the fruit bats list uses them to distinguish the taxonomic levels, but this uses a purple instead of teal for genus, in case they were selected for a reason. I think the framing around the entire table is a bit much and the format at List of cetacean species is a lot cleaner.
  • Where are the sources for the species table itself? A couple general sources would be fine but they need to be specified. "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" looks like it but mark it somewhere that it's for the whole table and not just the in-line use.
  • The other articles all have the genus name, describer name/year, and number of species in the same line. You know I'm a fan of consistency, so consider using the same format here.
  • Since "conservation dependent" is a deprecated category, it does not need to be listed in the IUCN key.
  • Would you be willing to add additional informational columns? The cetacean list has population and size, and I think both of those would be useful here since many felines are endangered and they represent a range of sizes.
  • Basically the only articles that link here are the others in the Mammal species navbox – not even Felidae links here! You should advertise your fine work by adding links to eg Felis and perhaps Template:Carnivora if there's a good spot on that.
  • I note the above two because this should actually serve a unique purpose – we got by fine without this article before you created it last month. I mean, Felis and Leopardus already have tables with much of the same information, so I'd like to see what can stand out as a definitive resource that clearly passes 3b. Someone just pointed that out on the talk page today, and while a merger to Felidae is certainly feasible (34 species is not that long) for once I'm not going to push for one.

Reywas92Talk 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've started on this- I've converted the genus tables to just have a header like the Cetacean list instead of a surrounding color, and added a population column which I've filled with the data present at the IUCN site. It doesn't have data for all species, so I'll look further. The list isn't linked in a lot of other pages because one user dislikes these types of lists and has decided to prove that it is duplicative by removing the seealso links I made and instead add in subsets of this page onto Felidae etc.. I'm not going to argue about it with them unless/until I get a wider consensus. --PresN 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay I see they're now copying your work into the Felidae article and it doesn't look anywhere as good by combining columns. I think either that should be left as it was as bullets, linking to the list, or your list should be merged there. I would be glad to back you up on that because otherwise this wouldn't pass 3b and their table is ugly. Reywas92Talk 05:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. Jts1882, who is also active in the area, has added some suggestions for reorganization on the talk page which I'm taking up, so the list will be in flux for a bit while I add data into the new columns. --PresN 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I love animal lists so I'm happy you put effort into this but I have two questions. It looks like you excluded all extinct felids despite mentioning at least one (Proailurus) in the lead? I don't think this can be considered a list of felids without including all felids in the list. Also this list appears to be copied in the Felidae page. Is this a duplication issue? Mattximus (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I excluded extinct felids for two reasons: 1) the other animal lists exclude them (unless they went extinct post-1500CE), so I followed suit 2) extinct species are much more chaotic as to how they are divided into genuses etc.- a lot of time it's just one skeleton someone saw in the 1800s that some minimal research (compared to how much goes into extant species) has put into a category. It didn't seem to fit with the more robust table of extant felids.
As to duplication, see above- one editor disagreed with this list's existence and has tried to inject a table into Felidae to force its merger. It's overwhelming the article a bit in my opinion, and I'm also expanding out this table with additional information at the moment in order to further justify its separation from Felidae. --PresN 18:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2001[edit]

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spent the last 10 hours working on this list. Should meet all the FL criteria. Thank you all in advance for your comments.—Lirim | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "In 2001, 27 album" => 27 albums
  • "5,5 million" - American English doesn't use a comma for a decimal point
  • "4,2 million copies" - same again
  • "selling more than 1,8 million" - and again ;-)
  • "more than a million units first week[a][3], " => "more than a million units in the first week,[a][3]" (note ref after punctuation, not before)
  • "In it's third week" => "In its third week"
  • "Ja Rule's achieved" - "Ja Rule achieved"
  • "his second and since then last chart topping album" => "his second and most recent chart-topping album"
  • "selling about 3,5 million" - there's that pesky comma again ;-)
  • more later, got to go now........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Two of the photo captions have a comma for a decimal point
  • No need to say "(pictured in 2001)" in the Staind photo caption - noting the year is only necessary if the picture was taken many years before or after the year in question and therefore the subjects don't look like what they did in the year in question
  • Beatles photo caption should not have a comma after the brackets
  • "tenth album to sell more than a million units first week" => "tenth album to sell more than a million units in its first week"
  • "with the The Blueprint" - double "the"
  • "topped it for two consecutive weeks" - "topped the chart for two consecutive weeks"
  • "Weathered by American rock band Creed." - band name should not be in italics
  • "The album peaked at number-one for four consecutive weeks" - no need for hyphen in "number one"
  • "The album released in November, was the eighth best-selling record of the year, selling about 3.5 million copies and has been certified 6-times platinum by the RIAA." => "The album, released in November, was the eighth best-selling record of the year, selling about 3.5 million copies, and has been certified 6-times platinum by the RIAA."
  • "Unusually, the years best-selling record Hybrid Theory by Linkin Park was" => "Unusually, the year's best-selling record, Hybrid Theory by Linkin Park, was"
  • "Now 6" is actually called "Now That's What I Call Music! 6" and should be shown as such. Same for volume 7.
  • Could make the table sortable......
  • HTH, ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I hope I didn't miss anything like I always do :) .—Lirim | Talk 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't believe you did :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
  • I have a question about the phrase “most-successful” as I have personally never seen the phrase “most successful” represented with a hyphen before.
  • For this part (Staind's third studio album Break the Cycle topped the charts for three consecutive weeks), you include a descriptive phrase for the album, but this is not done for any of the other albums in the lead. It is a rather nitpicky comment admittedly, but it is a matter of consistency.
  • It might be notable to add to the lead that the Aaliyah album went to number one after the singer’s death the previous month.

These are the only points that I could find, and once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I hope your concerns have been adressed.--Lirim | Talk 20:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one additional comment. I believe that the Aaliyah sentence will need a source to verify her death to show the album peaked after it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Done.—Lirim | Talk 22:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1944[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Following two promotions earlier today, there are now 23 FLs for lists of Billboard number one country songs by year, so for the next one I thought I would do something a bit different. This list represents the number one songs from the very first year in which the magazine published a country songs chart, way back in the dark days of the Second World War. At the time the term "country music" had not come into standard usage, but this chart (which began using the term in 1949) is regarded by noted chart historian Joel Whitburn and others as the beginning of the lineage of the current Hot Country Songs chart. As ever, I will respond promptly to any queries or concerns raised. All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z
WP:Tables The scopes should be the issue dates in this case
The main issue in this list are the references. All these Google Books references need to be cited with Template:Cite book with page numbers, year, etc...
Lirim | Talk 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
SupportLirim | Talk 20:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks great as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to get the google books links to go to the actual page rather than a search result list? For example, have ref 13 link to this page rather than this one? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No problem, I didn't know you could do it like that. I'll get that change made over the next day or two...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Done - didn't actually take that long once I figured out the syntax.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Great. I just think it helps the reader go to the direct page for confirmation. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Municipalities of Guanajuato[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm continuing my goal to create an "encyclopedic atlas" by bringing all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (one quarter of all municipality lists in North America are now featured!). I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – honestly looks good to me. I removed an extra space since there was no point in telling you to do it. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think I can pick you up on anything, nice one! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent work as always. I do not notice anything that requires improvement (echoing the above two comments). You have helped to provide an excellent resource for North American geography with all of these lists. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Municipalities of Mexico should probably be linked in the lead of these articles so readers can get more context, especially because these are equivalent to counties in the US rather than what we would call municipalities. Otherwise looks good as usual. Reywas92Talk 20:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Bordering counties and local governments are irrelevant to SSSIs and are not needed here at all but if you're going to insist, they at least should not be the first paragraph. Start with the actual topic of the list.
  • This information has been supplied in many SSSI lists by myself and others and has never previously been objected to. I prefer to stick to the generally accepted format, but I have moved the paragraph as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Banstead Downs duplicates "scrub" and "which"
  • Blackheath: scientific names are italicized
  • Blindley Heath: "a rich flora"
  • OED shows "a rich flora" as correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92Talk 19:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue[edit]

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47
  • I do not believe there should be a full stop for the infobox image caption as it is not a complete sentence.
  • For this part (she became the first person to win four Logie Awards at one event, and the youngest Gold Logie recipient at nineteen), I do not believe the comma after “event” is needed.
  • I have two comments for the image of Olympiapark, Munich. I do not think the image caption should have a full stop because it is not a full sentence. And I would also add ALT text to the image.
  • I have a question about the citation method used for books. I see two methods currently being used in the article. The Smith source includes the page number in the “References” part and links down to the full citation in the “Sources” section, while the Baker/Minogue source has the full citation in the “References” part. I would be consistent with one citation style. It is completely up to you on which way to go.

Wonderful work with the list. I can tell that a lot of work has been put into the list. Minogue has a long career so it means more work on tracking down the references for each award. My comments above are rather nitpicky. Once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Aoba47. I made some changes per your suggestions above. Let me know what you think. Damian Vo (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "released her self-titled debut album, Kylie in 1988" - needs a comma after the title too, to close the subordinate clause
  • "Her subsequent studio albums....were nominated for ARIA Award for Best Female Artist." - firstly it should be "the ARIA Award". But more importantly, if the award is Best Female Artist then it wasn't the albums that were nominated, it was Kylie herself
  • "her duet with rock band Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, "Where the Wild Roses Grow" won" - missing closing comma again
  • "which was nominated ARIA Award for Album of the Year." => "which was nominated for the ARIA Award for Album of the Year."
  • "Its lead single, "Can't Get You Out of My Head" garnered" => missing closing comma again
  • "were nominated for Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording, winning the latter in 2004" => "were nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording, the latter winning in 2004"
  • "For her work as songwriter in "Love at First Sight"" - someone can't be a songwriter "in" a song. "For" would be better.
  • "Phonographic Performance Company of Australia ranked" => "The Phonographic Performance Company of Australia ranked"
  • "by Australian Recording Industry Association" => "from the Australian Recording Industry Association"
  • "her contribution to the Australian live entertainment" => "her contribution to Australian live entertainment"
  • "honorary Doctor of Health Science degree by Anglia Ruskin University" => "honorary Doctor of Health Science degree from Anglia Ruskin University"
  • "for services to Music" - no reason for capital M here
  • "for contribution to the improving of relations between Britain and Australia" => "for her contribution to improving relations between Britain and Australia"
  • I can just about remember enough of my schoolboy French to know that "Chevalier de Ordre des Arts et des Lettres" should be "Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres"
  • Note b - again, you can't be a songwriter "in" a song. Use "for" instead.
  • Think that's it from me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I fixed everything you mention above. Damian Vo (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I made one little English grammar fix but am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Radio Times's Most Powerful People[edit]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Radio Times's Most Powerful People was a series of listings created by Radio Times from January 2003 to June 2005. I have been working on this list for a while now, and I believe that it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal electors for the August and October 1978 papal conclaves[edit]

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Something slightly different than my previous two nominations – one list for two conclaves only two months apart (the John Paul conclaves) and the most recent ones before the advent of the information age. The style and referencing is naturally a bit dissimilar to the other lists. Comments welcome. [PS: Due to personal commitments, I probably won't be nominating any more lists after this one for the time being.] RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • Romano Pontifici eligendo Give a translation in () behind the term.
  • who took the papal name John Paul II I'm not quite sure how the naming of popes works, but shouldn't it be "who was appointed the name John Paul II"?
  • a gigantic part of the article relies on one book by Lentz. It's mentioned 101 times. Are there no other sources usable?

*–'''[[User:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#000'>Lirim</span>]]''' | '''[[User talk:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#F08080'>Talk</span>]]''' 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. Romano Pontifici eligendo is the title (incipit) of a document, not a term. Per convention, these aren't typically translated, except in their corresponding articles.
  2. Popes do choose their own papal names, so no.
  3. Lentz is generally a reliable secondary source for 20th-century cardinals. While there are certainly other sources out there, I found this one to be accessible and adequate for the purposes of the list. The AAS, a primary source, does provide lists of cardinal electors for each conclave (refs 4 and 7), making Lentz by no means the only (or even the main) source on which the list depends, but these do not pertain to the individual cardinals.
@Lirim.Z: See my replies above. Thanks for your comments. <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif">'''[[User:Ravenpuff|<span style="color:#22254a">RAVEN</span><span style="color:#996e00">PVFF</span>]]'''</span> | ''[[User talk:Ravenpuff|talk]]'' ~ 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. You don't need to mention that Puerto Rico is a Insular area. Just say Puerto Rico or US.
  2. West Germany should just be Germany. Officialy it was and still is Germany.
  3. Maurice Michael Otunga article says he was born 31 January. Is this wrong? These sources claim the same: [1] [2] [3]. This needs to be checked.
  4. align="left" is old syntax, it should be style="text-align:left"
  5. All tables should have scopes.
  6. I don't see a reason for the * in the legend. The coloured background is enough
  7. Cardinal electors by continent table: The percentages do not add up to 100 %. Both are 99,1 %.

:: —'''[[User:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#000'>Lirim</span>]]''' | '''[[User talk:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#F08080'>Talk</span>]]''' 14:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. I think it's still useful to point out that Puerto Rico is part of the US, while denoting that it's not a core part of the country. Simply indicating Puerto Rico would not fit the column header of "Country".
  2. In 1978, there were indeed two Germanys, which are referred to on Wikipedia as West Germany and East Germany (see also List of sovereign states in 1978); this list follows that convention, regardless of the fact that West Germany was the predecessor to the present-day Germany.
  3. Lentz simply states "January 1923" for when Otunga was born, which is confirmed by the Vatican's biography. This may have been converted to 31 January by mistake (perhaps by following the table here). In any case, his actual birth date is probably unknown.
  4. Syntax fixed.
  5. Scopes added (seem to have only been missing from the continent total rows).
  6. See MOS:COLOUR. This is essential for blind or colour-blind users, who have to rely on text-based means to make use of information otherwise conveyed only by colour.
  7. Fixed.
@Lirim.Z: RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not a discussion about the political situation of Germany in the Cold War, even though it should be discussed since the West/East is formally wrong, but different topic.....
Support—I don't see any other issues.—Lirim | Talk 16:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Mexican National Tag Team Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the feature list criteria. I have pushed 17 lists to FL status and each time I have learned a little. This latest list is the sum of everything I have learned and hopefully produced featured content. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments
    • "contested for by Tag teams only" - shouldn't have a capital T on tag
    • "the lineage began in 1957 when they were by Los Hermanos Shadow" - I think there's a few words missing here??
    • " In December 1995, one-half " - shouldn't be a hyphen here
    • "Los Guerreras was never" - Los Guerreras is plural, surely?
    • "but did not defend them between March 14, 2009, and December 25, 2011, but not since then" - doesn't really make sense. I would suggest simply "but did not defend them after December 25, 2011"
    • "There has been at least 41 championship reigns" - "there were at least...."
    • "Los Metálicos (Oro and Plata) has" - had, not has
    • "Championship history is unrecorded from June 14, 1957 to uncertain" - that sounds really weird. Maybe "Championship history is unrecorded from June 14, 1957 for an uncertain length of time"
    • "Uncertain who Espectro" - uncertain whom....
    • This applies in several other places too
    • "Championship vacated when Promo Aztecas" - Promo Azteca (no S)
    • "Atlantis, held the championship for 780 days with Ángel Azteca." => "Atlantis held the championship for 780 days with Ángel Azteca."
    • "Máscara Año 2000, champion with his brother Cien Caras." => "Máscara Año 2000 was champion with his brother Cien Caras."
    • "Héctor Garza (black shirt), one time champion." => "Héctor Garza (black shirt) was a one-time champion."
    • Individual reigns table has a heading of "Team"
    • Footnote a is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude thank you so much for your input, I have implemented all changes suggested. Please let me know if you see any other issues. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just had a quick glance and the first paragraph now says "it is generally accepted that the lineage began in 1957 when they were defeated by Los Hermanos Shadow", which still seems to be missing some words..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Dang my reading comprehension skills are way off point today. I believe I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I just spotted one more thing - the wrestler who partnered Octagon in the final champion team is referred to sometimes as La Parka and sometimes as La Parka Jr. His article says that he is known by both names, but you should be consistent within the article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
His name was changed shortly after his second championship victory. I refer to him as "La Parka" for anything past the name change, but the first reign still lists him as "La Parka Jr." since that was his name. Added a couple of notes to help, did that clarify it any? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Abolutely. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Jennifer Love Hewitt[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The above list is on the songs recorded by Jennifer Love Hewitt. For those of you only familiar with Hewitt's acting career, she has also recorded songs for four studio albums and a compilation album as well as for other projects.

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the requirements for a featured list. It is comprehensive in its content, and I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. I would greatly appreciate feedback and comments on how to improve this and improve lists in general. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

I'll come back with a proper review later, but one quick point - it is not usual practice to include in these lists songs on which the person in question merely did something minor like backing vocals and wasn't actually credited as either the main or featured artist. I would therefore remove "Toy Soldiers" and "Pleasure".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I have removed it from the table and the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Hello again. I was just curious if you had any updates for this? Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I completely forgot. I'll try and take a proper look later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Further comments from ChrisTheDude
  • Pedantically, she didn't record any songs for the compilation album if it consisted (as seems to be the case) entirely of already-released material. Might be better to say "American actress and singer Jennifer Love Hewitt has recorded songs for four studio albums as well as a number of soundtracks and other projects."
  • Expand Killeen to "Killeen, Texas", as I doubt many people know where it is
  • "Two years later, Hewitt had recorded " => "Two years later, Hewitt recorded "
  • Might be worth merging the next two sentences together as they are both very short
  • Might be worth mentioning that her first album was credited to simply "Love Hewitt"
  • Don't need to say "(pictured)" in all the image captions, as the relevant people are obviously pictured
  • First image caption is missing a "
  • is the third one
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You too - now happy to support this nomination -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV

Love to see yet another song list up for FLC. Here are some comments:

  • I think the alt text should be better than just "a photograph" (especially when it's the case for every single image)
  • I have revised the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 2013, she did record" → "In 2013, she recorded"
  • Add a top heading to the table (many other FL song lists have this)
  • "(Our Love)..." should be sorted by "Our Love" and be put in the correct alphabetical order in the table
  • Unfortunately, I cannot get the formatting to work correctly, and I would greatly appreciate any help with it. I have tried to use the sort template, but it keeps pushing the title at the end of the list when I sort alphabetically. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @PresN:@The Rambling Man: Apologies for the random ping, but I was wondering if either of you knew a way to address the above issue. When I was working on the list in my sandbox, I have tried to use the sort template as I have seen it in other lists. However, it just pushed the song title to the bottom alphabetically. I was obviously doing something wrong, but I cannot figure out what. I was wondering if either of you knew how to do the formatting correctly. I would imagine that this issue must have come up in at least one previous FLC. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Yep, done. The issue is that you have to include the quote marks in the sort template, because technically all the song names start with a ("), so Our Love needs to start with one too to not get sorted last (since O comes after "). --PresN 17:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarifying that for me and correcting it. I am not sure how missed that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Album(s) → Release(s) (song are non-album singles)
  • I notice Hewitt doesn't have a writing credit for many of these. Maybe color code (in the writer col) the ones she's credited as co-writer?
  • I don't think the artist col is necessary since she's solo'd every song besides two. Maybe just put a break under the song title and put it there? I did that for Daft Punk's list.
  • Revised. Thank you for the suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Make a note of the acoustic version of "Never a Day Goes By" (doesn't need to be in the table twice) (something like "An acoustic version of "Never a Day Goes By" also appears on Jennifer Love Hewitt")

Everything else looks good. Great job so far! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @BeatlesLedTV: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I am uncertain on how to fix the "(Our Love) Don't Throw It All Away" listing. Hope you are having a wonderful start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The sorting issue has been fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – All good for me now. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Soaper1234

I can't see any major issues with this list. Overall, I think it would make a great featured list. My only comment is there are six instances of sea of blue ("When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link"). One example is in the opening paragraph ("the children's television series Kids Incorporated."). Once this is addressed, I will happily support this! Soaper1234 - talk 22:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Soaper1234: Thank you for the suggestion. I can sometimes get a little too link happy lol. I have removed the wikilinks for the television show and film genres as I am not sure if they are particularly helpful in this list. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As we all can! This looks better to me, so I'm happy to support this nomination. Soaper1234 - talk 12:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from MaranoFan
  • “Hewitt had recorded her first studio album Love Songs (1992), a collection of love songs” — Link to love songs
  • Added wikilink. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • “Prior to the album's release, Hewitt released the stand-alone cover of Blondie's "Heart of Glass" earlier in 1992” — I do not believe the word “stand-alone” is necessary
  • I think it is necessary to avoid confusion and emphasize that the song was not released as part of Love Songs in any capacity. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • “Despite finding commercial success with BareNaked, Hewitt has shifted away from music in 2004” — Clearly, the word “has” should be removed from this sentence
  • “During a 2009 interview, Hewitt's then-boyfriend Jamie Kennedy said she was writing a country song; he encouraged her to return to her music career. Despite Kennedy's statement, Hewitt has not recorded a country album” — This whole part shouldn’t be in this article if she didn’t actually record the song.
  • “In 2013, she recorded five songs for the television drama The Client List, in which starred as the lead character” — There’s a missing “she” before the word “starred”
  • “she also collaborated with Sophie B. Hawkins for a song for the comedy film Alpha Males Experiment” — I would replace the first “for” with “on” to avoid repetition
  • You’ll need to provide sources for the singles since liner notes for the parent albums do not cover single releases
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Good job with this list. I’d be glad to support once these are addressed.—NØ 11:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • One final thing, you should add verification codes for the liner notes (ASIN, EAN etc). ASIN codes are found on Amazon, and EAN codes can be found on I recently did it for all of the liner notes on this list if you want an example of how to use them.—NØ 15:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: Added verification codes to everything. I had to use to get some of the codes though as Hewitt's releases are not as recent as Mendes' (given up to 10 to 15 years lol). Let me know if there is anything else. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportNØ 17:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Daniil Trifonov discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Zingarese talk · contribs 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young classical pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to other FLs of the discographies of other classical artists, including Lang Lang discography, Vladimir Horowitz discography, Oregon Symphony discography, and Kronos Quartet discography, this article has a more engaging lede and is more detailed in terms of the actual lists. This is my second nomination of this list; the first was stalled after an editor expressed concern that #3b of the criteria was violated because the main article was small. It is now more than four times as large as it was when I nominated this list for the first time, with a large bulk of further expansion pending! As such, I hope any concerns of 3b are now alleviated, at the very least... Thank you very much for your consideration in advance, Zingarese talk · contribs 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • First off, I don't think using Vladimir Horowitz discography is a good template for this because honestly that list is very out of date in terms of discographies (promoted in 2010). It doesn't even have the discography infobox listing all the albums, nor does this one. You honestly need to have that here in this one.
  • Most FL discographies start off with something like "So and so has released __ studio albums, __ compilation albums, etc." Why isn't that here as well?
    • See above.
  • The tables need scope rows on the albums/singles (you have cols but not rows)
    • Argh, will fix asap. Fixed
  • Don't think Discogs is seen as a reliable source (It isn't (see WP:NOTRSMUSIC)
    • I’ll remove minus Removed
  • Trifonov Live should be in its own col like the rest
    • Will fix Fixed
  • Why aren't the album titles anywhere in the first paragraph?
    • Will add them plus Added
  • General question: Why are his albums referred to as 'CDs' when many were released as digital downloads as well? Why not just 'albums'?
    • I’ll look into that I  changed all mentions of "CDs" to albums

All I got so far. Still needs lots of work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: THank you for your comments; please let me know if you catch anything else. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
More comments:
  • Put scope rows on the albums not the years (Lots of discographies don't even have a year col because it already says the year in the details)
    •  Done
  • Separate titles on video releases
    •  Done
  • Move refs to their own col at the end
    • I'm not sure I understand why that is necessary...most discographies have the refs with the album title
  • "The Magics Of Music / The Castelfranco Veneto Recital" – don't need to capitalize 'of'
    • Fixed
  • Why is details in video releases table sortable when every other details section isn't? (hint: unsort it)
  • Continuing from last statement, "The Magics Of Music" and "The Castelfranco Veneto Recital" should be italicized (not in quotes) (see MOS:ITALICTITLE)
    • Fixed
  • Gotta keep date formats consistent
    • Fixed
  • Remove the external link to Discogs (as discussed earlier)
    • Why? It's inappropriate to use it as a source for information, but I think it's fair to use it as an external link.
Still has a ways to go. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks again for comments, and please let me know if you catch anything else. Zingarese talk · contribs 22:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportLirim | Talk 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick question - how do you differentiate between a studio album and a live album? The second "studio" album says it was recorded at "Concert Hall of the Mariinsky Theatre in Saint Petersburg", which clearly isn't a recording studio, and the fact that it was recorded in a concert hall implies that it is in fact a recording of a live concert. Or was it recorded at the concert hall but without an audience and therefore isn't really "live"? Could you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: More often that not, concertos for piano and orchestra cannot fit in a normal recording studio. Huge solo instrument, conductor’s podium, 90-100 players in the orchestra... Piano concerto studio recordings are thus usually taken in a concert hall. Acoustically it’s still great, maybe even better, and most major concert halls already have a professional microphone system (which they use frequently for radio broadcasts). For albums of classical music, it’s quite the “norm” to label live recordings as “Live Recording” or “Recorded live at...” because of how different they can be (and always are) from studio recordings Face-smile.svg For instance, his two Rachmaninov concerto albums were also recorded in a concert hall- Verizon Hall in Philly - but watch the trailer, or even see the photo on the back cover of the Variations album - it’s on AllMusic- and you can see that it’s not a live recording. Same case for the Tchaikovsky album. Hope that clears things up! Zingarese talk · contribs 15:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
      • That makes perfect sense, thanks. I'll do a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Padmaavat[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr. Smart LION 11:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This list provides notable awards and nominations received by the 2018 Indian Hindi epic period drama film. The film is notable for Ranveer Singh, who received several awards for his role as Sultan Alauddin Khalji. This is my second attempt after a successful first attempt. If there are any comments regarding the list, will try to resolve it. Mr. Smart LION 11:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • "Set in 1303 AD medieval India, Padmaavat is the story of honor, valor and obsession" => "Set in medieval India in 1303 AD, Padmaavat is a story of honor, valor and obsession"
  • "It garnered twenty one nominations" => "It garnered twenty-one nominations"
  • "won eight awards, including Song of The Year for Ghoomar" - the song title should have quotation marks, and there's also no need to link it again as it was only linked in the previous sentence
  • No need to link Singh in the last sentence as he has already been linked in the lead
  • "It also received five nominations for Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress for Deepika Padukone and Best Actor for Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor at the Indian Film Festival of Melbourne, winning none." => "It also received five nominations for Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress for Deepika Padukone and Best Actor for Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor at the Indian Film Festival of Melbourne, but did not win any of the awards."
  • In the table's first column, why is "Films of India Online Awards" centred, unlinked and in bold, a completely different format to all the others?
  • Near the top of the table you have e.g. "Kruti Mahesh Midya (for the song "Ghoomar")", but then further down the format changes to simply "Shreya Ghoshal - "Ghoomar"" - be consistent
  • Linking of things that appear multiple times in the table is inconsistent - some items are linked multiple times, others are not
  • Sorting on the "reciepients" column doesn't work - the items starting with a " all appear at the top, and people's names sort by forename when they should sort by surname
  • Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:  Done Mr. Smart LION 09:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorting on the "recipients" column still doesn't work correctly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I'm not able to understand that line. Mr. Smart LION 10:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
When you sort the "receipients" column, it should be in alphabetical order, and for people it should be based on the surname, so Ranveer Singh needs to sort under "S". So in Singh's case, rather than simply wikilinking the name, you need to use {{sortname|Ranveer|Singh}}. This will make Singh's name sort under S. You need to do this for the first name listed in each cell. Also, where a value starts with a ", those are currently appearing at the top, because punctuation marks sort before letters. So in those cases you would need to type {{sort|Ghoomar|"[[Ghoomar (song)|Ghoomar]]"}} to make it appear under "G". Does that help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:  Done Mr. Smart LION 14:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You still need to fix the five rows where the recipient starts with a " - at the moment these all sort at the top -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────  Done Mr. Smart LION 13:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • "The film's script and screenplay were penned by Sanjay Leela Bhansali". 'penned' sounds idiomatic.
  • Mention the cinematographer's name in the first para.
  • Rephrase the 'honor, valor' bit and write a more straight forward plot synopsis.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher:  Done Thanks for taking some time to review it. Mr. Smart LION 05:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to me. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Shawn Mendes[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 09:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I’ve created this list 100% alone from scratch, and I believe it meets the criteria. My previous nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Dua Lipa has been open for way longer than a month with over 4 supports but for reasons that remain unknown to me, the delegates are still yet to promote it. So I’m assuming it’s fine for me to open this one. Regards.—NØ 09:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see another song list! Here's some comments:

  • Songs and albums should not be sorted by A, An, The, etc. (sort by the first actual word)
  • Wouldn't hurt to give the table some color. Maybe to indicate singles and/or covers
  • You can say who the artist is for covers ("Use Somebody" is Kings of Leon and "Under Pressure" is Queen and David Bowie, etc.) And put a break between the song and the word "cover" afterwards so it's under the title
  • Who wrote "Handwritten Demos"?
  • The lead should contain a couple more references
  • Care to expand on his live albums? (meaning what they contained, or did either contain a live song/cover that he hasn't properly recorded in a studio?) – things like that

Everything else looks good for now. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you can have another look at the list now. “Handwritten Demos” has no credited songwriters since it’s a 9 minute compilation of demos of various different songs. I addressed everything else.—NØ 07:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Then put a centered en dash in that empty box for that track and make a note saying what you just said. Just so that it's not empty. Also, say "is featured" in the image captions. Reads weird without it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For this sentence (Mendes signed with Republic Records in May 2014.), “Republic Records” should have a wikilink.
  • For this sentence (Mendes has appeared as a featured artist on The Vamps' song "Oh Cecilia (Breaking My Heart)", and has contributed a song called "Believe" to the Descendants soundtrack), I would add the years that both songs were released.
  • For this sentence (He has released two live albums titled Live at Madison Square Garden and MTV Unplugged.), I would add the years of the two releases. It is important to give the reader a sense of a timeline, and as someone completely unfamiliar with Mendes, I was left wondering when did this happen for this sentence and the sentence above.
  • I have a question for this sentence (His self-titled third studio album was released in May 2018, and included the singles "In My Blood", "Lost in Japan", "Youth", "Where Were You in the Morning?" and "Nervous".). In previous sentences about singles, you always included a colon after singles. I would add the colon to the above sentence for consistency.
  • The “Contents” bar at the top of the “Songs” section includes parts not used in the list (i.e. “0-9”). Make sure to remove anything from the bar that is not currently represented in the table. They can be added if/when Mendes records albums that start with a number or that particular letter.
  • The table includes something about a “Revisited” album, which I found out was a reissue from the album article. I would include the fact that he reissued this album with new material to the lead for clarity.
  • I would expand the note for “Handwritten Demos” to clarify that it is “a 9 minute compilation of demos of various different songs” as you say in the FLC. If I looked at the list without looking at the FLC, I would wonder why this song in particular did not have songwriters credited.

Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable comments as always, all done!—NØ 04:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "reissued as Handwritten (Revisited) with live recordings and four new songs in November" - of which year?
  • "included the singles: "Life of the Party"," - there should not be a colon there
  • "Mendes has appeared [...] and has contributed" => "Mendes appeared [...] and contributed"
  • "cover versions of Plain White T's' "Hey There Delilah"" => "cover versions of "Hey There Delilah"" by Plain White T's" (avoids that awkward 's')
  • "released in September 2016, included the singles:" - again, there should not be a colon there
  • "released in May 2018, and included the singles:" - or there ;-)
  • In the table, "Oh Cecilia" is a cover of the Simon and Garfunkel song, surely, and therefore should be marked as such.....?
  • Think that's it from me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. "Oh Cecilia" definitely isn’t a cover of the Simon & Garfunkel song since all of the members of the Vamps are credited as songwriters. The song article calls it an “adaptation” of the latter so I added a note with similar wording here.—NØ 22:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. One other point - it's probably worth being more specific about the location of the Oracle Arena in the image caption, as I for one wouldn't even know what country it was in, let alone what town/city....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, ChrisTheDude :D—NØ 04:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • I would any type of verification for the liner notes; ASIN, EAN etc.
  • Mark songs released as a single like here --Lirim | Talk 04:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I added the verification codes. I usually find it a pointless exercise to mark single releases on these lists because they’re already discussed on discography articles. So they just work as decoration and don’t really add much to a reader's understanding. And we’ve already marked the covers here to give colour to the table too.—NØ 06:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't switch so much between ASIN and EAN; use one or both. This list is a seperate list and not an addition to the discography. Singles are a "special kind" of released songs. I would mark them.--Lirim | Talk 17:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Since their isn't a concrete rule for this I can't really say anything against your decision. I would still use either EAN or ASIN or both.--Lirim | Talk 20:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did switch them all to ASIN.—NØ 04:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support--Lirim | Talk 08:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Nashville Sounds coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it merits recognition as a list of high quality. It is modeled on List of Nashville Sounds managers which is a FL. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • This may be a dumb-ass question from someone who isn't hugely familiar with baseball (although I did once throw the opening pitch for the Peoria Chiefs), but it sounds from the second paragraph like bench coach is a pretty damn important role. If that's the case, why has the team never had one before this year? Might be worth clarifying that......
  • What is a "relief corps"?
  • And who are the "staff" that Dabney coached?
  • What is a "roving crosschecker"?
  • Think that's all I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've explained the relatively-new-to-baseball bench coach role, reworded jargon from the second two points, and linked "crosschecker" to "Scout (sport)" which sort of explains it.) (A crosschecker is like a scout supervisor. Let me know if you think anything more is needed on these points. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Nice one - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Cardiff City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking a quick break from international player lists, I am nominating this for featured list because I have been milling around it for some time and have finally got round to updating, improving and preparing this for FLC. I've modelled it on the 100+ appearances list, incorporating the overall design, and believe it meets the FL criteria. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • There's a bit of the age-old "the club is singular/the club is plural" confusion going on i.e. "The club was founded [...] In 1907, they [...] They were [...] As of the end of the 2017–18 season, the club has...."
  • "As of the end of the 2017–18 season, the club has won 3 division titles" => "As of the end of the 2017–18 season, the club has won three division titles"
  • "Stan Richards set a club record for the most league goals in a single season in 1946–47" - how many goals? Seems a bit odd to say he set a goalscoring record but not say how many he scored!
  • "the age of 16 years and 123 days old." - "the age of 16 years and 123 days."
  • Paul McLoughlin's row in the table has a stray extra cell.
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed all of the issues you raised above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Cardiff were elected into the Football League in 1920, where the side remains to this day, moving into its new stadium, Ninian Park" - here you have the club treated as both plural and singular in the very same sentence. Also, I would move the last clause (if indeed we even need it all) as it sounds like the club moved into Ninian in the present day. Also, "where the side remains to this day", isn't actually true, as they aren't in the EFL currently.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Trimmed. Kosack (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I further tweaked it myself and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "...moving into its new stadium Ninian Park." Place a comma after "stadium."
  • Link "transfer" to Transfer (association football) in fourth paragraph.
  • Lead image caption: Add "transfer fee" between "club" and "records" (linked per above) so the reader knows what kind of records were set; otherwise its a bit ambiguous.
  • The alt text for the lead image has "Jersey" capitalized; change to lower case
  • Key: "The list is ordered by alphabetical order of surname." How about: "The list is arranged in alphabetical order by surname." to avoid using "order" twice?
  • Key: "Thus the change in the names..." Add a comma after "Thus"
  • Per MOS:DATETOPRES, date ranges should not end in a dash without an end date. For the positions key and active players, make it "–present" or (for the key) "–pres."
  • Caption: "Aaron Ramsey spent two spell with the club and remains the youngest ever player in the club's history." Make it "spells" (plural) and "youngest-ever" or simply "youngest".
  • Use title case. rather than sentence case, on references 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 to match the others.
  • Reference 24 ("Tony Capaldi stats") is dead. It looks like the URL has changed.
  • Everything else looks good. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@NatureBoyMD: Thanks very much for the review, I've fixed all of the issues you raised above bar one. The WP:DATESTOPRES issue is an interesting one, there are 28 lists such as this at FL status and all of them use the same "2018–" format as this one. I would say, if this is to be implemented, it should be done across the board in a wider discussion rather than this one being the only one and being out of sync with the rest. What's your thoughts? Kosack (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I searched through several FLC nominations for similar player lists which were promoted, and not one of them mentioned this issue. I'd say that adhering to the MOS is more important than conformity with similar articles. What's more, I'd say that no one is really going to notice that difference from article to article. (Nor do they seem to notice the need to cap that range with an end date.) Maybe someone else reading this has an opinion? NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
On a wider scale, the open date ranges are also the norm in footballers' infoboxes and are used like this on a massive scale. As well as conformity, the amount of previous FLCs that have passed this style would suggest a consensus that the layout is acceptable. Kosack (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - That works for me. Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Mac Miller discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Prefall 14:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Spent the last month cleaning up and expanding this article, and I believe it now meets the featured list criteria. This is my first featured list nomination and first time working on a discography. I used the recently-promoted Meghan Trainor discography as instruction. Looking forward to your feedback. Prefall 14:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z
  • Give more information on the picture
  • His first studio album with them His first major label release
  • Every released single should be referenced
  • Don't use "N/A" in Guest appearances. It should be "Non-album single"
  • Refs: 16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 33, 35, 42, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 83, 84, 85, 88, 92, 96, 97, 100, 109, 138, 148 (I hope these are all) Itunes is not the publisher of the albums/songs, the label is. Change |publisher= to the respective record label and keep the store in with: |via=ITunes Store. Also, you definetely could swap a lot of these for proper sources.
  • Mac Miller is not the publisher of MVs released after his signing to Rostrum |publisher=Rostrum Records, |via=YouTube
  • --Lirim | Talk 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: Thanks for the response. I've addressed most of your comments, with the exception of the "N/A" -> "Non-album single" change. From my understanding, guest appearances are listed that way because they aren't singles. Prefall 00:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just change it to "none"--Lirim | Talk 08:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Prefall 09:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportLirim | Talk 01:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Vikram Vedha[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2017 Indian Tamil film, Vikram Vedha starring R. Madhavan and Vijay Sethupathi. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fourteenth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Provide alt text for the images.
  • "is a 2017 Indian Tamil-language neo-noir action thriller" --> is a 2017 Indian Tamil-language neo-noir action thriller film
  • The 'husband and wife duo' bit seems redundant to me. It'll work better without this bit
Yashthepunisher, I wrote it specifically because they are husband and wife. I feel readers would know it then and there. If you still insist on removing it, then I will do so.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we need to mention the banner also?
Y NOT Studios is a notable Tamil cinema production banner so I feel it needs to be included and also to let our readers know the company that financed the film.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You should mention the editor's name as well
  • Provide a reference that can back the 'received positive reviews' claim. Right now, there are only two reviews
Yashthepunisher, it is in the India Today reference I've placed before (Reference no 9). The line states "Thanks to Vikram Vedha, which has opened to rave reception from critics and audience alike." Rave here obviously is positive reception.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A tweet cannot be considered a RS, IMO. Try to replace them with better source

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) tweets can be considered RS if they are from verified accounts. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I second Kailash's comments. Vikn Media Creations is a company and also I found no other better source than this one that covers all the awards.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
  • The image caption should have punctuation since it is a complete sentence.
  • I agree with the first two points raised by the above reviewer.
  • For this part (feature in supporting characters), it should be either "feature as supporting characters" or "feature in supporting roles".

Everything else looks good to me. I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47, can you tell me where I should use punctuation in the caption as I really don't see where any punctuation could be used. The other two comments, I have hopefully resolved them.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge, if a caption is a complete sentence/idea, then punctuation is required. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I've made a change to it. Can you check it now, Aoba47?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I have added the punctuation to the caption. I support this for promotion. Wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You could've just said "Add the full-stop" lol. Anyways, thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support from Kailash: just add the trans-title value for this source, and if possible, link all the sources within the citations. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. I've added the trans-title. As for the source linking, I've only linked their first instance of being mentioned, which is common for most Wikipedia articles as it wouldn't be good with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to me. Sorry I was waiting for everyone else's comments to be resolved first. Great job! :) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

  • First para is over-long, needs splitting after "respectively"
  • titular characters—"title characters is more usual"
  • ₹110 million (about US$1,661,631 in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6,042,296 in 2017) worldwide —"about" seems redundant when you are converting to the nearest dollar. Even if it was exactly ₹110 million and ₹400 million, which I doubt, the conversion is over-precise.
  • in the refs, is [@viknmedia] necessary?
That's all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I have hopefully resolved your comments, Jimfbleak. Do have a look and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that you have missed the point of my conversion comment. To quote the US currency to the exact number of dollars, you must have assumed that the rupee figures are accurate to the nearest rupee, which I simply don't believe, they have obviously been rounded off. To me, it should read ₹110 million (about US$1,700,000 in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6,000,000 in 2017) worldwide or perhaps better ₹110 million (about US$1.7 million in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6.0 million in 2017) worldwide Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Done as asked, Jimfbleak.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, no other issues, so supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Vice Presidents of India[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Third political list of mine in a row. I feel it meets the FL criteria's. As always, looking forward to your helpful comments. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • "In accordance with Article 65 of the Constitution of India, the vice president discharges the functions of the president when a contingency arises due to the resignation, removal, death, impeachment or the inability of the president to discharge their functions. They are also the ex officio chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament of India." - this makes it sound like these are literally the VP's only responsibilities. That surely can't be the case?
There are a few more. Some of them are mentioned in the second para.
  • "There have been a total of 13 vice president," - missing S
  • "The first vice president of India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, took oath at Rashtrapati Bhavan" - what is Rashtrapatu Bhavan? Is it a town? Add an appropriate link if one exists
  • The map isn't sourced, but then I don't think it really adds anything (not least because the individual states aren't identified)
  • "The complete list of Vice-Presidents of India includes the persons sworn into the office as Vice-President of India, following the adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950. Some of whom later became presidents." - don't think any of this is actually needed. The first sentence simply duplicates part of the lead. The rest isn't a complete sentence and I don't think it's needed (although I suppose you could add a symbol to cover those who later became Prez).
  • Why no % for Pathak?

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Thank you for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this list is excellent and I don't see any major problems, but I do want to recommend consistency between this article and List of Presidents of India and List of Prime Ministers of India. They don't need to be identical, but similarity in their table layout would be a good idea. I like how this list combines the year elected and vote share; those could be combined in the Presidents list (which has a whole lot of columns to begin with). The Prime minister list could also use the birth and death dates the other two have in the Name column. The presidents list could also use "Portrait" instead of "Photograph".
  • On this VP list the Party can be sortable.
  • The title should be consistent with Vice President of India, which does not have a hyphen. The linked official website does not either. Reywas92Talk 02:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Reywas92 All done. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Chancellors of Austria[edit]

Nominator(s): Colonestarrice (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I worked 12 hours on this and think it looks magnificent. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Chancellor is a common noun and should be lowercase in most instances, as should government, vice-chancellor, and ministers.
  • Comma after "Republic of German-Austria"
  • "Dollfuss's Assassination", per MOS:POSS, or reword
  • "Federal Chancellor, the first" fix comma splice.
  • "Arthur Seyss-Inquart which" He is not a thing, should be "who" preceded by a comma
  • Austria didn't become known as the Second Republic, its government did
  • "allied-occupation" is not hyphenated
  • "parties have almost fully dominated every aspect of politics" This isn't a remarkable statement; most republics have had parties all century. Could be reworded that the Peoples Party and SDP have dominated politics.
  • It's also the People's Party.
  • "other governments, the" Another comma splice
  • The last sentence of that paragraph should also be reworded.
  • "days however, after" again
  • Table problem at Klaus
  • Annexation row doesn't need to be in large font size
  • I don't think there should be images in the President column; leave that for the Presidents list and focus on the chancellors here
  • Same for the presidential term of office - it misleadingly has the same formatting as the chancellors' lifespan!
  • Dollfuss is inconsistently spelled with an ß
  • Where are your references?!?! Even if it the list is covered by the Bundeskanzleramt you need to source the history and succession and the rest of the lead and maybe give a duplicate for the details – that link doesn't give the exact dates of the terms or years of elections so where is this coming from???
  • Definitely not magnificent yet... Reywas92Talk 20:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done, expect for:
  • I don't think there should be images in the President column; leave that for the Presidents list and focus on the chancellors here – removed the President's term of office but kept the image, because it would otherwise be too plain.
  • and maybe give a duplicate for the details – that link doesn't give the exact dates of the terms or years of elections so where is this coming from??? – I don't know what you mean by that. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You need to cite everything...which citation says Christian Kern took office on 17 May 2016? That Sinowatz was chancellor 24 May 1983 to 16 June 1986? [5] only gives the years so you need to cite something else beyond that. There are no citations AT ALL here for the chancellors before 1945, nor for the acting chancellors!
  • I'd also suggest a different image for the lead...that one just duplicates four that are already in the table. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Added the refs but kept the pics – they have an informative caption. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the lead. At six paragraphs it is far far too long, and out of the whole thing only three sentences are sourced. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead in its current state gives a quick and summarized overview on relevant statistics, the history of the office, the officeholders and the cabinets. All of its unsourced statements are based on sourced main articles, I therefore think that oversourcing the lead in this case is superfluous. In addition, it has pretty much the same length as the prominent List of Presidents of the United States. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"All of its unsourced statements are based on sourced main articles" - that's not how it works. Everything needs to be sourced in this article. Until that is addressed, my oppose stands -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done Colonestarrice (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Nice one. Some further points:
    • In the image caption, you can't say "from left to right" when two of the pictures are above the other two.
    • "which besides them also" => "which also"
    • "After Allies declined" => "After the Allies declined"
    • "uphold the dictatorship" => "upheld the dictatorship"
    • " who held the office for two days up until" => " who held the office for two days until "
    • "completely lost every autonomy" => "completely lost autonomy"
    • "Following parties never had a chancellorship" => "The following parties...."
    • In that sentence, why are all the numbers written as digits but then the last one is randomly written as a word?
    • "as far as the President did not already replace the Chancellor" => "if the President has not already replaced the Chancellor"
    • "only for twenty days however" => "but only for twenty days"
    • "25 men have served" - can't start a sentence with a digit
    • "Bruno Kreisky was with 4778 days the longest serving Chancellor" => "Bruno Kreisky was the longest serving Chancellor with 4778 days in office"
    • Same point re Seyss-Inquart
    • Source for the cabinet composition column?
    • Source for the appointer column?
    • Renner's 1945 row is missing the last cell
    • Image in the last cell of the row below is a red link??
    • Image on Faymann's row is a red link??
    • "The oldest living Chancellor is" => "The oldest living former Chancellor is" (he isn't Chancellor now)
    • "The youngest living Chancellor is" - well obviously, because he's the only living Chancellor. I presume what you mean is "the youngest living current or former Chancellor"
    • "who died 26 July 2001" => "who died on 26 July 2001"
    • "Franz Vranitzky, the oldest living Chancellor, would surpass" => "Franz Vranitzky, the oldest living former Chancellor, will surpass"
    • "who died 25 July 1934" => "who died on 25 July 1934"
    • Dollfuss's name is sometimes spelt with ss and sometimes with ß
    • Same with Seyss-Inquart
    • Why are the columns right aligned? This is not standard formatting.
    • ....except that some of the cells are left aligned? Be consistent.
    • What makes and reliable sources? I'd imagine for such major historical events there are much better sources available..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done, expect for:
  • "Source for the appointer column?" – the appointer is the President, the two exceptions—the State Council and the Soviet Union—are sourced.
  • "What makes and reliable sources? I'd imagine for such major historical events there are much better sources available" – I have no idea if they're reliable but "" is the only website that covers the Allies declining a union between Austria and Germany, and "" is the only website that fully covers Dollfuss's assassination. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, but I find it very hard to believe that such major events in the country's history are literally only covered on the whole of the internet by what looks like some random person's personal website. This page from the official site of the Encyclopedia Britannica looks like it could be used to source the sentence currently sourced to scrapbookpages, for example (the union of Austria with Germany was expressly forbidden)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if you realised but we're talking about Austria, you will find more about Liechtenstein or Monaco than about Austria. I chose "" because it had a lot information on the Allies declining the union – but yes I agree with you it indeed looks like some random person's personal website. Anyways, its how you want so:
 Done Colonestarrice (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I can still see "eclecticatbest" being used as a source, which is some random person's blog. There must be a reliable source which can support the sentence about the assassination of Dolfuss...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Tables need scope rows and scope cols per MOS:ACCESS (see also MOS:DTAB)
  • Numbers between 0 and 9 need to be spelled out (see MOS:NUMS)
  • Keep date formats consistent. Some are YYYY-MM-DD while others are Day Month Year.
  • The entire statistics section is unsourced
  • Entire 4th paragraph is currently unsourced
  • All images need alt text
  • There are some blue links
  • Cabinet composition for Schober and Faymann are disambiguation links
  • Feel like it'd be better to just have the Coat of Arms be the lead image
  • Why are some election boxes blank? Have an en dash (–) there if there's going to be nothing
  • Like Chris said, everything needs to be sourced.

Sadly still not magnificent yet. Getting there, but not yet. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Lo Nuestro Excellence Award[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

After working on the Latin Grammy and Billboard Latin Achievement Awards, I finally to decide to do one for the Lo Nuestro Awards. The prose and table is based on what Jaespinoza has done for other articles related to the Lo Nuestro Awards. I look forward to your comments. Erick (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "honoring excellence of an artist's contribution to Latin music" doesn't really make grammatical sense. How about simply "honoring an artist's contribution to Latin music"
    • "The Lo Nuestro Awards was" - were, surely.....?
    • "a tribute is held to the winner of the award where the winner" - think something's got a bit mangled here
    • The lead is really short at around 1200 characters (too short even for DYK), I think it needs an extra paragraph. Maybe you could talk about the different nationalities, highlight that only a couple of groups have received the award, that sort of thing. Also, is anything known about how the winner is chosen?
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey @ChrisTheDude:, thanks for your comments, I believed I've addressed your issues. How does the length of the lead look now? Erick (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Much better - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I would revise this sentence (It was first awarded at the 2nd Annual Lo Nuestro Awardsin 1990 and has been presented annually since then.) to ( It was first awarded at the 2nd Annual Lo Nuestro Awardsin 1990 and has since been presented annually.) since it seems a little awkward to me to send a sentence with “then”.

Other than that one small/nitpicky comment, everything looks good. Once it is addressed, I will support it. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help/input with my current FLC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done, I'll see what I can do about your list. I haven't been so active in Wikipedia lately due to life. Erick (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I completely understand. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 20:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I started this list about eight years ago in the model of List of national monuments of the United States and List of national parks of the United States and decided to finally finish it up since the only one of them I've actually visited was just taken off this list! Looking forward to your comments. Reywas92Talk 20:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z[edit]

Resolved comments from Lirim.Z
  • Quick first comment, in depth review later today:
  • The lead looks huge imo, WP:Lead As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. This has five.
    • Since this is a list (without a corresponding main article) and the lead isn't typical summary-style I don't think it must match that exactly. However I could certainly move the History into a separate section.
  • Is there a reason there isn't a main article?
  • Link United States in the first sentence
  • Use ! scope="row" for the names in the table
  • All the date formats for the refs should be the same
  • It's surname, Given name. Change Ref 5, 8, 10. Use
  • Support--Lirim | Talk 02:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments from BeatlesLedTV
    • I agree with Lirim.Z the lead does seem a little long. You could get away with separating the history into its own section
    • Tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (if you need help I can do this for ya).
    • Fixed date formats for ya

    Everything else looks really good. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

      • Thanks you for that, all done! Reywas92Talk 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I made this edit for ya (unbolds the names). If you don't like it you can undo it but if you do let me know. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmm can't decide if I have a preference, bold may look better on the gray background but it was regular before without a need to change so whatever others like is fine; regular is more consistent with the other articles. Reywas92Talk 22:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Unbold is the right way to do it.--Lirim | Talk 02:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – Looks good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

    List of Prime Ministers of India[edit]

    Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

    Back in the FLC after six month stint. This is my second politics-related list and probably one of the most important one. As always, feel free to leave constructive feedbacks. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

    Initial comments:

    • 'Sworn in' doesn't need a hyphen
    • Prime minister does not need to be capitalized per MOS:CAPS#Titles of people. It is a common noun unless part of a name.
    • "youngest premier, and the third" doesn't need a comma
    • "Thus far" is unnecessary (duh, we're not talking as of another time), and the exact number of days may be overly precise for that.
    • The color key is unnecessary - every row in the table has the party right next to the color already!
    • The symbols could go in the footnotes rather than a key (but other thoughts on this may differ); №, if not already a well-known abbreviation or obvious from the context, could be labeled with a tooltip instead.
    • The smaller text size for the date on top of a normal-sized year does not look good, just keep it all the same size.
    • Sorting the Term of Office column sorts the first date alphabetically! (1 June, 10 November, 10 October...)
    • The Number and Lk Sabha columns also sort incorrectly. Reywas92Talk 23:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Reywas92: All done but I can't figure out the sortings. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    Try Template:Sort and Template:Sortname (the names should sort by surname not first. You didn't have to remove the colors altogether if you think they make sense to have (idk if they've been adopted as widely/uniformly in India as those in other countries); I was just saying the key was unnecessary since it's redundant to the party name column. Reywas92Talk 19:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    I will work on sorting soon. Give me some time. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Reywas92: All done now, thanks to Vivvt. Also I don't think the color keys are necessary at all. Thank you for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed sorting for Number, Name, Appointed by, and Loksabha. I have also made some minor changes. Let me know if anything else is remaining. All the Best! - Vivvt (Talk) 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'd put the table footnotes in the Notes section, otherwise I Support. Reywas92Talk 02:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Thanks. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – honestly can't find anything wrong. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you BeatlesLedTV Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Support: Everything looks good to me. It is a very important list, and as someone is completely ignorant of India's history, I was still able to follow everything clearly and understand it. I was a little confused on why certain numbers above ten are sometimes represented in numerals (i.e. whose 19-month term also ended in death) and in other times, they are represented through words (i.e. India has had fourteen prime ministers, fifteen including), but it is not a major issue in my opinion. Wonderful work with this! Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you Aoba47 Yashthepunisher (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

    List of Relic Entertainment games[edit]

    Nominator(s): PresN 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

    It's been a few months, but I'm back again with another entry in my series of 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis/Blizzard), with a developer who just barely makes the 90s cut: Relic Entertainment, a developer from Vancouver. Relic came out of the gate strong with Homeworld, rated the best strategy video game and best computer game of 1999. Five years and 2 games later, however, it got bought by publisher conglomerate THQ in 2004, with which it found major success with the Warhammer 40,000 license and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War. It was going strong as THQ's most valuable studio 8 years after that... which we know because when THQ abruptly declared bankruptcy in late 2012, its purchase price at auction (to Sega) was the highest. Relic has put out a couple games since, to relatively poor reception, and is currently banking on regaining its crown with Age of Empires IV. I've fond memories of Relic from Homeworld, and I hope y'all enjoy a tabular peek at some gaming history too. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Comments
      • First two very short sentences could probably be combined
      • Presumably the figure of $10 million is expressed in Canadian dollars? Might be worth making this absolutely clear.
      • Same query for the later figure of $26.6 million
    • Actually, I think that's it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: All done- it was USD for both, actually, though it was surprisingly hard to prove the 10 million (now 10.2)- actually managed to find that US SEC filing where they list out that the price was $10.189 million. --PresN 05:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Quick Comment
      • Age of Empires IV is denoted as being systemless - however it was introduced it's been confirmed for PC [6]
      • If you have a release date, and all consoles are released in this year, does it need to be mentioned on the second half of the table (under Release years by system)? Seems a little redundant. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: Added AOE4 system. I think that single-year releases still need the year mentioned, and not just to retain consistency with the other ones- if there's a game that was released March 1, 2000, and the year by stem section just says Windows/Mac, it's not intuitively obvious that both the Windows and Mac versions were released in 2000 just because no year is listed; especially as some games on this list have large discrepancies between release years (e.g. Homeworld was released on Windows in 1999 and Mac in 2015). --PresN 22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I generally prefer the per-developer lists instead of the per-publisher, so maybe a list for Rockstar North. --PresN 21:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Good idea! Their games developed section on their page could easily be split into its own list. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

    List of German airplay number-one songs of 2018[edit]

    Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 03:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

    Relatively new list, but I think it meets the criteria. Lirim | Talk 03:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Quick question - why does it use "chart week" (a number) rather than the date, as all other chart lists do? If I look at the list and see that, say, "Shotgun" was number one in "week 37", it's really not apparent (without doing a lot of mental arithmetic) when exactly that was...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see now that that is how it shown on the official website. Is there no way of converting a week number to a date? I look at "week 37" and think "ah, so George Ezra got to number 1 in, wait, October.....or was it September...?"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: It seems that the charts are published simultaneously with the single and album charts each friday. I compared other sources who give accurate dates and it matches with the official dates. [7] [8] or [9] [10]. The problem is that sources which show specific dates don't have proper archives. I could change the calender weeks to the dates, based of the official charts.--Lirim | Talk 14:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    Is it going to be possible to do it without needing OR....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    Comments from MaranoFan
    • There's a typo in the opening sentence and "broadcastet" should be changed to just "broadcast" (preferred) or "broadcasted".
    • "Lost Frequencies' & Zonderling's "Crazy", dethroned P!nk after her two-week reign and topped it for five consecutive weeks" -- The comma after the song name is unnecessary, optional but I would also try to remove the excess repetition of the word "it" in this area.
    • "The number-one single of the year was "Flames" by French DJ David Guetta and Australian singer Sia." -- This sentence is a bit confusing since the phrase "number one single of the year" is vague. I'd give preference to "best-performing single of 2018" as you've done for the key.

    Good job with this article!--NØ 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

    @MaranoFan: Done. Thank you very much for your comments.--Lirim | Talk 20:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    Support - Great list overall!--NØ 20:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Further comments from me
      • "In 2018, 19 different songs by 18 different artists reached the top" - I count way more than 18 artists here. Presumably this refers to only the "lead" artist? If so, that needs to be made clearer. Also, how are you counting instance like Lost Frequencies & Zonderling or Liam Payne & Rita Ora, where there doesn't seem to be a clear "lead" artist?
      • "first number-one of the year" - don't need the hyphen there
      • " "Flames", released in March,[4] reached the top in the 19th week" - need to say who it was by (I know it's in the image caption, but it should be in the prose too)
      • "Namika's "Je ne parle pas français (Beatgees Remix)", featuring Black M, was the only German and French song atop the chart in 2018" - could do with a source for the German element (the French element is obvious from the title)
      • "The year concluded with Ava Max "Sweet but Psycho"" => Ava Max' "Sweet but Psycho" (or "Sweet but Psycho" by Ava Max)
      • Neither entry in the key is a complete sentence, so remove the full stops
      • As the table is sortable, I would link artists and songs that appear more than once every time they appear, as the linked instance might not always be the first
      • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Done and i checked System description of the BVMI again and apparently charts are always conducted between fridays and thursday and published the following friday. This means that the airplay issue dates are the same as the official single/album ones. i'm gonna to change it.--Lirim | Talk 21:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Have your concerns been adequately addressed?--Lirim | Talk 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I completely forgot about this one. My only issue is that you still don't have artists who appear in the list multiple times linked each time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Should be fixed now, unless I'm blind.--Lirim | Talk 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I made a couple of minor changes but now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Questions regarding notability. The German airplay chart is severely lacking any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, so what makes reaching number one on it significant? This only seems to review what occurred on the charts during the year, and the only sources seem to be the charts themselves, meaning there's really no difference between what's number one on the chart or number 99, they're are just one song on the chart along with 98 others. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Airplay charts are one of the oldest official charts in Germany. Since 1989, airplay plays an immense role for the weekly single charts. 27% of music consumption in Germany is through radio. There are sources and I'm definitely going to work on German airplay chart later on.--Lirim | Talk 01:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    Lists of number ones of the weekly singles charts make sense because it compiles from 100% of music consumption and songs often receive independent coverage when it reaches number one on the main chart. When a song reaches number one on this chart, is it significant, and if so, where is it discussed in independent reliable sources? To me, this is just having a list for list's sake because they are easy to do. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: For e.x. [11][12][13][14][15].--Lirim | Talk 13:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for those Lirim.Z, although two of the links were the same. I'm just disappointed these featured lists of number one songs don't incorporate references more like these into the prose, rather than x number of songs reached number one this year, with such and such being the first, then this one, and then this one which stayed at number one for y number of weeks. If that's the criteria for featured lists, so be it, but I would want more than just music chart trivia and a summary of what songs reached number one, when and for how long. Nothing against the writing and effort done to put these together, but such lists are very cookie cutter and don't tell me anything that the list itself doesn't already tell me. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I added more independent sources to the lead and two numbers of plays in evaluated stations. For whatever reason, they didn't publish any numbers for the number one song.--Lirim | Talk 22:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, please note that per Help:Tables, use of "scope" in tables is not designed to provide/add emphasis to a certain row or column but to distinguish the top row or the first column from the rest of the information listed. This should be fixed. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Done.--Lirim | Talk 21:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Have your concerns been adequately addressed? Lirim | Talk 00:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    They appear to be addressed but if this is all that it takes to meet featured list status, the criteria is rather flimsy. Not meant as a slight to the amount of work you put into it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

    List of torpedo cruisers of Italy[edit]

    Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

    This list covers the torpedo cruisers built for the Italian Royal Navy in the 1870s-1890s - the ships had relatively uneventful careers (largely a result of the fact that they were built during a relatively peaceful period, and they were no longer front-line ships by the time Italy fought in the Italo-Turkish War and the First World War in the 1910s). I wrote the list last year and it passed a MILHIST A-class review in July (link here if you're interested). Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

    Comments from Lirim.Z

    • All pictures need a year in the text
      • I've added years where they're generally known, but all but one are approximations and the rest aren't known.
    • The lead needs references
      • No it doesn't, it's all repeated in the body, where the material is cited.
    • Other than that I don't see any problems. I don't know much about torpedo cruisers, but I think this article is written great and understable for people who don't know much.--Lirim | Talk 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


    • "laid down in 1875, and was one of the first torpedo cruisers built by any navy" - source for that (it isn't mentioned anywhere in the body)...?
      • Good catch, added a line on her being one of the first torpedo cruisers to the body
    • In the Pietro Micca section, do the two refs right at the end support everything from "By the 1870s" onwards?
      • Yes
    • In the Tripoli section, do the two refs at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
      • Yes
    • In the Goito section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
      • Yes
    • Did the Folgore class actually have no armour, or is the info simply not known?
      • Yes, no armor
    • In the Partenope section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
      • Yes
    • In the Argodat section, my maths teachers always told me that a 0 should always be placed before the decimal point for a number below 1, so ".8" should be "0.8"
      • This may be a UK/US thing

    Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

    Thanks Chris. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • The decimal point with no 0 still looks inherently wrong to me, but if it's simply another thing that's down to the ocean between us then so be it ;-) Support this nomination -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

    Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

    • Consider linking displacement, laid down and commissioned in the first header.
      • In the table? I think the MoS discourages linking bold text - but I've added a link to keel laying in the lead (and the other two are linked in the table key
        • Huh, I've been using links in the ship tables in class articles for a couple of years now and nobody's complained, although I don't know how recently I sent one of them to FAC. Good enough for me though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Link knot on first use, register, gunfire support
    • By analogy to the Queen song, shouldn't it be "flat-bottomed hull"?
      • Good point
    • Partenope class spent much of its career BritEng?
      • No, that's AmEng - it'd be BritEng to say the "class spent much of their careers"
        • I think you've got that backwards 'cause I wanna say "their" and "its" reads very strangely to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Agordat became a gunboat without any guns?
      • They had guns, just not the 4.7-inch guns of the earlier classes - I kept the light guns out of the tables to keep things from getting too cluttered.
    • Fix the missing ampersands in the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

    List of tallest buildings in Phoenix[edit]

    Nominator(s): Dolfinz1972 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

    I am nominating this for featured list because the skyscraper list of America's fifth-largest city has a well-written lead, a good amount of references, and 31 skyscrapers listed (there is at least one reference for each of the 31). There are a lot of cities in the U.S. smaller than Phoenix with their skyscraper lists featured, including Pittsburgh, San Diego, Miami, and much more. I live in Phoenix and would like to see my city's skyscraper list as a featured list. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

    • "As of August 2015, there were five high-rises under construction, approved for construction, and proposed for construction in the city" - that was more than three years ago, it surely needs updating (not least because there are seven buildings listed in the relevant section further down)...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: I updated it. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    Comments from BeatlesLedTV
    • All tables need scope cols and scope rows per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB); put rows on the name col
    • Center the whole table but left align the notes col
    • Center every table under the second heading and change 'notes' to 'ref.'
    • Center timeline table and shorten 'reference' to 'ref.'
    • Made a couple small edits for you that fixed date formats and dashes (per MOS:DASH)
    • All images need alt text (can just be the name of the building or skyline, etc.)
    • There are some green and blue links that should be fixed (and one dead link)
    • I would personally archive most of these references so you know they're preserved
    • "Luhrs Building, which is regarded as the first high-rise in the city;" – got a ref for this?
    • "As of January 2019, there were 92 completed high-rises in the city." – shouldn't it be 'there are...'?

    Everything else looks good. Great job on this. Needs some work but I have no doubt this can become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

    @BeatlesLedTV: Thanks for your comments. I made some edits but may need help on the first one so I don't mess up. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    I got you. After doing that I found a couple more small things:
    • Sheraton Phoenix Downtown is now called the Sheraton Grand Phoenix. Should this be changed or at least made note of?
    • All ".com" and ".org" sites are websites and not publishers and therefore should be italicized (I can make this easy for ya if you want)
    • Refs 31, 34, 66, 67, 68, and 73 all need websites
    • Ref 70 is missing an access date
    • Refs 46, 69, and 71 are missing websites and access dates
    • Some of these refs not from or have authors and publication dates (I found refs 64 & 65 to be the case). Make sure these are added; I would also archive these as well (again, if you need help, don't hesitate to ask).
    • Ref 73 is still dead. If you can't recover it you'll have to find a new source
    • Images in tables still missing alt text (just put the name of the building)
    I think these should take care of mostly everything. Sorry if I seem picky, just trying to make sure everything's good to go for it to become featured. Like I said, if you need help, don't hesitate to ask. Almost there! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    I don't have time now, as I am busy, so may I ask you help me out again? Thanks a lot! Dolfinz1972 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah no problem. We got no time limit so take as much time as you need. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    Comment: The coordinates for every building I think should be listed. Other FLs, including List of tallest buildings in New York City and List of tallest buildings in Chicago have them so they should probably be applied here as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Be careful using outdated wording that is no longer used in featured lists such as: "This lists buildings...." since they are tautological. I'm also weary of the including of approved and proposed buildings. Some older featured list of tallest buildings revealed that none actually were built and entirely speculation, running afoul of WP:Crystal. I suggest removing both altogether, and maintaining only the "under construction" if necessary. Remember wikipedia is a record of what is, not what could exist, possibly.
    Mattximus Yeah I was going to say something about the "This list..." stuff but forgot to mention it. I'm going to make a new section of comments after looking at other "tallest building" featured lists anyway so I'll be sure to add that to the list. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Opening sentence is really poorly written. If this is a list of tallest buildings, start by something like "The city of Phoenix, Arizona has x buildings over xm tall". Then you can talk about the tallest building, but you need that first sentence to frame it. Then move on to context (how this compares to the rest of the state, etc...) Also no need to link to US State, that would be considered overlinking.
    I was gonna say the exact same thing after reading other FLs. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Why does the list cut off at 240m? Is there a reason for that? And the under construction list has a different metric, of 232m? At the very least they should be consistent. Mattximus (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    I fixed the opening sentence, and the "this lists buildings..." issue. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    You say there are 92 completed high-rises, but the list only contains 19? Number should match list, you can just say "19 completed high-rises standing at least 300 feet (91m) tall." Mattximus (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    Only contains 19? There are 31, if you look at the list! Dolfinz1972 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    You are correct, the lead should say 31, but definitely not 92! Mattximus (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Notes do not conform to MOS, the link doesn't work and A, B, C appear to be added manually? Mattximus (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose will have to oppose for now, no action in over a month, some significant issues remain. Mattximus (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment References from SkyscraperPage should be replaced wherever possible, as it is not an entirely reliable source. I suggest bringing in The Skyscraper Center, a database maintained by the CTBUH, to help augment the Emporis sources. SounderBruce 05:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

    Romanian Radio Airplay Chart[edit]

    Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

    I am nominating this for featured list because I have extensivley worked on it according to List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s, which already is a FL. Thank you for every comment! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

    Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

    It needs to be mentioned since they publish the top 10 most broadcast Romanian and the top 10 most broadcast international songs.
    OK, I am super confused now. I checked the Media Forest site and (as you say) they publish the international and Romanian top 10s separately each week. So how is there only one number one song listed here for each week? For example, for the current week, DJ Snake is #1 on the international chart and Ioana Ignat is #1 on the Romanian chart, yet only DJ Snake is listed here, why is that? Are you picking whichever of the two number ones had the higher number of plays and deciding that it's the "overall" number one? If so, are there any reliable sources which do this and crown an "overall" Romanian airplay number one each week? If not, it seems like OR to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: This is OR then. Maybe we should just shut down this nomination. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Cartoon network freak: - don't be hasty, let's see what other people think. The other approach, of course, would simply be to list both number ones for each week..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Indeed... I'm sorry :) Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Just for other reviewers that may join this discussion — the scope of this list is to list the most-played song on Romanian radio stations every week. While Media Forest does not directly 'pick' a number one, it's clear that there is one each week since it's got the most plays. ChrisTheDude mentioned the possible OR here, which I think is discussable. Listing both the number ones on the 'Romanian' and on the 'international' column would be unnecessary, at least in my opinion, and that would not meet the scope of this list. Maybe the article should be renamed to something like "List of most broadcast radio songs in Romania" (just an example). I'm waiting for opinions... Face-smile.svg Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
      • "based on the full broadcasts tracks receive on the aforementioned radio stations" - no idea what this means. Do you mean "based on the number of times tracks are broadcast on the....."
      • "During late 2000s and the 2010s," - just say "Since the chart began in 2009....."
      • "more than 100 singles reached" => "more than 100 singles have reached"
      • ""Shoulda" (2012) by American recording artist Jamie Woon has spent" => ""Shoulda" (2012) by American recording artist Jamie Woon spent"
      • "Smiley with eight number-ones" => "Smiley with eight number ones"
      • "As of 2018," - we're in 2019
    Sure, but the source is from 2018. We can't say anything about 2019 for now at least.
      • "As of 14 January 2018, the current number one" - obvious typo here
      • No need for a key item to indicate the current number one, the last one listed is obviously the current one
    I think this is quite helpful actually and also symbolizes that the chart is still running. However, I can remove it if you want be to but it's also in the List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s article
    Surely the date against that row indicates that the chart is still running.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
      • The Notes section refers to about eight songs which it says made number one but they are not in the table They need to be listed, as they reached number one and without them the table is inaccurate. See List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1945 for an example of how to handle songs being joint number one.
    • Hope this helps - the last point is the big one for me - I would not be able to support a list of all the number ones on a chart if the table did not actually list all the number ones..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Hi and thanks for your comments! I do not think a "List of Romanian Radio Airplay Chart number ones of the 2010s" is required, since the Romanian Radio Airplay Chart isn't Romania's main music chart, so it would be unnecessary having both this page AND the List of... page. The Romanian Radio Airplay Chart page would be nearly empty then and with the same info as the List of... article. I will address your other comments eventually today. THANK YOU!! Face-smile.svg Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Hi again! I solved all your comments and responded to selected ones. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

    Comments from Lirim.Z

    • Why is the artist the scope? It's about the song not the artist.
    • As of 2018, Cat Music have had a large impact on Romanian broadcasting starting with the chart's establishment year, having signed artists such as Delia Matache, Smiley, 3 Sud Est, Elena Gheorghe and Voltaj. Every year, the label has released songs that have gone on to be featured on the list of the most broadcast ones in Romania. These sentences do sound in my opinion ridiculous awful. I would change it to "The romanian record label Cat Music, has a huge impact on the chart. Multiple artist signed to the label, for e.x Delia Matache, Smiley, 3 Sud Est, Elena Gheorghe and Voltaj, reached the list of the most broadcast ones in Romania. or something like that.
    • I would turn By artist and By song into one section. For e.x: Statistics and then these both. It's quite useless to give each table such a small extra section.
    • --Lirim | Talk 00:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Lirim.Z: Hi there and thanks for your comments. Regarding the sentence, I think it sounds quite good and it was also allowed for List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s (which is a FL now) after it had been worked on. As for your other comments, the separate "By song" and "by artist" sections are manual of style for such lists, so I'm hasitant about changing that. The same goes for the separate Artist column in the list; also, isn't he/she a crucial part of the song? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You're right: Support. Lirim | Talk 20:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

    Messier object[edit]

    Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

    I am nominating this for featured list because is in pretty decent shape now and is a vital high level important article in astronomy. It was prepped up for FLC some years before by me but due to very unfortunate turn of events, it did't made it. So fingers crossed for now. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

    Quick comments (not a full review):
    • I don't see why this list is separate from Messier object itself- there appears to be about 2 paragraphs worth of text in that article that are not in this list, and it may not be useful text. I think that this list should be merged into Messier object; the result would just be this list with some extra text, so it could retain this nomination.
    • The lead starts out with numbering things as "Messier 1", transitions to "M 31" without explicitly stating that its common to abbreviate that way (maybe it's obvious enough you don't need to?), but then has e.g. "M108" (no space); it's unclear to me if this is a formatting mistake (space vs no space) or if either abbreviation is fine, but since the table has no space I think that it should be "M31" instead?
    • It's unclear what the distance column is sorting on when there's a range- some sort of average?
    • It's a little odd that the ascension column has both Xm Zs and also X.Zm? Feels like it should be one or the other
    • There's a disputed tag on M104
    • Citations have mixed date formats- you have both yyyy-mm-dd and Month dd, yyyy and dd Month yyyy
    --PresN 16:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    Done. The distance is in range values for certain objects when there is uncertainty in determining the exact distance and an average will not yield a correct value due to the shapes. The ascension column is represented in Hours minutes and seconds as per Sexagesimal system and is as per the normal representation of right ascension. Rest all is cleared up. Thank a lot for the quick review and waiting for the full one, if any. :-) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

    Comment I agree with a merger with Messier object, but keep it as a featured list nomination. There doesn't seem to be much sense in keeping both articles. Mattximus (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

    Seems logical. On it. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    There is no consensus for such a merge, and the merge proposald should be discussed with WP:AST/WP:ASTRO. I have reverted this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I will be a third support for a merge: The main article is not at all long enough to justify a split, leaving the intro to this list quite redundant. This seems obvious and I don't quite understand Headbomb's revert; does s/he have a reason beyond just "no consensus"?
    Nope. S/he stated no consensus as the only reason.
    You can start a discussion at Talk:Messier object and ping the three of us for some support.
    • "kly" should have a tooltip key.
    • So the definition of Messier's Object is simply that it was described by Messier? So what is the astronomical relevance to this besides naming? Can you add a couple sentences about astronomical cataloguing and how this fits in?
    Sprinkled some NASA wesite dust over it. Should be more clearer now.
    Uh there's something off with the construction of that sentence. Good ref to add though. Reywas92Talk 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Can you please include a brief description of what each of the types of objects are (e.g. open vs. globular cluster and nebula vs. planetary nebula vs. supernova remnant)? Why is M1 Crab Nebula a remnant rather than a nebula? I just think a Featured List should be able to stand alone and not necessary rely on following links for understanding but this doesn't need to be too detailed.
    I've thought about it but since the list is of 10 objects and every object is different sometimes. So adding a definition for each and every object would be overkill I think. If needed, a tooltip can be added but piping to the main article would be more concise. But if they are to be defined, it can be done in another section.
    • The star chart caption doesn't need a period.
    • Not necessarily something that needs to be added to the article but star chart doesn't address this, but what are the green line and the axes on the chart? I'm guessing the ecliptic, right ascension, and declination? Reywas92Talk 06:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, they are. Should they be mentioned as some key? Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, you could put that in the caption if you want. Reywas92Talk 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    Usually its not marked in any star charts and is left like that. Certain star charts have ecliptic marked on the chart itself. But the ascension axes can be mentioned. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The Lists and editions section could use a few more citations but I don't see any other issues. Maybe move the Observations section before the list. Reywas92Talk 07:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comments
      • I would place the whole of what is currently the third paragraph of the lead right after the first sentence and then have a paragraph break before "A preliminary version". You need to explain what is in the catalogue and its significance before you go into its history, not leave it right till the end.
      • "ranging from star clusters, nebula and galaxies." - if you are going to use "ranging" then it has to range from something to something.
      • "M 31" in para 2 - no other M references have a space.
      • "Since catalog......" - catalog is spelt incorrectly (compared to the previous sentence). Also it should be the catalogue
      • "Since catalog includes astronomical objects that can be observed from Earth’s Northern Hemisphere, deep-sky objects that can be viewed, a characteristic makes Messier objects extremely popular targets for amateur astronomers." - this is grammatical gibberish and I don't understand what it is trying to say at all.

    -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

    Done..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. I only just noticed the disputed tag against M104 - that definitely needs to be resolved before the list could be promoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, it's been resolved as a lenticular galaxy..just fixed it now. Thanks..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Update the proposed merge has been complete. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Happy to support now that the merger issue has been resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


    • "Catalogue des Nébuleuses et des Amas d'Étoiles": the quotation marks are probably not needed here.
    • Certain scattered instances of single quotation marks (e.g. Messier’s, Earth’s) should be replaced with apostrophes.
    • first appeared in Memoirs: a "the" should be required before "Memoirs".
    • Messier 102 could be linked in the lead. A brief explanation in the article of the designation scheme used would also be preferable.
    • star clusters, nebula to galaxies: needs an "and" in there; "nebula" should be in plural; terms could be wikilinked.
    • supernova remnant and spiral could also be linked to their respective articles.
    • English: Knowledge of Time: no need to specify the language, it's obvious that this is in English; the translated title should be enclosed in quotation marks.
    • Alt text must be provided for all images.
    • Also in terms of accessibility, the table headers should have defined row and column scopes.
    • The legend above the table could be formatted more neatly.
    • The width of the table probably shouldn't be limited here.
    • NGC/IC Number and Right Ascension: should be in sentence case (without capitalisation of second words).
    • If kly is already linked, an abbreviation is unnecessary.
    • The references in the first column would look better if placed in a new, separate column at the end of each row.
    • A second header (footer?) row at the bottom of the table is not required.
    • The sorting of the NGC/IC number and Declination columns needs to be checked and fixed, in order to sort properly.
    • Right ascension and declination: echoing PresN's comment above, decimal minutes could be converted to seconds. Also, a bit more consistency in the precision of both values could be better.
    • Some values appear to be incorrectly formatted: e.g. the declination of M39 (+48° 25′ ″) and the right ascension of M42 (05h 35m 17.3).
    • There could be a more thorough description of the star chart for its caption.
    • References: a consistent date format is in order.

    So far, a generally well-written and adequately sourced article, but needs some work. Do let me know what you think. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

    All done. The moving of the references to another column seems to be redundant I presume as the scope headers for each row is the name of the Messier item number and hence its justified. Can be changed if you are not fine with it. thank you.
    The references in the first column wouldn't stop me from supporting per se, but it would seem much neater if they were moved to a separate column, as is generally standard among featured lists. The NGC and declination sorting also haven't been fixed – ensure that the three-digit NGC designations are sorted at the beginning and that the declinations sort from negative to positive (these could be accomplished with data-sort-values, see WP:SORT). I've also taken the liberty to make some minor edits to fix punctuation and the like. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

    List of awards and nominations received by Michelle Keegan[edit]

    Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

    It is a well sourced, comprehensive list of Keegan's awards that I worked on over the last two days. The lead could've been a bit longer but it includes all the important information and I couldn't really think of anything else I could write about there but that's probably because she hasn't got that many acting credits and most of her awards are for her role on Corrie. ArturSik (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Comments
      • Combine first two sentences, thus eliminating a sentence of just six words
      • "numerous critically acclaimed" - seems a bit of a bold statement to say "numerous". Numerous suggests a very large number, and I'm reasonably sure Keegan has not actually starred in a very large number of critically acclaimed shows.
      • "The awards were formerly known as TV Quick and TV Choice Awards" - IMO all of the title should be italicised (i.e. including the word "and") otherwise it looks these are two separate former titles. If you don't feel italicising the word "and" is appropriate, please find a way to reword it so it doesn't suggest that the awards have two former titles.
    • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Thank you:) ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Support - all looks OK now. As you said, the lead seems a bit short, but maybe there's not much else to say.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    Comment from BeatlesLedTV
    • I agree with ChrisTheDude, the lead does seem a little short. I also find it interesting how she's won/nominated for awards for only three pieces of work. Seems kinda short but I'd love to hear other editors' opinion on the subject. Til then I'll wait before giving my support or oppose. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    I absolutely agree but there's nothing I can think of that I could write other than what we already got. Yes, she's been in acting business for 10 years but for the first five she was on Corrie and did nothing else during that time. That's how it usually works when you're in a soap, at least in the UK it does. And that's what she's got most of her accolades for. Since leaving the show she only did few TV shows that weren't very big except for maybe 'Our Girl' but she didn't get many awards for it either. Can't really do anything about it but I can assure you that that doesn't mean the list is incomplete, she simply wasn't nominated for her other projects as much as she was for her role on Corrie. I hope it makes sense. The list isn't big but as long as it's complete I think it meets the FL requirements. ArturSik (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – I agree. You can't help it when there's really not much to work with, but as you said the list does seem complete and meets FL standards, so I'll give my support. Sorry it took so long I completely forgot I commented. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    No worries. Thank you for the support. ArturSik (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose I'm afraid that I'm not as comfortable with the length of the lead as everyone else is. By my count it comes to 822 characters, which wouldn't even qualify it for WP:DYK, let alone WP:FL. The leads of similar articles (e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Megan Fox, ... Amy Adams, ... Jennifer Lawrence, ... Emma Stone) are about three times longer – is there really nothing else that can be said? There isn't a huge amount of content in the parent article (i.e. Michelle Keegan) either – frankly, I'm thinking that this entire list could quite conceivably be merged into the biography. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose I'm with A Thousand Doors on this one. The lead is certainly inadequate for this article and does beg the question as to whether the table of awards should just be merged back into the main article as no real additional analysis or text exists here right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose — My apologies but there’s not enough awards to justify a separate list, let alone an FL listing. Would support merging if a discussion about it was opened.—NØ 14:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • There's twice as many wins and 25% more nominations than on List of awards and nominations received by Megan Fox, which is a FL........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Your other stuff exists argument doesn’t change the fact that Keegan's bio has just 2.8k characters of readable prose and there’s really no reason this list should be separate.—NØ 21:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    List of Apollo missions[edit]

    Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

    I am re-nominating this for featured list because I feel it exemplifies a featured list on Wikipedia. I have researched this topic thoroughly, and I feel this list reflects that.

    Note: I previously nominated this list on 3 March 2018 and then was eventually closed due to my inactivity. I'm not in class this semester and will be much more responsive to feedback. ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

      • Remove gap between the two refs at the end of the first para
        • Done.
      • Those are the only two refs against that para - do they support the entire content?
        • Yes, but I clarified the references.
      • Again, lots of unref'd sentence in para 2 - are they all supported by the ref at the end?
        • Yes again, but I clarified the references and added some.
      • And again in para 3.....
        • Fixed.
      • And para 4 has no refs at all
        • Fixed.
      • "Some incongruity in the numbering and naming of the first three unmanned Apollo-Saturn (AS), or Apollo flights." - this is not a complete sentence
        • Fixed
      • Consider using {{abbr}} for the "LV" in the first table heading
        • Fixed.
      • Intro text to second table has no refs
        • Fixed.
      • Intro text to fourth table has no refs
        • Fixed.
    • That's it from me - lack of refs is the big issue that I can see..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Fixed all of the above. For the most part, the information was referenced just in different places. ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 20:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Support - apologies for taking so long to check back in, I completely forgot I had committed on this one........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • SupportLooks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • NB: The entry for Apollo 20 makes it look more certain than it was. See the linked article. Roosa or Mitchell / Lousma / Lind looks more likely to me. Under the normal rotation scheme it would have been commanded by Roosa, but note how Haise was a LMP expert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
      See this edit on Pogue's article. The source in that article says none of them were officially assigned, and the crews that you have listed in this article are just assumed based on normal crew notation. You need to note that in the article, and add a source. Kees08 (Talk) 04:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

    Comments by Kees08

    Drive-by comments, unlikely to result in a support or oppose.

    • Date formats in citations should be the same.
    • The choice of using National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the citations instead of NASA is peculiar; linking some but not all of them is also peculiar. My first point probably does not need addressed, the second probably does.
    • Two bare URLs. One of them is an angelfire link. Is that really the best source available? I see at least one other angelfire link.
    • Citations such as "Lunar Module LTA-8". should be fully expanded
    • Where does this author come from? It is not listed on the web page. Ryba, Jeanne (8 July 2009). "Apollo 7". National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved 15 February 2017
    • Should be pp, not p, and should use an endash in the page range. Shayler, David (26 August 2002). Apollo: The Lost and Forgotten Missions. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 117, 124-125. ISBN 9781852335755.
    • At least Apollo 5 has a mission patch; perhaps add a column in the unmanned test missions table Kees08 (Talk) 06:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

    That was just a couple of minutes reviewing the citations. You should go through the entire list with a fine-toothed comb looking for similar issues. Let me know when you have, and I will give the citations another review. If I find a similar rate of errors and omissions that I am now, I will probably oppose the nomination. Thanks for the hard work so far, the issues should be pretty easy to spot and fix! Kees08 (Talk) 05:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

    @Matthewrbowker: Any updates? Kees08 (Talk) 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Kees08: Oops, thought I had posted here. I have been doing a complete source update offline, as my internet has issues staying connected. I will be posting an update addressing all issues within the next couple days. ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The cancelled and post-Apollo sections have separate columns for each of the three astronaut positions but the main manned list has a single crew column. The lead of the main list should at least note that the crew is listed in a certain order, if not split up the same way.
    • These three tables have different columns in different orders (mission-patch-"launch date"-crew-vehicle, crew positions-date, and "launch"-mission+patch-vehicle-crew positions) and should be synchronized.
    • Crew in Thermal-vacuum tests are bulleted, but not in the manned table.
    • That table has "Notes" that includes the duration while the other tables have "Duration" and "Remarks" columns.
    • I have literally no idea what thermal-vacuum tests are!! These are not mentioned in the lead and that section does not introduce them at all. Are these even "missions"?
    • Tables variously have headers "Launch", "Date", "Launch date", and a "Launch date and vehicle if used" (rather than separate columns for those like the others, yet with "Launch time" in a separate column unlike the rest!). You really need to work on consistency.
    • Also "LV Serial No", "Vehicle", and "Launch vehicle" Sheesh
    • Kees08 notes using the same date formats in citations but you also need the same formats in the tables! I'd say to use American MDY.
    • "A total of" is practically never necessary.
    • Service module, lunar module, command module pilot, and more are common nouns.
    • Quotation marks are not needed for spacewalk or moonwalk, which are spelled as single words and lowercase at Extravehicular activity.
    • Biggest problem of all: Most of the lead is simply copied and pasted from Apollo program, wtf?
      • Strong oppose, I suggest withdrawing and starting over. Chris and Hawkeye are usually great reviewers but I'm confused how they came to support this. Reywas92Talk 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

    Newbery Medal[edit]

    Nominator(s): Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

    I am nominating this for featured list because it is a preeminent children's literature award. I have modeled parts of my work on this list on the Aurealis Award for best young adult novel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

    Ooh, a book award list (I did the Hugo/Nebula/World Fantasy lists at #Literature and theatre). Not going to do a full review yet, but here's some quick comments from a skim:
    • Single-sentence paragraphs are frowned on; a paragraph should have at least some flow to it.
    • "is given to the winning author at the next ALA annual conference" - ...the next? You didn't way when it's announced, so when would "next" be?
    • The lead seems not to be covering a good chunk of the "history" section; it reads like a (slim) intro to a table-only list, but then there's a good section on history that means that it should be a real lead? In any case, it feels slim- compare to Hugo Award for Best Novel, which has a more substantial lead for an objectively less important award.
    • The table has the winner/nominee in a column titled "Citation". I think it's just the column title is wrong, assuming that the whole table is cited to the reference tagged on the heading.
    • The table needs colscopes and rowscopes so that it can be parsed by non-visual browsers or text-based browsers; see MOS:DTAB or copy out of that Hugo list I linked.
    --PresN 07:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    Responding in order:
    • I did some rearranging and incorporated those sentences into existing paragraphs
    • While this was present in the text I have inserted the timing of the selection into the LEAD
    • I have incorporated some more information from the history section into the LEAD such that I hope it better complies with MOS:LEADREL
    • Citation is frequently used in this context - it was given the Newbery Medal citation but for clarity I have changed the column header.
    • I have attempted to fix this. This is new for me so please let me know if I did something wrong.
    Thanks PresN for your early comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    @PresN: Do you have any further comments or feedback? I"d love to get your support if you feel it merits it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

    I've had this on my watchlist for a while, I'm glad to see it expanded.

    • "masters and doctoral theses are written on them" (should be master's) is a rather specific yet broad statement. It could be something along the lines "they are written about in academic writings" to be more general and not just copy the source.
    • "fifteen person" needs a hyphen, as does "ex president", as does "then ALSC President"
    • Missing period after unanimous.
    • "first winner of two Newberys" -> a second Newbery
    • space in "year,with"
    • given to the "author of... does not have a closing quotation mark
    • The image of Melcher should be in the section that discusses him
    • ellipses do not need spaces on either side
    • Several books that start with "The" do no sort correctly
    • Would be worth having a small table with the multiple winners/honorees

    Just a start, that's enough problems I may have missed some. Reywas92Talk 00:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

    All done except the last one. I started doing that and quickly found it wasn't such a small table. If the feeling is that it should be done, I will happily do it but ending up removing the whole multiple winners section as more TRIVIA than encyclopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    It could certainly be limited to 2+ wins/3+ honors or whatever combination you think would keep it to an appropriate size, but I think it's relevant to point out the most prolific authors besides just the several we have a license-free photo of. Stuff like that is what makes Wikipedia more useful than just directing folks to the source for the bare list. Reywas92Talk 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    I will work on the table. In the interests of disclosure I have not included all the authors for whom we have license-free photo because it seemed at a certain point it was "another person." If in the interests of completeness you/others think we should include all, I will add in the authors for whom I have skipped (I looked at every medal winning author; have not done so for all honor authors). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    Do you mean including all images? No, the current gallery is fine, I was just commenting that most of the pictures were of multiple winners and that was the only place where such status was mentioned, but there are plenty of photos already. The table looks terrific! Linking to the books is above and beyond, just leave a note in the text above that since readers wouldn't assume that's what's linked from the year. Reywas92Talk 22:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    I have made a multiple winners table. I am still skeptical about this as I don't notice any such table in any other Featured List. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    I've seen it done somewhere before, though to again use my own lists as an example, the Hugo/Nebula etc. lists just list the notable multi-winners or multi-nominees in prose in the lead, like "A has won 5 awards, the most of any author, out of 8 nominations; B and C have won 3 times out of 4 and 6 nominations, respectively. 7 other authors have won twice.", or something like that. Might be difficult to do with this table, though, depending on how detailed you want to get. --PresN 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    Comments from BeatlesLedTV
    • Lead: five.To → space
    • Beverly Cleary image missing alt text
    • Combine years into one box, ex. only one 2014 instead of five.
    • Whole second table should be centered
    • Keep dates consistent (some are Month Day, Year, others are YYYY-MM-DD)
    • Random double comma in ref 4
    • Ref 10: p. vii → p. 7
    • Add date of publishing for refs 12, 13, & 14 (June 3, 2016 for all)
    • I'd personally archive all the website references

    Looks good to me otherwise. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

    Thanks BeatlesLedTV for your feedback. I have implemented your suggestions except if I combined the 5 into one box it would make the sorting feature much less useful. I think the current format serves readers better. I've changed Ref 10 but since I took that citation from the John Newbery article and haven't seen the source myself, I am assuming you know that it really should be p. 7 and not vii. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Sortable tables can actually deal with cells spanning multiple rows now, it just splits it apart with a different sort. I just did a bunch to see how it would look (easy in visual editor) and it's much less cluttered. Reywas92Talk 22:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks Reywas92 for doing that. It actually looks better visually when they're all merged and besides, sorting does fix itself. Having every year in every row makes it more cluttered so it's confusing to the reader, especially me when I was crafting my comments. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – Looks much better now. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    Source review from Aoba47 (Passed)

    Great work with this list. I just have a few questions/comments:

    • There are a few inconsistencies with the date formats in the references. For instance, Reference 19 uses Month Day Year and Year Month Day. Would it be preferable to use the American formatting for all of the days (i.e. Month Day Year) as this is an American award?
    • For the The Newbery & Caldecott Awards : a guide to the medal and honor books source, is there any reason why the subtitle does not have any capitalization?
    • The references used in this sentence (The Newbery was proposed by Frederic G. Melcher in 1921, making it the first children's book award in the world.) should be in numeric order (i.e. reference 3 before reference 4). Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking the time to do a source review Aoba47. I have fixed the subtitle and ref order. I fixed source 19. In general I use VE for content creation so try to default to its Year-Month-Day format. I just looked over the list and dind't see any further issues like that, but bibliographic details have never been my strength (just ask my 6th grade social studies teacher). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. I am pretty terrible with keeping all of the bibliographic details in oder. You can ask my English professors about that lol. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

    List of Man'yōshū poets[edit]

    Nominator(s): Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

    I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. It feature professional standards of writing, its lead clearly defines the inclusion criteria, layout and style, etc., it is comprehensive in that it includes every single poet with an entry identifying them as the writer of a poem in Nakanishi Susumu's authoritative Man'yōshū Jiten. It is structured in English alphabetical order with alphabetic section headings, and the layout/organization style was checked by a number of other editors when I requested assistance in formatting it, it complies (as far as I am aware) with all MOS guidelines, and is about as stable as could be. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

    Comment - the lead definitely needs a lot of work. Lists shouldn't start "This is a list...." and the lead should be much longer than five sentences. At the moment the lead is basically a key written in prose form. I would expect to see two or three paragraphs giving much more background/context on what the Man'yōshū is, information on the most prominent poets, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: I've done a bit of work in giving a brief outline of the anthology and its most prominent poets (as determined by Donald Keene, who gives multi-page bios and critiques of the poetry of those poets he considers noteworthy). I had been assuming linking to our Man'yōshū article would be sufficient for this purpose, but it is in a rather sorry state I'll admit. I might have misinterpreted your second sentence in outright removing "This is a list..." despite having already added extensive commentary above that so it was no longer the "start". Your opinion on the new content would also be much appreciated. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    I'll give it a proper review later when I have a bit more time, but the lead looks immeasurably better now. Re: your point about simply linking to the main article, in essence each article should stand alone, so a reader shouldn't have to leave this article to get the background/context of what it's about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

    I really think this list would look better in a table format, the way it looks now in columns is very confusing and messy. Also try to avoid "in the following list " as stated above. An alternative would be "Numbers are assigned to...". Also the prose needs a bit of work, it's a bit clunky in places, but that will have to wait a full review. Mattximus (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

    @Mattximus: I'll get working on your prose/wording suggestions shortly. As for the table thing, I'm amenable to that, but it seems like a pretty big project and so I'd rather wait for more people to weigh in before starting to implement it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Mattximus: See my response to BeatlesLedTV below. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Opinion from BeatlesLedTV

    I agree with Mattximus, I think the list would look better in a table. Right now, the list looks odd because K's are right next to O's and so on. Just make a table format with their name, maybe birth and death year (if applicable) or KKTK number(s), notes, and a ref col then you'd be good to go. Make sure they have scope rows and cols per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB). Also, are their any pictures you can add? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

    @BeatlesLedTV: Okay, two is enough, so I'll start implementing it now. It's my first time, so if you see anything I'm doing wrong please don't hesitate to tell me. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Hijiri88 Make sure you have scope rows in the name col. Also, make the note and ref cols unsortable. And shorten "Reference(s)" to just "Ref(s)" BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    @BeatlesLedTV: I think I've done most of it all right, but I'm not entirely sure what "scope rows" are. I may have accidentally done so, but I somehow doubt it; but I've definitely done the rest and if you can clarify what I should do regarding the scope cols I'd be happy to do so, even if I've accidentally made more work for myself by doing everything else before checking. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    List of Casualty specials[edit]

    Nominator(s): Soaper1234 - talk 19:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

    I am nominating List of Casualty specials for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria of a Featured List. In my opinion, the prose is professional and the lead is engaging, with a summary of Casualty and what the article lists included. It covers every aspect correctly, is within suitable length and meets requirements of the stand-alone lists. The list is easy to manage and navigate and complies with the MOS. The list give key information about the specials in a table format, which links to a section of prose about each special. No images are in the list, and the article is not subject to any sort of edit wars or content disputes. All comments are appreciated to my FLC and are considered very helpful! Thank you in advance. Soaper1234 - talk 19:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

    • Initial comments, more to come later
      • "and On Call starts a storyline" - all the other titles in this paragraph are in quotation marks, so presumably this one should be too
      • "there was several health and safety procedures" - were, surely?
      • "At the time of filming the specials, Taylor had filming on-location for four months" - "filmed"?
    • That's as far as I have got so far, I'll pick it up again later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your quick comments. Some silly mistakes spotted and amended. Soaper1234 - talk 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • More comments
      • "She explained that Sam and Iain were in "a different world out there in Afghanistan."" - here the full stop is inside the speech marks, a couple of sentences later there is a similar usage but it is outside. Minor, I know, but best to be consistent throughout.....
      • "Sam, who he described" - whom
      • "Sarker found directing the webisode a challenge, although found it enjoyable" - "although she found it...."
      • "Kent stated that Noel become "anxious detectives" as they" - Noel isn't plural, so presumably the words "and Mac" have gone AWOL?
      • "Seven cast members feature in the special, and continues in the following episode" - "which continues....."
      • "The First Noel is a Christmas-themed" - missing quotation marks on title
    • Think that's it from me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Support - I made a slight grammar fix to the lead but otherwise it all looks good :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Comments from Aoba47
    • This sentence (The drama has aired for thirty-one series and a thirty-second series currently airs. ) needs to be updated since the show is currently airing its thirty-third season.
    • For this part (It began on 8 May 2007 and it was cancelled in August 2008), I do not believe the second “it” is necessary.
    • I have a comment about how numbers greater than ten are represented. In some instance, they are represented by numerals (as in this case, “Casualty has produced 19 special episodes”) and in other areas, they are represented by words (as in this case “The drama has aired for thirty-one series and a thirty-second series currently airs”). I would encourage you to be consistent with one way or the other. Either approach would work so it is entirely up to you.

    Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help/input with my current FLC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

     Done - I've addressed your comments and I thank you very much for your comments too! I shall add some comments of my own to your FLC now. Soaper1234 - talk 21:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

    List of World Heritage sites in Malta[edit]

    Nominator(s): Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

    Following the style of some other lists of World Heritage sites that have been promoted to FL, this one meets the criteria as well. Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

    Comments by Dudley[edit]

    • "making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list". I would delete "historical" as the tentative natural sites are also eligible.
    • "this site took place in 2015.[4]<.[5]" I assume that "<." are typos.
    • Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum. The description seems excessively brief considering that there are only three sites.
    • "subterranean structure dating back to the Saflieni phase" This is not in the UNESCO source, which says that they date to the "Żebbuġ, Ġgantija and Tarxien Phases of Maltese Prehistory, spanning from around 4000 B.C. to 2500 B.C." Wikipedia Megalithic Temples of Malta has Ġgantija, Saflieni and Tarxien Phases dating 3600 to 2500 BC. There seems to be some confusion, but you need to follow the UNESCO citation.
    • "It was probably originally a temple, but it became a necropolis in prehistoric times." There is also confusion over this. There is no mention of a temple in the citation. The summary says "Perhaps originally a sanctuary" but in the main text it "seems to have been conceived as an underground cemetery". I think it is safer to follow the main text.
    • Megalithic Temples of Malta. This is also short and unsatisfactory. You say they were constructed between 3600 BC and 700 BC, but the source in the 4th and 3rd millenniums.
    • I regret I have to oppose as the descriptions do not follow the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    I guess most of the issues can be blamed on the fact that I was working with a pre-existing text that I did not want to modify too much. I'll see what I can do, I think I can rewrite all problematic sections. --Tone 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Dudley Miles: Please check again. I significantly expanded two descriptions. Curiously, the hypogeum intro in the reference contradicts the rest of the description there (which I now followed). Other issues fixed as well. --Tone 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I think you need to write all the descriptions from scratch as there will be others apart from those I checked which are wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    I can do that. Give me a couple of days. --Tone 20:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Dudley Miles: I think this should work. I expanded a bit and, apparently expectedly, found out that some of the linked buildings in the descriptions were not in the references. Promptly removed. --Tone 16:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Dudley Miles has Tone fixed your issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Further comments
    • "between the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" It would be better to say "during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" as in the source.
    • "were likely important ritual focus of a highly organized society" This is ungrammatical.
    • "dating back to the Antiquity" This is both ungrammatical and vague.
    • "transformed into a purely military outpost" This is an exaggeration. The citation mentions non-military structures, including the cathedral. It would be worth mentioning that the citation emphasises archaeological deposits and Baroque architecture.
    • "Series of catacomb complexes, developed from simple Phoenician and Hellenistic rock-cut tombs to more complex types in Roman Empire." This is misleading. If I read the citation correctly, the site is late Roman and Byzantine (mid 3rd to 7th century).
    • I have checked a selection of citations. The article is improved but still some way off FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    Comments from Lirim.Z
    1. Why is it once "UNESCO data" and in the other table "UNESCO criteria"?
    2. Are there any other sources? Literally the entire article is sourced through UNESCO sources. An article should incorperate sources by different authors.
    Lirim | Talk 16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

    @Tone: Do you plan to continue with this nomination? --PresN 19:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

    Ah, yes. I was waiting to see if there were more comments to address them in a single editing session. I think I can get it fixed by next week, does that work? --Tone 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

    List of Bandai Namco video game franchises[edit]

    Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

    I am nominating this for featured list because the article has both passed its peer review, and is what I believe to be stable, informal and properly sourced from reliable areas. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

    Comment from BeatlesLedTV

    Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

    • Let me know if you need any help on this, or just copy List of Square Enix video game franchises. Also, since there's so many items in the platform column's cells, I don't think it should be sortable- because you can't actually group most of the consoles together when they're not single-platform releases. --PresN 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    • A lot of these "sources" are just links to official websites. I don't see this ever becoming a FL in this state. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    Why would the website not be a reliable source? Can you please elaborate on that?Namcokid47 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    Can you please elaborate on this? Namcokid47 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    I would really like to have you elaborate why the franchise's official website would not be a reliable source for these entries, because simply saying "these sources are official websites, this will never be a featured list" is not even remotely helpful when I'm trying to fix issues that other users have brought up. For a final time - can you elaborate on this? Thank you. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Comments from NatureBoyMD
    • "Bandai Namco Holdings" doesn't need to be in boldface per MOS:BOLDAVOID.
    • "and is currently based in Minato-ku..." (See: MOS:RELTIME)
    • "The company was formed following the merge..." Change "merge" to "merger".
    • "formally called Namco Bandai Games..." If you mean it used to be called this, it should be "formerly".
    • "with over $12.8 billion as of 2016..." Is this U.S. dollars? If so, make it "US$12.8 billion" per WP:$
    • "Currently, the company is the third-largest video game company in Japan, the seventh-largest in the world, and the largest toy company by revenue as of 2017." If this is all as of 2017, make it "As of 2017, the company is the third-largest video game company in Japan, the seventh-largest in the world, and the largest toy company by revenue." (See: MOS:RELTIME)
    • Second paragraph: strike all three "currently"s (See: MOS:RELTIME)
    • "Bandai Namco currently owns former developer Banpresto, who currently operates as a toy company..." Change "who" to "which".
    • References (as mentioned by previous reviewer): Sources on Wikipedia should be from reliable third-party sources. While it is reasonable that a developer or game franchise's website is accurate, it doesn't meet the third-party standard. See if you can find sources from reliable games news websites (IGN?), a reliable database of games, or print sources.

    NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

    I've fixed all of the issues you brought up. I'll start looking for references now. Thanks! Namcokid47 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Namcokid47: If you're still working on this, in addition to the source of the references, the formatting needs work. Examples:
    ref 1) "Corporate History". BANDAI NAMCO Entertainment JP. Retrieved 1 December 2018. - ALLCAPS on the name, should be linked to the company's article, should be the name they use in branding (Bandai Namco Entertainment), BNE is the publisher, not the work (which is typically the field for magazine/news websites)
    ref 2) "World of Warcraft Leads Industry With Nearly $10 Billion In Revenue". Game Revolution. Retrieved 1 December 2018. - the article is by Jonathan Leack, date is January 26, 2017, both should be present
    ref 8) "BANDAI NAMCO Entertainment America – More fun for everyone!". - ALLCAPS, again BNE is the publisher not the work, and the website url is neither, you should use the actual site name at minimum if not the company name.
    That last one is the one that caught my eye, because you do it a lot- should be just Bandai Namco as the publisher, should be Grouvee, etc. This is not a full source review, but all of that will come up in one. --PresN 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Namcokid47: are you still involved in this nomination? --PresN 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, I've left Wikipedia quite some time ago to focus on other projects, although I could have made this more obvious on my user page. I guess I could try improving this page to fix the issues you brought up before I throw in the towel, but it will take some time. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

    Lonsdale Belt[edit]

    Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    I am nominating this for Featured List as i believe it is an interesting and important topic. It is comprehensive, upto date and complete. It is also an excellent gateway for the reader to learn about British boxing and it's champions over the last 110 years. I am receptive to constructive criticism and suggestions as i want this to be a credit to the Wikipedia community.

    It was also suggested here when i put this article forward as a FAC a few months back.

    I have now changed the images to ensure they are free.

    Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    Comments by Lirim.Z[edit]


    Note: A good article can't be a featured list, as far as I know. Doesn't make sense.--Lirim | Talk 22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Hi Lirim.Z, i don't see anything in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria saying this, and there is no such thing as a Good List, as far as im aware? Okeeffemarc (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Giants2008:, @PresN:, @The Rambling Man: Guys, can you clear this up?--Lirim | Talk 08:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    There's no reason as far as I'm concerned that we can't review this on the basis of a becoming a featured list. GA status certainly doesn't preclude it, and as there is no such thing as a Good List, this may be the only route to featured status for an article which at first glance appears to be more list than article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    I agree with TRM and suggested at the FAC linked above that this article should be considered a list. If this does end up as a promotion, it should be simple enough to open a good article reassessment to have the GA status removed if that is deemed necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    Thirded, this is a list to my eyes and I wouldn't have promoted as a GA for that reason; that it was does not preclude it from FLC. I don't think a GAR would be needed if it passed FLC, just untagging, but I also tend to ignore procedural motions like that. --PresN 03:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


    • The picture needs an alt text - All the pictures have Alt text, i have expanded on them though
    • assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions as of 2018. assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions since then. (No need to mention as of 2018) - Done
    • In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] This was won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year.[17]In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year. - Done


    • Don't use |work= for refs that are not newspapers, use publisher instead e.x for boxrec or bbc There were 2, thank goodness for CMD+F! Done.
    • Dont use all caps MOS:Caps, like in ref 3 - Done
    • Ref 4: Antiques Trade Gazette, 1 October 2011, page 22 Is this a book? By whom?
    • Some refs need authors if available, like Ref 153 - This is BoxRec, therefore not an individual author.
    --Lirim | Talk 12:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Some more comments
    • Sorry for the late answer
    1. The lead should be bigger. It needs to tell something about the history and the winners. It's not enough to mention who introduced it and who was the first champion.
    2. The champion column should be the first in all tables
    3. All tables should start with {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" and all champions given with scopes (! scope="row"|)
    Lirim | Talk 16:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback and pointers so far. I have answered the points in Bold. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

    Okeeffemarc are you still active, it appears you haven't edited for two months? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

    The Rambling Man I am still active, will be updating current champion tables today. Have been quite busy at work recently and am waiting on the conclusion of this process too.

    kind regards --Okeeffemarc (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

    No worries, I'll do a review of the list in due course, just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to waste my time! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    Comments from ChrisTheDude

    In a last-gasp bid to spring this one to life....

    • At only five sentences, the lead is too short and needs expanding
    • No need for the "main article" links to NSC and BBFC as they are linked in the prose immediately afterwads
    • "A 9-carat or 22-carat gold belt composed of two heavy chains with a central enamel medallion depicting a boxing match;" - this is a not a complete clause
    • "In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year." - spot the issue ;-)
    • "who continue to make the belts as of 2018," - sentence randomly ends with a comma
    • Don't use grey text in the current holders table
    • The big block quote references someone called Smith, but there is no indication who he/she is
    • "One first of the belts" - makes no sense
    • "they all were all sold together." - don't need two "alls"
    • Theft section should be converted into prose
    • The info on three-time, two-time and one-time winners should be merged into one table. Multi-time winners would appear more than once, with a symbol/colour to indicate second/third wins
    • No need for "See also" link to Championship belt as it is already linked in the text
    • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    Nominations for removal[edit]

    List of state and union territory capitals in India[edit]

    Notified: Vensatry, Crzycheetah, Dwaipayanc, WikiProject India

    A lot has changed since the FL check in 2012. Entire key table has been removed which was better formatted. Nagpur is entirely missing from the article. Until recently Naya Raipur was being listed as the capital of Chhattisgarh (till I fixed it to Raipur). The notes have all been altered completely. Also, significant developments have happened since then: creation of the new state Telangana; new capitals Naya Raipur, Amravati, Dharamshala.

    Keeping all of this in view, the list definitely needs a review on its FL status. Gotitbro (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

    • Delist This list is a mess. The lead has only two references and is to short. How Gotitbro already said, the list is outdated.—21:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Delist In it's present state, it is a mess. There is a note from the table in the lead for some reason? The dates are a bit strange, because for example, it lists the former capital of Assam to be before the state of Assam was created. If it's a capital of a country before India, then wouldn't it be consistent to do this to other states? Very messy. Mattximus (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

    List of heads of government of the Central African Republic[edit]

    Notified: Nishkid64, WikiProject Africa

    I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails criteria 2 of the criteria and has not been updated at the same level of previous entries. Tropicanan (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

    @Tropicanan: you left the "notifications" section with the examples - did you notify anyone/should I? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Tropicanan (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Delist – clearly no longer an FL. It was promoted in 2008 and it shows. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Weak keep - It may need a copy-edit here and there, but overall, it looks good to me. It doesn't matter what year it was promoted.--Cheetah (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Delist whoa, almost the entire lead is completely unsourced, this would take quite a bit of effort to bring up to featured standard. Mattximus (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

    Agatha Christie bibliography[edit]

    Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

    I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer represents out best work. The addition of new sections since it became an FL are unsourced, as is much of the other new material added. SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

    • @SchroCat: Could you please be more specific about the problems you perceive, as I am not seeing them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Hi Brad, I'm referring to the added "List of short stories" section, which is woefully under referenced (only one ref for part of the text and absolutely none for the story listings themselves. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that clarification. I don't perceive that as a serious deficiency in the list, however. Ultimately, the source for the contents of any readily available book is the book itself. While a citation to a secondary work listing all the stories might be worthwhile to add if it can be found, the citations and links to the books themselves should be sufficient, and as the bottom line, I think the page is more useful and more comprehensive with the additional information than without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Oh I agree that it’s a possibly/probably better page with the additional information (which is why I didn’t just revert to a prior version). For a featured article we can’t take the book itself: it has to be cited. Without it, it may pass as a normal article, but it just can’t be featured. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Why not? Where is that stated, that a book isn’t an RS for its own table of contents? (As it happens, I once edited a collection of stories by another author, whose contents are widely available but haven’t been indexed elsewhere yet; does that mean that author’s bibliography could never be an FL if the contents of my collection are mentioned?) In any event, if a rule says that a better version of a page cannot be featured but a worse one can, then it is not a sensible rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
              • Focusing on "better" v "worse" is a false dichotomy. The previous version of the page had less information on it, but that information was on a separate page. The project as a whole contained all the same information, so we had two pages with specific purposes. This page contained books and scripts, not short stories. That doesn't make it "worse", it means that the perameters of the page were changed when two 'specialist' pages were combined to one larger page. We now have a section that is inconsistent in the way it deals with the sourcing of the new information. The use of the secondary source is needed to show that there were no previous versions published elsewhere, and (as is often a problem with short story collections) that the actual first edition claimed contained those actual stories, not that a new edition by a secondary publisher has been mistakenly added with changed contents.
    As to the sourcing, using an addition to make the claim it's a "first edition", etc, fails as No original research and Verifiability. The book is a primary not secondary source, and we should be using those instead. That's for the information in the tables concerned, and the block of unsupported text obviously needs to have some supporting info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    I understand your concerns as a theoretical matter, and appreciate the level of thought you've devoted to these issues. But in the context of this specific list I think the sourcing is reasonable, and I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information, so my !vote is to retain the page as an FL. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    We shall have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid: "I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information" is not the right standard to have for what is supposed to be our best work (in my opinion), particularly when it makes the level of sourcing for the rest of the article inconsistent. Thanks for your comments either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    @SchroCat: Actually, hang on, as I may have found a published bibliography we can use to add the sourcing you are looking for. I’m in transit this weekend but should be able to work on it tomorrow night or Monday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    That's great news. FLRC is a relatively slow process (for just this very reason), so the co-ords will, I'm sure, hold off for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

    List of UFC champions[edit]

    Notified: User:Gsfelipe94, User:Matthew0820, User:BEDofRAZORS666; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

    I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't see how this is one of the best lists we have to offer. When it was promoted it was already shaky (and the review cursory), and since 2007 it's just accumulated poorly written, poorly verified material...cruft. (Those flags need to go too--there's a consensus for MMA that indeed they must go.) This revert alerted me to the poor stage of the article: the writing is obviously poor. As for the sourcing, it's all Sherdog and a couple other MMA sites, basically, which I'm sure is fine for individual results, but not so much for prose and it doesn't look good. And then, prominently, there's File:UFC-Champs.PNG, some homemade and atrocious thing dominated by national colors (in a sport that has no national representation), with ungrammaticalities ("none weight limit") and a sexist set-up (male is the norm, "female" needs to be marked). No, I'm sure the list is fine for what it is, but it is not a FL. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Delist – In addition to the issues raised by Drmies, I don't see sourcing for most of the items in the tables of champions. There isn't even a general reference provided for the information. That is a disqualifier for FL status by itself. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - Giants2008 I don't know enough about FL status to give a confident answer, but could you cite the policy that excludes articles from FL for sourcing reasons? Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    Delist - Some tables are entirely unsourced, major work would be needed to find the citations needed. Mattximus (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)