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 FL criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Ones who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

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

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

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

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

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

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Michael Jackson videography[edit]

Nominator(s): Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I added a lot of work into the article way back when and have nominated it before, but after a while I added some things that were listed as reasons for not being promoted. Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Few thoughts
Reply to Akhiljaxxn: I am not sure what you mean by the first bullet. Are you saying I should add one or two sentences about those two in the lead or are you asking why I only have one or two sentences about then in the article? As for the section on television, I agree that it is quite small, but there is notch content from Michael Jackson on the matter. I would love more input as to what you mean better "compose" as it use to be a table and that was awful for one or two shows. Chase | talk 14:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
yes you should add one or two sentence about those three films/short movies.amd yeah you are right on section television.except above i mentioned the article definitely meets all of the requirements; I don't see why this shouldn't be accepted.support the nomination Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Kylie Minogue[edit]

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (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) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments
  • Minogue's image alt text is missing period.
  • The Telegraph in ref 17 should be linked to The Telegraph.
    Not this one. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    Oops, sorry my bad. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    Actually the source is from The Daily Telegraph. Damian Vo (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Impossible Princess (1997) saw the singer adopted a more --> "Impossible Princess (1997) saw the singer adopt a more.."

Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I resolved everything you mentioned above. Damian Vo (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • The image caption for the Kylie Minogue image does not require punctuation as it is not a complete sentence (excellent choice of image by the way).
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have two comments for this sentence (who also written and produced Enjoy Yourself (1989), Rhythm of Love (1990), and Let's Get to It (1991).). I believe that “written” should “wrote” in this context. I would also clarify in the prose that these are Minogue’s subsequent studio albums. I was a little confused when reading this and had to click on the links to see what this list was referring to.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (described as "a sophisticated, stylish dance record",), I would clarify in the prose who is doing the describing here. Was it music critics, fans, Minogue, someone from Minogue’s team, etc.?
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This portion (featured production and songwriting from Sia and Pharrell Williams.) requires a citation.
Added source. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (which heavily influenced by countryand dance music), it should be “was heavily influenced by”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (She went on to recorded), it should be “to record”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not certain about the use of the word “performed” in this sentence (In 1988, she performed "Especially for You" and the B-side "All I Wanna Do Is Make You Mine" with Jason Donovan.) as it could be misread that she just performed this song rather than recorded it. I would say something like (In 1988, she worked with Jason Donovan on the single “Especially for You” and the B-side “All I Wanna Do Is Make You Mine”.)
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would link “B-side” as there may be people out there that do not know what it means.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would use “side projects” rather than “side-projects” as I do not believe the hyphen is necessary.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (Kiss Me Once's title track and "Sexercize" were written by Sia) to (Sia wrote Kiss Me Once's title track and "Sexercize".) to avoid the use of the passive voice.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this list. It is very informative, and it makes me want to work on a music-related list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's it! Thank you for your kind words, I really do appreciate it. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Great work with this! I support this for promotion. Makes me want to listen to some Kylie Minogue music lol. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by No Doubt[edit]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating 'List of songs recorded by No Doubt' for featured list status because the list is complete, thoroughly sourced, and well written. Thanks in advanced to anyone who takes the time to review this nomination. Grazie! Carbrera (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC).

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would revise the ALT text for the image to be a little more specific about what the picture is showing. Also, the text is not entirely accurate as No Doubt is not performing in the photo.
  • For the lead’s first paragraph, I would link “compilations” to the article for compilation abum to specify what you mean by this.
  • I would split this sentence (In response to the commercial disappointment of their debut and being dropped from Interscope Records, the group produced The Beacon Street Collection (1995) by themselves and took influence from punk music, which differentiated the record from the "synth and new wave influences" of No Doubt.) into two as it contains a lot of information and is rather long.
  • I am a question about this sentence (Four singles were released, including "New", "Ex-Girlfriend", "Simple Kind of Life", and "Bathwater".). You say that four albums were released from the album and then proceed to list all of them. I am not sure the word “including” is correct in this context, as it implies (at least to me) that there are other singles and the following list is a just a few of them.
  • For this sentence (the songs featured on Return of Saturn are complex), what do you mean by “complex”?
  • For this part (originally sung by Talk Talk), I would use “recorded” instead of “sung”.
  • Do you think that you should include a sentence about Dreamcar at the end of the lead’s last paragraph?
  • Do you think that you should specify that No Doubt went on a hiatus primarily due to Stefani focusing on her solo career?
  • I would revise this image caption (Joe Escalante wrote the Christmas song "Oi to the World", which No Doubt recorded a cover of.) to (No Doubt recorded a cover of the Christmas song “Oi to the World”, which was written by Joe Escalante.”). I am not a fan of the last portion of the original caption (i.e. how it ends on “of”.).
  • Could you elaborate on this sentence (The group also has writing credits on several other albums.)? Do you mean that they wrote songs that were later recorded and performed by other singers? I am a little confused by this part (apologies if this is really obvious). Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • My only major problem with this article is the sourcing. I know that I made this same argument when you nominated List of songs recorded by Oh Land, but, outside of the liner notes, there are only five references, and three are to the same publisher. Three publishers (Allmusic; Billboard; BMG) is fewer than I would expect to see in a featured list. Are there any other sources that you could mine for information? For example, The LA Times discusses how No Doubt's songs revolve around love and heartbreak, and how Gwen Stefani's lyrics channel a female perspective. musicOMH describes the band's songs as "playful". MTV explains how a lot of No Doubt's songs are about Gwen Stefani's on-off relationship with Tony Kanal. There are almost certainly other sources that you may consider more appropriate.
  • Caption in the lead image isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating period.
  • "has recorded material for". Not exactly a dealbreaker for me, but by my count there are 112 songs listed in this article, so we could probably afford to be slightly more precise than just "material" in the opening sentence, e.g. "has recorded over 100 songs for"
  • "on other artists' respective albums"
  • "After forming as a group in 1986"
  • "influences of No Doubt." -> "influences of their debut." Again, not a massive deal here, but, as currently written, this sentence could easily be confusing for anyone who, say, uses a screen reader.
  • Per MOS:NBSP, stick a non-breaking space within million numbers, i.e. 16 million -> 16&nbsp;million
  • "Tragic Kingdom has sold 16 million copies worldwide". As of when?
  • "is considered one". Considered by whom? If it's a uncontroversially one of the best-selling albums of all time in the US, then you can get rid of "considered".
  • Did they spend three years working on Push and Shove? This confused me.
  • The second paragraph ideally needs a citation at the end of it.
  • "Rock Steady" needs to be below "A Rock Steady Vibe", and "New" needs to be below "New Friend" when the page first loads (because sorting them by name will put them in this order).
  • Album titles beginning with "The" need to sort under the first letter of their second word, i.e. B, R and S.

I realise that I've given a lot of criticism here, so, if you'd like to get your own back on me, my current open FLC is FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK). If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kanye West[edit]

Nominator(s): AlfonsoTheEditor (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is one of the most comprehensive musician awards pages, and has been completely updated since demotion from featured lists. AlfonsoTheEditor (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC) AlfonsoTheEditor

Older nominations[edit]

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2011[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone is familiar with these lists by now. Thirteen have been promoted in recent months, so here's the next one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

One simple question: Is it really necessary to link Billboard in every single ref? I guess everybody knows what Billboard is.--Lirim | T 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that works/publishers should be linked in every ref because the order of them could change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Having said that, I've noticed that in some/most/all of the other lists that have been promoted to FL, I haven't linked it every time. So I guess I'm not wedded to them all being linked. I am not fussed either way.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There's no hard rule about it beyond consistency- some people link every time because ref order is not fixed (as you state); some link only the "first" time (and generally don't try to keep that up to date...); some don't link publishers at all. --PresN 01:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Something about this part (which had held the top spot since the chart dated December 18, 2010.) reads strangely to me. I think that something along the lines of (which had held the top spot on the chart since December 18, 2010). Something about the word choice (“dated”) seems a little off to me.
  • For this part (This gave McEntire the 25th number-one country single), I would revise it to (It was McEntire’s 25th number-one country single) to avoid starting a sentence with “This”.

You always do such great work with these lists. I only have two relatively minor comments for this list. It definitely inspires me to go back to do a music-related list sometime in the future. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your kind words. I have fixed the issues which you raised, hopefully to your satisfaction. I will try to look at your FAC in the next day or two.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Javier Hernández[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 18:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In a burst of World Cup-induced mania last night, I expanded this list to a similar standard to fellow CONCACAF leaders Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey. A few of the sources are direct match reports, which I can replace if someone finds issue with them; otherwise, the rest of the sources are (mostly) English news articles. SounderBruce 18:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Quick comment all items that are linked in the sortable table should be linked every time. A lengthier review in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ranbir Kapoor filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Back to the FLC process after a big gap with another filmography list of an Indian film actor. I hope some of you take the time out to review this. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would add ALT text to the main image.
  • For this part (In 2010 Kapoor played a character based), there should be a comma between “2010” and “Kapoor”.
  • For this sentence (In Imtiaz Ali's musical Rockstar(2011) he played an aspiring singer, and in Anurag Basu's comedy-drama Barfi!(2012) he starred as a joyful deaf and mute man.), there should be two commas after the “in…” phrases.
  • For this part (earned over ₹2.95 billion (US$44 million), I would wikilink the currency.
  • I would add a reference to this sentence (In addition to acting in films, Kapoor has co-hosted four Filmfare Award ceremonies.) since everything else in the lead is referenced.
I have removed this bit from the lead, and added a sentence about his recent release. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this list! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for reviewing this. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Capital Bra discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Lirim | T 23:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this discography that I completely revised, expanded, and neatened up. I hope it meats the FL requirements. Lirim | T 23:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude | talk
"Capital Bra was awarded for sales of 400,000 records in Germany" - are there some words missing here? What was he awarded?
"of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" could enter the charts an number seventy-six in Germany" => "of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts at number seventy-six in Germany"
Related to that, it is standard to write chart positions as numbers, not words
In the first sentence of paragraph 3, refs need to go after punctuation, not before
"The album debuted on number three" => "The album debuted at number three"
"all of which debuted at number one of German single charts" => "all of which debuted at number one on the German single chart"
No need for the Austria column in the "other charted songs" table if no songs charted there
Note 1: "Capital Bra started his career under the pseudonym "Capital". His first studio album and a couple of single have been released under the name Capital" - singles should be plural, also is it possible to be more specific than "a couple"?
Notes 2 and 3 - CD should be in capitals
Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: – I hope I corrected all your concerns. --Lirim | T 08:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You still need to fix "of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" could enter the charts an number 76"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: – Fixed :) --Lirim | T 08:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I made a few minor tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:: – Thank you --Lirim | T 08:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak[edit]

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)
  • As you may have seen, I have done some edits on the tables on my own in accordance with the style of my discography Inna discography, which became a FL some time ago. Check them out and feel free to revert anything you feel like I've done wrong.
  • Capital Bra was awarded with two gold certifications for sales of 400,000 records in Germany. → Please remove this alltogether, because you're mentioning it throughout the rest of the lead
  • Please combine the lead paragraph with the second one
  • In 2016, Capital Bra released his first studio album → To avoid word repetition: "In 2016, he premiered his first studio album"
  • on the German GfK Entertainment Charts and number 61 on the Austrian Album charts → Remove the links and reword to: "...on the German and at number 61 on the Austrian album charts."
  • which debuted at number 1 in Austria, 2 in Germany and 5 in Switzerland. It spawned four singles, of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts, at number 76 in Germany → which peaked within the top five in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, spawning four singles of which "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts at number 76 in Germany.
  • In May of the same year, he released his second EP Ibrakadabra, which peaked at number 77 on the Swiss Album charts → In the May of the same year, he distributed his second EP Ibrakadabra to minor commercial success in Switzerland. (avoiding word repetition by listing chart positions for every release)
  • which was released in September of the same year → which was released three months later
  • The album spawned six singles → change "The album" to "The record" to avoid the repetition of "album"
  • including the gold-certified singles "Nur noch Gucci" and "Olé olé" → including "Nur noch Gucci" and "Olé olé" which were certified gold in Germany
  • I copy-edited the lead's last three lines by myself
  • Remove streaming audio as the format for all his albums; I haven't seen this format listed on any discography and don't think it is particularly relevant
  • "AUF!KEINEN!FALL!" needs to be reworded to "Auf!Keinen!Fall!" due to WP:SHOUTING
  • @Lirim.Z: This is first set of comments. More to come eventually. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: First of all, thank you for your time and for the small corrections. I hope I corrected all your concerns.--Lirim

With all my issues solved, I can now proudly support this for promotion. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Thank you very much. Lirim | Talk 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Deidaramonroe (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. Deidaramonroe (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Civilization media[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In my last stop in my series of FLs on video game developers/publishers, List of games by Firaxis Games (FLC below), I noted that they've focused pretty exclusively on the Civilization series since 2005. That, combined with the lack of a dedicated "media" list for such a long-running and expansive franchise, meant that I thought I could pull together such a list with rows pulled from the Firaxis list as a base. And so, here we are: 27 years of games, board games, books, and albums, for a franchise that didn't invent the 4X genre but is nevertheless considered the definitive version of it. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

Great work on the article. Here are some comments:

  • In the opening sentence, would simply saying "Civilization is a franchise composed primarily" suffice? This removes the repetition of "media" later on.
  • Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the rest, and the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. This is a bit of a mouthful in my opinion. How about changing it to one of these?
    • Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the sequels. Consequently, the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization
    • Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the sequels, with the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs including his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization.
  • Additionally, what does "formal titles" mean here? If it means the official titling of the series, then wouldn't this work better? the formal titles of the series, consisting of the core games and spin-offs, including his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. (this does not change the meaning of the next sentences, too)
  • Why does the article mention the months things took place in only twice? As a reader, I see no benefit from knowing that they took place in November of 2004 and 2005.

When these issues get resolved or I receive clarification (i.e. your proposal changes the meaning), I'll happily support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Dropped 'media' and the months, and reworked that messy sentence into two: Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of its sequels. The official titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. Thanks for reviewing!--PresN 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I have a comment about this sentence (Business changes resulting from the consolidation of the company in 1996 with Spectrum HoloByte, which bought MicroProse in 1993, resulted in Meier leaving the company to found Firaxis Games in 1996.). Is there a way to avoid using the words “resulting” and “resulted” in the same sentence?
  • I am confused by this part (Music album CDs). Shouldn’t it be either albums or CDs? I have never heard the phrase album CDs before, and I am not sure if the “music” part is necessary.
  • You currently have Linux linked in the “Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri” portion of the table. Shouldn’t Linux be wikilinked on the first instance in the body article (i.e. in the “Sid Meier's Civilization V” portion of the table). If you are wikilinking items that appear in multiple tables, then should they both be linked? I am just confused on the linking for this one.

These are my only comments; once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. It makes me want to play some Civilization lol. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Adjusted the sentence, made it "Music CDs", and move the linux link to the first instance. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help/input with my current FAC? Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Daniil Trifonov discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to Lang Lang discography, a FL, this article has a more engaging lead and is more detailed. Thank you for your consideration, Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Question - are the performances listed under "contributions" the exact same performances as appear on the earlier album? We don't normally include tracks which have been "re-used" on compilation albums in a discography (at least not in the pop/rock field)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Yes, indeed. The reason why I included them is that Lang Lang discography also did... I'm happy to remove the "contributions" from Trifonov's article if it is well-established policy not to include them. Zingarese (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the Lang Lang discography, the "contributions" there are what I would expect them to be - instances where he performed new music but it was on an album that was not credited to him. In the case of Trifonov the listed contributions seem to be instances where his record label put one of his already-released performances onto a compilation album (the equivalent of a pop singer having one of their singles put on a Now That's What I Call Music album or similar). I would not include these. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In the case of the Schumann and Brahms that is not the case, but the others, yes. That's my bad. I think I will remove the contributions from Trifonov's article. Zingarese (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Almost ready to support, but one last question - why are the refs in a smaller font size (or is it just my ageing eyes?).........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There was a missing {{refend}} tag, which I've now added. That's my bad! Zingarese (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Taking all the above into account I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

  • The article should start with {{As of}} – doesn't seem likely the "seven studio albums, three live albums, one video release, and one compilation" would be the end of the pianist's recording career, and without the {{As of}} the list could be soon outdated.
  • The list's layout, in particular the layout of its tables, seems quite problematic, at least on my screen. I'd suggest two tables (and only those two):
    • One table focussing on Recordings (separate columns for recording date, title of the work, number of movements–i.e. tracks–, composer (the composition's number in the composer's works catalogue can be included in this column), studio/live/video, recording venue, orchestra/conductor accompanying the pianist, ... ending in a last column that indicates in which album(s) the recording is included)
    • Another table focussing on Releases (Title of the album, type–CD/DVD/...–, when released, by whom, unique identification of the release –e.g. publisher's code or EAN–, accolades like chartings and other prizes)
  • I'd like somewhat more prose on reception.
  • Avoid editorialising (and other WP:WTW issues), e.g. "considerable" in "...received considerable critical acclaim..." – the nature of the acclaim is an interpretation: either such interpretation can be referenced to reliable sources, or, if such wording can't be sourced reliably, press reviews should be referenced individually, leaving it to the reader of the Wikipedia article whether or not that amounts to "considerable" (without using that word in Wikipedia's prose).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Thank you for your suggestions. As for the {{As of}}; most discography articles do not include it, even for artists who still have active recording careers (see WP:FL; Artist discographies). I will be sure to update the article when new releases arrive! :-) Also, after I nominated this article, User:EditorE added peak chart positions in the table; while a tremendously positive addition, it made the tables severely unreadible on smaller screens. I simply moved those to a separate table, and now, after some other tweaks, the tables are now very legible! I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright (it's somewhat subjective in any case) and did some tweaking on the remainder. Please let me know what you think! Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Daniil Trifonov discography#Compilations is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Video releases is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Live albums is a sortable table with three entries: to me this doesn't make much sense either. In Daniil Trifonov discography#Studio albums the table has seven entries, but since the bulk of the content is in unsortable columns one has to wonder whether the sortable table format makes any sense here too. For those four sections I'd drop the table format altogether (if the two-table suggestion I made above finds no approval).
Re. "I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright" – OK, but this clashes with my "I'd like somewhat more prose on reception" suggestion. I suggested more prose on that topic, not less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Coco (2017 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Coco is a critically acclaimed animated film that has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Brojam (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I've got is this: "The film has so far earned $806.6 million at the worldwide box office" - what date is that as at? The Box Office Mojo link already gives a higher figure than the one quoted here, so the quoted figure needs timestamping..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
In that case happy to support. I'll also take the opportunity to blatantly name-drop and say that many years ago I worked for a publishing house that published a book which Lee Unkrich wrote a chapter of and I had many conversations with him :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Lutheran denominations[edit]

Nominator(s): Bnng (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Between February and April of this year, I significantly expanded this list, more than octupling the size of the list (at least in terms of the byte size). The most significant improvements I made were 1) organizing the denominations into tables, 2) adding the year each denomination was founded, 3) adding the current membership of each denomination, 4) adding references (the list previously had four references; it now has 295), and 5) adding denominations that were not previously included in this list. This list should now include practically every active Lutheran denomination in the world.

Looking at the FL criteria in detail, I believe this list meets them all:

1. Prose - The list includes only a few short paragraphs of prose, but I believe these meet professional standards.
2. Lead - Short and to the point, but I believe it does define the scope of the list.
3. Comprehensiveness - I have done my best to include every active Lutheran denomination in the world. If it isn't completely comprehensive, it should be extremely close.
4. Structure - The division by international affiliation (LWF, ILC, CELC, and unaffiliated) has been in place since the list was first created. I think this division makes sense and makes the list easier to navigate. The ability to sort denominations by country, name, founding year, and membership should also aid in navigation.
5. Style - The list does have a number of red links, but after looking at a few other FLs, it seems that this is not necessarily a deal-breaker. Also, I intend over the next several (6–12?) months to create a series of "Lutheranism in (country)" articles, and to link each of the redlinked denominations to those articles. See Lutheranism in Angola for an example.
6. Stability - The only major changes in the past several years have been my edits expanding the list.

Although I think the list looks fairly good as-is, I would obviously be happy to make any changes others feel are necessary. Bnng (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I would give a date for the numbers. "As of January 2018" or something like that. Just giving numbers for a religion without giving a date is somewhat useless.
  • why did you use two "--" and not just one "–" (en-dash) or "—" (em-dash)?--Lirim | T 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, and my apologies for getting back to you so late; this past week has been a busy one for me. I have added a note to each of the tables indicating that the membership numbers are the most recently available numbers as of April 2018. Some of the sources I used didn't include a date, but I'm reasonably confident none of the numbers are more than a decade old, and I know most are less than three years old.
As for using "--" rather than an en- or em-dash, I believe I copied that from another FL. If you think an en- or em-dash would look better, I can certainly change it. Just let me know which you would prefer. Bnng (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The list looks fine, but I wonder if it could be improved by merging the tables and using 3-color backgrounds instead. Also, a world map could be nice, coloring where each of the 3 players is present. Also, a mini-section summarizing the 3+1 headers could also be better, so that way you can compare the 3 organizations a bit. Nergaal (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I initially thought about putting all the denominations into one large table, but I ultimately decided against it, for a few reasons. First, there are currently eleven church bodies that are members of both the LWF and the ILC (and that number is steadily growing), which would complicate a simple colorization scheme like the one you proposed. (Thanks for mentioning that idea, though; after reading it, I realized I forgot to add a footnote to those church bodies, indicating their dual membership.) Second, using a colorization scheme to indicate membership would not allow the readers to sort the church bodies by membership, which seems like a drawback. One way around this problem, and an idea I toyed with for awhile, would be to add separate columns to indicate membership in the LWF, ILC, CELC, and possibly also the World Council of Churches. This would show the dual membership arrangements very clearly and would allow the readers to sort the table by membership if they wanted, which are definite pluses. The downside is that it would make the table more complicated and a bit messy, and might make them too wide for easy reading on most computer screens. The current split into four separate groupings (in place since the list was first created) seems to me like a good compromise between navigability and conciseness. That said, if you or anyone else can think of a way to combine these tables in a way that avoids those pitfalls, I would love to hear it. I don't really like the fact that several denominations are duplicated in two separate tables.
I like the idea of including a map, and I'd be willing to put one together, but I'm not sure exactly how I would do it. In addition to the problem of denominations with dual memberships, many countries also have multiple denominations, some affiliated with the LWF, some with the ILC, some with the CELC, and some unaffiliated. I'm not sure how I'd include them all in a single map. I'm also limited by the fact that this is about the most complicated map I'd be able to create on my own.
Finally, I think your idea of adding a short section comparing the various groupings is a good one, and I will try to put together something to that effect either tonight or tomorrow. Bnng (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the Bharatiya Janata Party[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC) & Vanamonde

This is my 10th tryst with FLC and my first attempt on a politics related list. As always, hope to receive constructive criticism. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Yash, thanks for bringing this here. As the page creator, and the major contributor to the Bharatiya Janata Party page, I do wish you had asked for my comments before bringing this here: I'd have been willing to co-nominate, had you asked. Also, given that the first two paragraphs of the lead are basically copied from the main party page, you are required to provide attribution in the edit summary: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
    The first part of the lead is okay, but you've taken two paragraphs from the four-paragraph BJP lead, which makes it very choppy. I'll try to work on this tomorrow. I also think the summary of the contents of the list could be a bit more detailed; we should cover the fact that Rajnath Singh had multiple terms, for instance. Finally, the image licensing needs a check; I'm particularly uncertain about the licensing of the election symbol, because the copyright certainly does not belong to the person who uploaded the image. Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 My apologies. I wasn't aware of the fact that you are the creator of this list. I have added you as a co-nominator. Also, I will rephrase the sentences that have been taken from the parent article. And should we remove the election symbol then? Yashthepunisher (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the image. Let's wait for some other comments here, and if nobody can help clear it up we can ask Nikkimaria or some other image-licensing expert. I'll try to do some more work on the prose in a little while. Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
That image is no good, I've nominated it for deletion on Commons (And came *this close* to just speedily deleting it myself). Courcelles (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: I wonder if you'd do us the favor of checking the other images here. I'm a bit uncertain about a couple, particularly those from Narendra Modi's flickr account (those list NM as the author, but he's in most of the photos). Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
As those are derivative works of already deleted images, I've speedily deleted them. Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Much appreciated: do the others look okay? Vanamonde (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Just an FYI to anyone watching this: after some thought, I think the table could use prose for each entry, and I will work on adding this. Suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Links should not be bolded as per MOS:BOLDAVOID.
    Reworded. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The image is obviously copyrighted so please replace it.
    I've removed it; any replacement will have the same copyright problem. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You can link Prime Minister of India.
    Done Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A term like Hindu nationalism is too wide to be associated with the BJP. I think that the Hindutva is more appropriate (as BJP is not a far-right party like the Shiv Sena, and officially they call Hindutva as their ideology).
    True. The Hindu nationalism article is far too general to describe the BJP's ideology in any case. Link piped, as "Hindutva" is a technical term not widely understood, and is used virtually synonymously with Hindu Nationalism with respect to recent events by most reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You can add some blank space for those Presidents who don't have a pic on Commons. (have a look at List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party)
    Done. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Venkaiah Naidu 2 (cropped).jpg is a better pic for the VP.
    Done. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You need to add some more technical details about the post of BJP President: such that a single term consists of 3 years and one cannot have more than 2 consecutive terms. Use the BJP constitution as the source.
    Added details. Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Add the table caption. Bharatiya29 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    @Bharatiya29: I have addressed all your comments save the last, which I do not understand: please have another look. Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It is worth mentioning that Naidu went on to become the first VP from the BJP.
    He wasn't, though. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat was elected Vice-President in 2002, and had been a BJP member since the party's founding. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    Forgot about Shekhawat, my bad.
  • The allegations that were made against Gadkari turned out to be false; this fact should be mentioned to maintain an NPOV. Bharatiya29 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Bharatiya29: Do you have a source for that? I'm struggling to find one. It's particularly tricky given that he wasn't, as far as I'm aware, ever tried in court, so he couldn't have been acquitted; he was just forced to resign because of the controversy, whether justified or not. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    Gadkari was cleared by the IT dept. Bharatiya29 14:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Bharatiya29: I'm aware that Gadkari, unlike Laxman, was never convicted of anything (or even tried) so I'm amenable to mentioning that. But this source is really hot air, because the only substance it is based on is a statement saying "there is no enquiry/investigation presently pending". That's quite meaningless; and we would be verging on OR if we used it. Yashthepunisher Can you help find a better source here? Vanamonde (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    I think this matter is too vague to be included in the article. The current version seems okay to me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Commments by Sagavaj

  • Reference 8 looks incomplete and it links to further reading section. I don't know much on how to cite a book or publication but is that allowed? Reference 4 and 8 are pointing to same thing.
    Both the references are different pages taken from the same book. That is how we cite books. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In reference 7, BBC News must be italicized.
    Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In reference 6, there is no access date.
    Accessdates are not mandatory. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    But they are helpful...so I've added this one. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Prose looks fine but you didn't mention what is the normal term for the party president. Is he elected annually? Mention it if there's something like that.
    Added. Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion : Can you make either align the table to center or may be as suggested earlier in this discussion, fill it with some prose? It looks like table seems to be in a corner when the article is opened.
    Done, FTR. Vanamonde (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Other than those, it looks good to me. Sagavaj (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Good work. Happy to support this nomination. Sagavaj (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "As of 2018, it is the country's largest political party in terms of representation in the national parliament and state assemblies, and it is the world's largest party in terms of primary membership." This is dubious on several counts. 1. You say 2018 but the source is 2015. 2. A newspaper report of claims by party officials is not a reliable source. 3. I assume that primary membership means personal as opposed to through affiliated organisations, but the source makes no such distinction. 4. The article on the Chinese Communist Party gives a membership of 89,450,000, higher than that claimed for the BJP.
    Dudley Miles Thanks for your comments. This point is a bit complicated. 1) Yes, the source is from 2015, so I'll have to fix that. 2) While it's true that the source for this is likely to be the party itself, there is a source which makes the claim in it's own voice. 3) I've used "primary membership" simply because that's what most sources say. 4) The article on the communist party actually also says that the BJP is larger (in the body of the article) but more importantly, the BJP claimed to have hit 110 million a few months later [1]. Where does that leave us? I would be okay with attributing the claim to the party: "The party states that ... which would make it..." Personally, I think it's a meaningless statistic; you need to go through an application process which rejects more than it accepts to be a CPC member, but the BJP is actually soliciting members. So I'm not opposed to dumping that fact altogether, but I suspect that would lead to disagreement. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 UTC)
    Addendum: I've made the change to attributing the claim to the party, but I'm not too happy with the wording, as we're not being completely faithful to the source. Further suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • They got 170 million votes in 2014 and claim a membership of 110 million. That does not seem credible. I would state it as a claim by the party and leave out world's largest party, which is very dubious as you say. I am not clear why you think the wording is not faithful to the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that, and I've made the change. I was not too happy about saying "which would make it the world's largest" when the sources were saying "is the world's largest", but that's moot now. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A few words explaining Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Ram Janmabhoomi movement would be helpful for non-expert readers.
    I've added something, but the Ram Janmabhoomi movement is difficult to encapsulate in a sentence, so please let me know if more detail is require. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ram Janmabhoomi movement, an agitation to build a temple" Saying a movement is an agitation sounds odd. I would change to "which was agitating". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confused about the term 'Indian Union government'. Indian Union links to Dominion of India, but Union government links to Government of India. Does the word 'union' indicate that India has a federal system?
    Yes, India has a federal system, but the accepted term for the Indian government is "union government" (as opposed to "federal government" in the US). In retrospect, though, I think it's clear enough without that; so I've just removed the term. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What are 'party subsidiaries'?
    party subsidiaries are things like it's women's wing, youth wing, farmer's wing, minority wing, etc, etc. There's a very large number; I've mentioned two in the lead to help explain the term. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "National and State councils" - another term which assumes the reader knows the BJP structure.
    I'm not sure what to do here. These are National-level and state-level councils, with members drawn from a variety of sources, and serving a variety of functions. I could remove the terms and just say "drawn from representative bodies within the party"; would that be better? Or would you prefer a longer description of these councils? Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would just add "party" before "National" and that will make clear that they are BJP bodies. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah I see the problem now. Done. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "RSS". Abbreviations should be shown first in brackets after the full name as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
    Done. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You say the term is three years, but early presidents appear to have served five years.
    My understanding is that the first two leaders served two terms of three years each. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Advani " has been the longest serving president covering three terms". But he served two periods of five years and one of one year, which would mean more than three terms of three years. Maybe better to say "three separate periods". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In general, I think this article assumes too much knowledge of the BJP in readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    I'm happy to hear more suggestions on how to make it accessible. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: I think I've got everything; let me know if there's anything else. Thanks for the review. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments by BeatlesLedTV
  • Add alt text to pics
    Done
  • Table needs scope rows
    Done. Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You have individuals who have took office multiple times as their original number in parentheses. I find this odd but if other editors are fine with it then leave it.
    Agree. Removed.
  • 'References' → 'Ref(s)'
    Done
  • and reverted, before I saw this comment, but why use an abbreviation when the full form doesn't cost anything?
  • Is there a pic you can put at the top? Such as the election symbol?
    Added one. An earlier one was deleted because of some copyvio issue.
  • Instead of the 'took office' and 'left office' cols, couldn't you just use one 'term' or 'time in office' col, or something like that?
    Done
  • Might wanna check these links out
    Fixed links. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything else looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Thank you for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Support – Good with me. Great job to both of you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

List of Sunrisers Hyderabad cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): Sagavaj (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this contains entire statistics of players who played for Sunrisers Hyderabad and I have created this list from scratch and would like it to become a featured list. Sagavaj (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments
  • Remove the Telugu title of the team, per WP:INDICSCRIPT.
  • I'd suggest you to place the references at the end of the sentences.
  • Alt text missing of Sangakkara's image.
  • Last three references should be properly formatted.
  • Replace Twitter with a better source.
  • Be consistent with the way you write the date and accessdates.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Howdy. I have addressed all the issues presented above. Cheers. Sagavaj (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs[edit]

Nominator(s): exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was originally submitted 13 years ago in 2005, and only failed due to some minor, since-fixed issues. This list has gone far beyond that and is a very comprehensive and useful index of some of the Sun's nearest neighbors in the Milky Way. Plus, with the release of Gaia DR2, it's most likely 100% complete to the scope described in the lead. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

60-second scan review: The lead has a bunch of grammar problems and is just kind of messy; it really needs to use much more plain language to explain why the definition of "within 5 parsecs" can be fuzzy. I mean, you don't link parsec, go off on arc-seconds and stellar paralax without saying what it is or what it means in this context, it's not until the 3rd paragraph that you say how many stars are in the area even though that's half the point of the list, you start off with "the following two lists which a) they're tables, not lists and b) lists haven't started out like that for over a decade, you don't need to predefine what your sections are going to be about.
Having only recently seen List of nearest exoplanets finally make it through FLC with a lot of back-and-forth on the lead: A large amount of the readership of a list about "what are the nearest stars" is going to have only a passing understanding of astromic terms. The lead needs to be written in a way that guides these readers in to the big points (how many stars/systems, why we count stars that aren't within 5 parsecs but look like their future motion takes them inside the line, etc.) and briefly explains the technical details that go into making those determinations.
As to the 1st table, 2 fast changes: drop the system/star "number" columns because it clutters things up without clearly adding anything, and make the first three columns 'system name'/'star name'/'distance', not 'distance'/'system name'/'star name'. Distance is a property of the star/system, the star is not a property of the distance. Oh, and you can't use just color to distinguish something per WP:ACCESS because color-blind/blind/sight-limited readers can't get it. For stellar type it seems to be decorative and gives the same information as the text in the cell, but the brown/blue coloring isn't. (also, it's not clear what it means even if you can see it- please use a key, like at List of nearest exoplanets. --PresN 02:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Also: please add the FLC template onto the list's talk page, or else this FLC will not close correctly when it ends. --PresN 03:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I can probably manage to fix all that by tomorrow. Stay tuned? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I've left this at the article's Talk page as well, but I object to removing the rank "#" column. I think it provides needed context. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall:@PresN: Okay, I updated it to the best of my ability/judgement based on your inputs. To add a few things, I support removing the number as it is somewhat redundant to the distance. It could give context, but I feel it is not particularly significant. Additionally, I attempted to clarify some of the definitions and explanations in the lead (please tell me how I did on that) although I feel that the distinction of a list/table and the exact phrasing of the lead is getting slightly into semantics and doesn't affect the actual quality or readability of the article in any major way. Furthermore, while the spectral types are indeed redundant and therefore don't present a significant loss for colorblind users, as someone familiar with color blindness, brown, light beige, and light blue should be distinct enough from one another as to be easily distinct from one another to even 100% color blind people. Again, please let me know if my additions and concerns are reasonable & justified or not. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd support renaming that column to something other than "#" (possibly "Rank"? Or "No."?) but I don't support removing it entirely. Also, it looks like the list has been switched to "small text" (e.g. "font-size:90%), probably in attempt to "fit it to a screen", but that should not be avoided as much as possible on WP:ACCESSIBILITY grounds – it is "allowed" in this particular case, as per WP:FONTSIZE, but in general it's not a good idea. In fact, in general, I suspect this entire table is problematic on WP:ACCESS grounds – I'm not sure there's a way to fix that, in this case... --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • In the first line you give parsecs first and then light years first. You should be consistent. This shows up when you switch back to parsecs in the second paragraph, with the result that you give two different criteria for stars close in the past, 5 light years and then 4.9. Below you say 5.1.
  • You do not define astronomically near past or future in the lead. This should be given.
  • "The second table additionally lists stars" Additionally to what? If to the first list then the word is superfluous and confusing.
  • "Determining which stars fall within the stated range relies on accurate astrometric measurements of their parallax and total proper motions" Presumably proper motion etc only applies to predictions, not to the first list.
  • "only nine exceed 6.5 apparent magnitude, meaning only about 12% of these objects can be observed with the naked eye" I assume you mean that 6.5 is the limit for normal vision, but you should clarify this.
  • "first-magnitude stars" You link to List of brightest stars which does not define first-magnitude.
  • "Gaia DR2 astrometric results" What is Gaia DR2? You also mention 13.8G, and on a quick look I do not see a definition of G in the linked article.
  • If predictions thousands of years ahead are not accurate, what is the point of giving them for 15 million years?
  • " 694 solar-like or cooler stars " What is the point of the qualification "or cooler stars". Why exclude hotter ones?
  • The last paragraph of the lead is not strictly relevant but would be interesting if it did not have so many unnecessary technical details which mean nothing to the layman.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean it as an excuse or a valid reason, but most of your issues are due to nothing but the inevitably convoluted editing and conflicting views of a large number who have written the article, which I am almost scared to touch for fear of reawakening one or both sides. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The article will not pass FLC unless you are WP:Bold and fix problems. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that other people have been involved in writing it, but this is your FLC- take a deep breath, rewrite the whole lead without worrying about what other people have done before, and then let other editors make tweaks if they want. If they fundamentally disagree with any changes, then they can be discussed/adjusted. --PresN 15:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I remember this having a short table showing THE closest star in the past and future. Can this be added back in? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Exoplanetaryscience: Are you still engaging with this nomination? --PresN 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'd gotten onto some other projects and had somewhat forgotten about this. Will see what I can do! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Azerbaijan international footballers[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked to improve the article and believe it now meets the FL criteria. I have based the page on my recently promoted List of Wales international footballers page. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - the only thing I can see is an issue around the use of "all-time". When the words are used in a phrase like "the all-time top goalscorer" then it needs a hyphen, but in something like "the top goalscorer of all time" then it doesn't. Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I get what you mean, I've made some amendments to the page to hopefully fix the issue. Thanks for your review. Kosack (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The caption on the lead image doesn't need a hyphen.............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot that one was there. Fixed. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Prior to this, Azerbaijani players had represented the Soviet Union national football team. They played their first official international match..." the "They" here could be confused as the last team mentioned is the Soviet national team. - Done
  • Could you add dates when the team formally became members of UEFA and FIFA? - I've included the years, I don't have exact dates though.
  • "233 international matches since their debut, winning 45, drawing 62 and losing 127" I think that adds up to 234? - Done
  • Image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop. - Done
  • I had to look this up - earned is far more common than earnt (although the latter is technically also correct, but it reads REALLY odd to me). - Done
  • "UEFA European Football Championship" drop "Football" from this. - Done
  • "Statistics sourced from: [5][13][14]" remove space. - Done
  • Awkward question: how do we verify the players who are still "current"? In the same way with the Wales list, I don't think it's possible to definitively say who is retired so all active players are classed as still eligible. Luckily the RSSSF list helps to denote who is still playing.
  • Don't use hash for No. - Done
  • And why isn't that column sortable? Again similar to the Wales list, the number and cap columns are essentially sorting the same thing so it seemed unnecessary to have them both sortable.
  • You don't need Azerbaijan national football team as an external link, it's already linked in the lead.- Done
  • What makes eu-football.info RS? Not to say it isn't but I've not seen it before. I'm unsure of the publisher of the site but I know it is used in a number of football articles and WikiProject Football includes it in its recommended links
  • "FIFA recognised match" should be FIFA-recognised, or alternatively, "not a match recognised by FIFA".- Done
  • Avoid spaced hyphens, e.g. ref 5 should use a spaced en-dash in the title, not a spaced hyphen.- Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks very much for the review, I think I've addressed all of the issues above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 10:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a former FL which was demoted because of the fact that it was highly outdated. However, that is not the case now and I believe that the list should again be promoted to FL status. Bharatiya29 10:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - "The second list includes all those players who were brought by DD but they did not play any match. They are also initially listed alphabetically by their last name" - I can't see any such table...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed Bharatiya29 13:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Comments
 Done
  • Is "CricketArchive" a RS?
It is used as a source in many featured cricket lists and articles. I don't see any reason to not consider it a RS.
  • I would suggest you to delink Delhi in the opening sentence, per WP:OLINK.
 Done Bharatiya29 08:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and it is in the same format as FLs such as Suffolk and Northamptonshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments I think this is the seventh such list I've reviewed, and each time I find fewer things to correct. Some minor changes include:
  • Linked all as I understand this should be done in sortable lists. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • wording from: "The cliffs have fossiliferous rocks dating to the Cretaceous between 99 and 86 million years ago, and they are historically " to "... 99 and 86 million years ago that are historically..."
  • I was not happy with my wording and I have revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • careful with Latin species names, the genus should be capitalized and the whole word italicized, see: limax tenellus, grilis pannonicus, Volucella inanis, crossocerus cetratus, crossocerus styrius, crossocerus distinguendus, stratiomys potamida, erioptera limbata, agonopterix putridella, cratoneuron filicinum, Homo Heidelbergensis (only first is capitalized)
  • "has three nationally rare plants" or "There are five rare invertebrates, including three bee species"... when giving specific small numbers (such as 3), I think it's best to list. If it's too many then it's ok to omit. Your call here.
  • Done first but not the second as NE only specifies some of them. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • no need to capitalize last glacial period
  • Done. (I am doubtful as it is the name for a period but I see the article on it does not capitalize.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • link Equisetes lyellii

Mattximus (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support and great work on this project as a whole! Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I just wish the main image wasn't so low-res/grainy, but otherwise the list looks great. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. I am away on holiday but will look at the image issue when I can. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

List of certified albums in Romania[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of work into it, and I think it meets the required criteria. The lead may seem very short and trimmed, but I can't see any solution on solving this problem (if it will be considered a 'problem' for FLC). We don't have plenty of supportive links on the internet to expand the lead, and if I would expand it by citing e.g. artists with the most certifications, this could be easily considered unnecessary or even WP:OR. As for the "N/A" here and there, I believe it's still in good limits, as some things just weren't announced and I needed to note that somehow. I would appreciate some comments. Best of regards Face-smile.svg; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mattximus[edit]

  • Featured lists no longer begin with "The following is a list of..." as this is tautological. You can also expand the lead by defining what each category means. Mattximus (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Hi there! I've reworked the lead sentence and added two lines about what each certification stands for. Hope I could solve your concerns. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z[edit]

Resolved comments from Lirim | T
  • Can you maybe give a table, showing how the certification levels were lowered over the years, like here?--Lirim | T 17:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: Hi there! I've been looking forward to do something like that, but I soon realized after hours of research that no such data has ever been published online. It's clear that the certification levels have changed in time, but UPFR never made statements about when exactly they changed or to which number they were each lowered. Thus, I sadly can't do such a table on my own, as the information is missing and because it would be running at the risk to be classified as original research. Is this a major issue? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It's somewhat of an issue, but you could point out that there isn't reliable information on the certification levels.--Lirim | T 21:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: I added a note on the subject matter; I hope that was what you were meaning. Btw, I saw you're German (Ich bin nicht deutsch, lebe aber in Deutschland :)) Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: The list seems complete, I checked some sources with google translate and they looked alright. The lead is good, not to many pictures, the table looks alright too. No problems, good list.--Lirim | T 21:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)
  • There's a few points in the lead which do not read quite right to a native English speaker. I have re-written it below and suggest you use this:
Since the early 1990s, over 70 albums have been certified in Romania in accordance with the certification levels set up by the Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (UPFR).[2][3][A] These have been repeatedly lowered due to decreasing album sales in Romania primarily resulting from heavy music piracy; this led to fewer certifications being handed out from the late 2000s onwards compared to previous years.[4][5] To date, Cleopatra Stratan's La vârsta de trei ani (2006) is Romania's highest-certified record with a triple diamond award for 150,000 units sold.[1][3] Andra and Sandel Mihai were also awarded a diamond certification for selling 60,000 copies of their 2007 album De la frate la soră.[6] Over the years, further certifications have been handed out: gold (ranging from 2,000 to 100,000 units sold), double gold, platinum (ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 units sold), double platinum (100,000 copies), triple platinum and quadruple platinum. More to come when I have a bit more time......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed! Thanks for the suggestion and waiting for more... Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The only other thing I can notice at the moment is in the photo captions. in the top two, it should be "Holograf (lead singer Dan Bittman pictured)" rather than "Holograf (pictured lead singer Dan Bittman)". And in the Ellie Goulding caption you don't need to put "(pictured)" at all because there's nobody else in the picture so it's obvious that it's her........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed this as well! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I missed one unnecessary "(pictured)" so just removed that myself. All other concerns addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man[edit]

Comments quick run through.

  • Lead is too short.
Please give some suggestions on how to expand the lead. This may sound odd, but there is not such a wide coverage of this subject on the internet, so adding controversial facts (or similar) will maybe not be possible. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "albums have been certified in Romania" doesn't need to be in bold. If I add that into the search box, it doesn't redirect me, it's not an alternative name for the list.
Fixed Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why "over 70"? It should be "more than 70" if you keep it vague, or else you could simply add a {{As of}}.
The "As of" formulation seems a bit strange to me in this context, so I changed "over 70" to "more than 70". Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You certainly can't say "to date" because that depends on when someone reads it. See WP:ASOF.
See above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a major issue here, most of the items in the list aren't even linked, let alone have articles. Is this actually a list of non-notable items?
You can't say that the items are non-notable, they rather just don't have their own articles on Wikipedia. In fact, nearly all albums are by notable Romanian artists with their own Wiki pages. Also, each record is notable itself, as it has sold an outstanding (at least in the Romanian market) amount of copies to be certified gold/platinum... by the UPFR. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If you haven't done so already then, link the Romanian Wikipedia articles using the {{ill}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Holograf (pictured lead singer Dan Bittman) have won a total of three Gold certifications " all text inside parentheses should be italics. And Gold shouldn't be capitalised.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Artist names for soloists normally sort by their surname.
 Done with Sortname template. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref col shouldn't be sortable.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know why this isn't one table with the certification as an additional column.
I think the article has more of a structure this way than if it was all thrown together in an endlessly long table, but I can change it up if you think that's a better solution. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it would be "endlessly long" because you'd just add about 50% to the length. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "triple Platinum" no capital P.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've answered to your comments so far. Thank you for your time! Face-smile.svg Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Any thoughts about the article after I finished working on your comments? Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: The article already uses interlanguage templates, but I've put the tables into one as you suggested. I hope this is what you meant. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from A Thousand Doors[edit]

  • "officially" is an easter egg. Either that sentence needs to be rewritten (i.e. to explain what Monitorul Oficial is), or the link to Monitorul Oficial needs to be removed.
 Done Removed the link. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; you can still mention Monitorul Oficial in the lead. I've added it myself – please correct or remove if I've made any errors. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we know which was the first album to be certified? Presumably it was Atât de singur – was it ever certified gold, or did it go straight to platinum? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@A Thousand Doors: We technically don't know which album was certified first, but Atât de singur is the only one I've found to win an award in the pre-2000 era (at least for now). Also, it seems like it was certified platinum straight. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

  • There is no reason to have so many N/A in the table. Took me 3 minutes to fill in like 5 of them. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your edits! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

List of England Test cricket records[edit]

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

After the successful promotion of List of Australia Test cricket records, I have given the same treatment to the list of Test records for the old enemy, England. As always I forward to your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In the Most consecutive career matches section, Cook broke the record when he played in the second Test against Pakistan. Please update. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Joseph, thanks very much for your comment. This has been updated as well as all of the other records now that the second Test against Pakistan has concluded. If there is anything else please let me know. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Joseph, the list has updated as per the TRM's and Jenny's comments below. Please let me know if you have any further comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Note [a] should really go behind "a period of five days,".
  • "several English records" -> "several England Test cricket records".
  • "Making his debut in 2006, Cook has" -> "Making his debut in 2006, he has" (no need for the quick name check).
  • "He has scored a record ..." as he's a current player, you probably need an "as of" here.
  • Same comment applies to Anderson.
  • " played as English skipper with 59" needs to go first in that sentence since it's probably the most prominent record of the lot.
  • " his debut at 49 " -> "his Test debut at 49"
  • Caption -> "holds several English Test records." -> "holds several England Test records."
  • I have used the demonym "English" throughout the article. I know the article is titled "England Test records" and the parent article is titled "England cricket team" but that is to comply with the naming convention that states that the demonym is not used. But surely these are English Test cricket records, no? Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhat torn on this, the principal issue being the vast array of England players who are not actually English. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Upon reflection, I have made the changes that you recommended. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "England has played 999 Test matches resulting..." again, as of. Maybe the list needs an "as of" at the top or maybe embedded per my suggestions above, and then in the key section.
  • I have added the "as of" at the start of the paragragh and in the key – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The table following only shows 998 matches.
  • Where are the Test cricket record entries specifically referenced?
  • Every Test record is referenced at the end of the blurb before the table, was there one in particular that was missing? – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "England by wickets.[69][57]" citation order.
  • Individual records - the text for each table seems to focus on people who aren't England players. It reads very curiously to me. Perhaps (by all means) mention the top in the history of cricket for context, but then you need to focus on the England Test cricketers.
  • "Most runs in a series" if you're going to have the Series column sortable, I would do it chronologically, rather than purely by text.
  • Great catch TRM! I have sorted chronologically all four series records – runs, wickets, dismissals and catches – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Jim Laker image is fair use and can't be used here.
  • Same applies to Evans' image.
  • Switched out for image of Matt Prior – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since you have multiple images of Cook, probably worth dating them in the caption, i.e. (pictured in 201x).
  • Rhodes image, he wasn't 52 at the time, about half that much, so perhaps that needs noting.
  • Shouldn't "laws of cricket" be Laws of Cricket?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, thank you so much for the review. All of your comments have been addressed. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi The Rambling Man, thanks again for the review, I have addressed the one outstanding point above. Please let me know if you have any further comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Ian, firstly thanks for the massive work compiling these lists. I've made a few small changes for you to please check. I have been through every one of the 154 references, comments and suggested tweaks follow. There are also a number of questions to help me appreciate some of the aspects of cricket/refs that I don't quite understand. Sorry for the length:) but your clarifications will aid my support and also any future reviews.

Lede

  • wlink to Full Member isn't jumping to intended section - needs lowercase m here or cap M on target section header?
  • "Since then they have played 999 matches..." - not really 'since' first Test match, that'd make 1,000 altogether. Maybe 'since then they have played another 998' or 'including that match they have played 999'?
  • The most prolific wicket-taker for - wlink isn't going to intended section, capital D needed
  • The most prolific wicket-taker - maybe add bowler to differentiate wicket-keeper wicket-takers?

Key

  • Opponent - only the first table uses Opponent, thereafter it is Opposition

General comment - eg "is in third with" should be "is in third place" or "is third" or "ranks third" ie if using "in", "place" is also needed.

Noted – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Team records

  • Greatest loss margins (by 10 wickets) - should Victories column be Losses?
  • "England's narrowest win by runs was against Australia in the second Test of the 2005 Ashes series at Edgbaston. Set 282 runs for victory in the final innings, Australia were bowled all out for 279 to give victory to the hosts by two runs.[53]" - ref 53 wrong one here? should be 51?
  • "This was the equal third-narrowest win in Test cricket" - was the second narrowest win?
  • Fixed. This and the point above was a carry over from the Australian list which I must of missed. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Individual records, Batting

  • Highest individual score -"Matthew Hayden of Australia set the highest Test score with 380" - add where when who? (Lara's has)
  • Most double centuries - Alastair Cook total runs 12099 - update to 12145 per other tables
  • Most double centuries - maybe blurb could say 'four England players have achieved double centuries" (just so it doesn't look like a 5th has been missed?)
  • This ref only shows those players who have scored three double centuries. I have added the seven English players have scored two double centuries which are all placed equal fifth. Unfortunately, Statsguru doesn't show overall career figures with double centuries (only centuries). I can isolate them out with this ref but this only shows the span and runs from those innings where the double centuries were scored. So I have added a separate column citing their ESPNcricinfo profile pages for their career span and runs. If and when Root goes on to score his third double century all of this can be reverted. In the meantime I will email ESPNcricinfo requesting Statsguru to be modified. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Caption "Wally Hammond has scored the most double centuries for England with seven and holds the record for the most runs scored in a series with 905 runs during the 1928–29 Ashes series.[87][88]" reads as if the most runs in a series is overall. Insert 'for England' after 'in a series'
  • Most runs in a series "Alastair Cook's 766 runs scored during the 2010–11 Ashes series ranks in 13th" - 14th?

Individual records, Bowling Most career wickets

  • Ref 93 confirms Muralitharan taking Warne's record achieving 709 but not being now on 800. Add ref 94 again?
  • "second only to Australia's Glenn McGrath with 563 as the fast bowler with the most Test wickets" - I can't see where ref/s talk of Anderson and McGrath being fast bowlers this and this do
  • It is shown in this ref "Type of bowler (by style) pace bowler" – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Worst figures in a match - why Salisbury and Tate not equal 2nd rank - are overs taken into consideration?
  • Yes, overs are the differentiator in this case. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Best figures in a match, blurb I'd refine "and the runs conceded in two innings." to "over both innings"

Wicket-keeping records

  • Most career dismissals "ball has touched the striker's bat or glove holding the bat" - ref 124 why doesn't Law 33 mention glove? (same Law used as ref at Fielding records, Most career catches)
  • Ah yes, this is covered in Law 5 which states that the hand or the glove holding the bat shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat. I have this added this ref to both sections. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Individual records, Fielding records

  • next to the wicket-keeper, on the off side of the field - off side linking to article called leg side on side?
  • Most slip fielders are top order batsmen - my curiosity - why? can't see that in ref 135
  • Worst figures in an innings, "The worst figures by an Englishman is 0/169 that came off the bowling of Tich Freeman in his final Test appearance" ref 114 only confirms date last Test? Needs scorecard also for figures? (even though ref'ed in table).
  • Also re Tich, worst figures 'is' or 'are'?
  • Should Englishman be England player? (this is similar I s'pose to TRM's concern?)

Other records

  • Most consecutive career matches - Knott and Botham =3 should be =2?
  • Youngest players - ref 144 (I can't access CricketArchive) but the archived version is for youngest Aust'n players?

Partnership records, Highest partnerships by wicket

  • English batsmen hold three Test wicket partnerships records, all set within the last ten years. - 'last ten years' will age, reword? all set since 2010 or similar?

Umpiring records

  • Most matches umpired - Aleem Dar from Pakistan who has stood in 117 Test matches - his page now updated to 119. Need to insert 'as of' for someone still active?
  • Most matches umpired - lots now changed per ref 154, Gould now has 67 so 3 x mentions of Dickie Bird need updates.
  • Kettleborough now 52 equal to Llong.

Flags to check

  • Greatest win margins (by 10 wickets) - table, South Africa flag
  • Bowling, Worst figures in an innings - table, South Africa flag
  • Bowling, Worst figures in a match - table, South Africa flag

Daggers

  • Broad needs dagger at Other records, most career matches?
  • Bell gets no dagger as not likely to get selected again?
  • Haseeb Hameed - no longer Test player?
  • Not currently playing Tests, so yes no dagger – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Adil Rashid - hasn't played a Test since 2016 but has a dagger

Misc Ref bits

  • Ref 1 - Nicholson, Matthew (2007). Sport and the media, better url p26 here?
  • Ref 23 Ireland’s Test cricket debut, Fox - needs date of pubn May 11, 2018
  • Ref 73 Brownell, Frederick Gordon - authorlink
  • Ref 90 Williamson, Martin glossary - can't see where the date 17 April 2007 comes from
  • Ref 109 Pervez book, gbooks says publisher Universities Press, is that same as Orient Blackswan
  • It is actually published by Sangam Books, updated both refs
  • Ref 135 Selvey, Mike - authorlink

That'll do for now. I may have some further questions. Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, thank you so much for your thorough review, truly a herculean effort! I have addressed each of your comments above. Please let me know if you any further concerns. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi again Ian, I have been through and checked each of your changes. All spot on. One only minor comment...
  • Where you mention Cook "has scored over 12,000 Test runs, the only England player to do so." and "the only England batsman who has scored more than 10,000 runs in Test " - he's actually only one to have scored more than 8,900 though I don't know if it's worth tweaking.
I am very happy to now add my support. Thanks for your attention to my queries. I've learnt lots! Maaarrrvellous:) Regards, JennyOz (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jenny, very much appreciated. I hope you learned one or two things about the old enemy :) Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support now all the changes have been made. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Coahuila[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This list is modeled cloesly after two successful Mexican municipality nominations Colima and Aguascalientes, keeping similar format and sourcing. I believe it meets featured list requirements but I am very open to any suggestions for improvement. This list is part of a greater goal of creating a featured quality list for all municipalities, adding to my previous 18 promoted lists of municipalities of North America all using standardized formatting, making them look more consistent and encyclopedic. Thanks for helping me on this project. Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • No need for bold link to Coahuila (if that's happened in the previous 18 FLs, they need to be fixed too!)
  • Strangely enough it was the only one that had bold link... fixed  Done
  • You have two different piped redirects to the same article in one sentence, which isn't brilliant for our readers.
  • I can see that, however I can't think of a way around it. There is only 1 article that lists both the states by population and the states by land area...
  • I see what you are saying, but I wonder about a reader who wants to see which states are the largest by area, they will not know they can click on the list of states by population to get this information unless it is linked twice. Hmmm... Is there a way to resolve this?
  • You could add some information about first/latest to incorporate in the lead as well, since that information is in the table. Done
  • Probably also worth discussing the population change in general since that's in the table too yet not discussed in any way in the lead.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I thought about this, saying something like the state is growing faster than Mexico as a whole, or finding the average growth rate etc, but really the list is about individual municipalities, so generalizations for percent change are not super useful to the reader. For example, a small town with a growth rate of 50% is less significant than a large city with a growth rate of 10%, so it really depends on the row you are looking at in the list itself.
  • This was about the incorporation dates, not the rate of growth. Unless you've got your "done" ticks the wrong way round? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes my mistake, I've moved it to the proper location, and switched the "done" to the correct spot. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestions! I will add the date line to the other lists for consistency. I made 2/4 suggestions and commented on the other 2 for your consideration. Thanks again The Rambling Man! Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • On the surface this works for me since I'm more familiar with first past the post terminology as well, however the source uses "plurality" and there are technically a few kinds of plurality that are not first past the post, and I'm not 100% certain that it is first past the post in local Mexican elections.
  • It is not an issue for this article but it is curious that the Mexican lists are in Category:Lists of municipalities, but not the US and Canadian ones.
  • They appear to just use topic boxes instead (which I actually prefer), whereas this one uses both (I personally find the category link at the bottom to be a bit redundant and ugly compared to topic boxes). I kept it since I had no good reason to remove some other user's work.
  • I find both useful and always use them. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll keep both for all of these lists of Mexican Municipalities. Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The dagger for state capital should be on the municipal seat, not the municipality.
  • It's the whole municipality that is the "state capital", the seat is the site of government for that municipality, which likely but not necessarily overlap.
  • For consistency, you should give the date of the name change of Guerrero, as you do with the other ones. Done
  • In note 4, you only give the second half of the book title.
  • Interesting find! I did some digging and it looks like google books has the title wrong, here is the official title: [2]
  • Thanks for your review! If any of my replies are not satisfactory, I'm happy to revisit and make appropriate changes. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla Cricket Stadium[edit]

Nominator(s): Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This article rightfully deserve to be renominated. Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi TRM, with no activity from Ikhtiar H since the nomination was posted, I have addressed all these issues. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: ^^ --PresN 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This list should be topical and it would be nice to have it polished up by the time the next tournament starts. I think it should be a fine FL but if you think otherwise feel free to leave any feedback or take a stab at the list. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The title should be List of FIFA World Cup top goalscorers like List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers and most other lists
    • I personally dislike having "List of X" if just "X" works fine. I prefer tighter titles. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd think most lists could work with "X", but we really ought to go with consistency and WP:LISTNAME; I'd guess most the plural form sounds odd to most since so few articles do it that way.
        • I personally prefer without "List of" simply because it works well without it. If other reviewers think otherwise I'd be fine with moving it. Nergaal (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Why does the table in the lead say >50, ≈100, etc? Shouldn't be too difficult to have an exact number.
    • There are exact numbers, but some sources imply there are say 55 footballers, other say 54. Since under 5 goals FIFA does not seem to have a good official record, it's not very clear which source is accurate. For that, and since those numbers tend to change quite a bit every world cup, I thought it's an overly detailed number to give versus how reliable it is. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fine then, though is List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers validate one of those sources, at least for the 4 goals?
There is a single ref that seem to give the exact number for 4 and I think it's precise enough to be reliable. Initially the number for 4 was precise, but just for the sake of consistency with the other sub-5 (not listed in this table) I removed it. I'll plug it back in. Nergaal (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "In total, 60 footballers came from UEFA (Europe), 26 from CONMEBOL (South America), and only 4 players came from elsewhere:" is not parallel.
Good catch
The second "came" should be removed to be fully parallel since it was left out in the second part.
Changed. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "more goals at all the games played at the World Cup as Stábile" -> "thank Stabile"
fixed
  • "in 1970, and broke" no comma necessary.
fixed
  • "and 1970, and Jürgen", same, unless you put a comma before "with"
fixed
  • "A total of" is extraneous.
Agree, but I dislike starting sentences with numbers, seems weird to me. Any idea how not to start with a number and not use extraneous words? Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it sounds perfectly fine just to spell the number out but you could do "Across the 20 tournaments, 29 different footballers..." Note 6 also uses it midsentence, especially unnecessary with "overall" right afterward. Note 7 says "Seven different players", but I don't think seven of the same players is possible. Reywas92Talk 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Switched it. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Except for 2010, all the top goalscorers won the Golden Boot." 2010 is a year, not a goalscorer. Reywas92Talk 18:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Changed it. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Reywas92: Thanks for all the feedback. I fixed most of them and left some replies to the others; let me know what you think. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Article is getting updated significantly with the 64 matches occurring right now. I was hoping to have this done before, but since it didn't get much feedback, maybe suspend it? Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This list is great.--Lirim | T 22:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - according to the description on the image file, the picture alleged to be of Stabile is not in fact him at all - can you clarify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed that picture altogether now. It did look a bit too high res to me when I put it, so it being a reenactment makes sense. Nergaal (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK)[edit]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I've really ummed and ahhed over nominating this article. Do I really want to be known as that guy who literally spent his free time writing a Wikipedia article about sexy women? Well, whatever, I think it's basically at FL standard, so why not? The layout of this article is largely based on NME's Cool List (currently a FL). I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

  • list needs a section on those present multiple times in top10. Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Does the article really need that? I'm not convinced, I'm afraid. I can maybe see including a section on who has featured in the most Top 100s, but why just the Top 10s? If some other source listed that information, then I'd be okay with including it, but, as it is, I'm concerned that it skates a little too close to original research for me. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp[edit]

Resolved comments from Freikorp (talk)
  • Some kind of coverage on people who have been listed multiple times (regardless of whether it's top 10 or top 100) would be interesting. However, it's not the kind of thing I would withhold support over.
  • Added into the prose that Kelly Brook has been listed in the Top 10 more than anyone else. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Subsequent winners included the Russian tennis player Anna Kournikova" - Is there any reason why Anna is mentioned in the lead? I mean, as opposed to all the other people who have won. I get mentioning the first and last winner, and I get mentioning Berry and Lopez since there's some commentary about their wins. Mentioning Anna for no apparent reason seems a bit selective to me.
  • I guess it was a bit selective. I just picked her because I didn't want it to seem like only Brits and Americans had topped the list. Now replaced with Cheryl Cole – is that any better? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly this seems to be much of a muchness; now I'm wondering why Cheryl Cole is being mentioned in the lead considering there doesn't appear to be anything unique about her entry either. I won't withhold support over this though.
  • I was thinking that she's the only other person to top the listing more than once. I've added a note to clarify this. Thank you for the support, Freikorp! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Lopez was the first to top it more than once" - Is she still the only person to have topped it more than once? This should be clarified to the reader.
  • Couldn't find a decent way to work this into the lead, so have added a note at the bottom. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since Kimberly Stewart has her own Wikipedia article, I see no reason to introduce her as Rod Stewart's daughter in the lead
  • "former features editor" - just clarifying this is correct? I note it could be but thought it may have been a typo of "featured" also
  • I've rewatched the documentary that Daubney featured in, and the on-screen title introduces him as the "Features editor". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 'FHM also occasionally published a "Most Eligible Bachelorettes"' - I wouldn't say they published it occasionally, i'd say they published it for two consecutive years.

Looks really good. Will be happy to support this once minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors these comments have been here three or so weeks without any response, would you like to address them or should I archive the nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for my absence, comments now addressed. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks great overall. Happy to support this now. Freikorp (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks great overall. Happy to support this now. Freikorp (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Support although it's worth clarifying why Cheryl is mentioned in the lead (second multi-time winner). Until you realise that, it seems a bit random that she's picked out for special mention.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support, Chris. I've added a note to the lead to clarify this – is this an improvement? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

  • In ref 1, 23 and 34, FHM is piped to a redirect.
  • Make sure all the images have alt text.
  • I think their should be a caption for the FHM image.
    • I had considered this, but the only caption that would be appropriate would be something like "FHM logo". But the image is obviously a logo, and it says FHM, so it seemed to me that a caption like that would be a little redundant. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak[edit]

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)
Lead
  • Cheryl Cole used only "Cheryl" as her stage name now, so this should be revised
  • is the actress Gal Gadot. → Maybe it's worth mentioning her nationality
  • to celebrate qualities such as "talent, star quality and cash" → quotes in the lead always need a citation
  • To commemorate the 10th → numbers under 11 should be written out, so it should be "tenth" here
  • two one-off charts → this is vague a vague term
  • to recognise the sexiest women up to those points → you should somehow clarify that the lists were decade-end and all-time charts, respectively
    • I can't find any decent way to phrase that. How would you write that sentence? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I really don't know either lol, but that's not that relevant, I think. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Rachel Stevens → nationality
  • The image of FHM's logo shouldn't be used in this article per WP:FUR, which implies that logos should only be used in the articles about the organizations (in this case magazines) they belong to.
    • According to the licensing description for this image over at Wikimedia Commons, the logo doesn't meet the threshold of originality, since it consists only of simple geometric shapes or text, so it can be used in Wikipedia articles. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you sure the final printed issue was distributed in January 2016? The FHM article says it was in December 2015; just asking...
History
  • The first 100 Sexiest Women list was published in 1995, and was compiled exclusively by a panel of 250 judges; the German supermodel Claudia Schiffer topped the inaugural list → To avoid word repetition: The first 100 Sexiest Women list, compiled excusively by a panel of 250 judges, was published in 1995 topped by the German supermodel Claudia Schiffer.
  • with its companion issue → what is a "companion issue"? Maybe I'm dumb, but I never heard of this term
  • Porter was placed at number eight in the chart → Porter was placed at number eight in that year's chart (to further clarify which year we're in)
  • The first person to top the 100 Sexiest list more than once → Why is there no "...Women" anymore?
  • nationality and occupation of Jennifer Lopez
  • Link "Anna Kournikova" and "Halle Berry"
  • the most successful poll to that point → how do you define "successful" here?
  • Brook has been featured in the Top 10 → Brook has been featured in the top ten
  • the androgynous model Andrej Pejic → I think transgender is a more well-known term for readers (for me as well)
    • This is obviously a delicate issue. At the time, Pejic wasn't identifying as female (not openly, at least). She was working (and was promoted) as an androgynous male model, so none of the sources at the time described her as transgender. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe the nationality of Pejic is relevant
    • Hmm.... "androgynous Australian model" or "Australian androgynous model"? That seems like one too many adjectives to me. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • when the entry's accompanying blurb → by "blurb", do you mean something like a paragraph about the nominee? If so, then please reword this if possible
100 Sexiest Women winners
  • Cheryl Cole is known as simply "Cheryl" nowadays, so that should be revised
  • Also, Beyoncé Knowles is known as only "Beyoncé"
    • In both these cases (and others), I've listed the top tens based on how the women were known at the time (e.g. Louise Nurding until 1998, Louise Redknapp onwards; Cheryl Tweedy until 2006, Cheryl Cole onwards). This is how the women were named in all the sources detailing that year's list. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Most Eligible Bachelorettes
Anniversary lists
  • to mark the anniversary of the 100 Sexiest Women → plural, since there were two anniversaries
  • published a list of the 50 sexiest women → better wording: "published a list ranking the 50 sexiest women..."
  • On learning the result, she remarked: "To win this award feels absolutely amazing. ... It's brilliant." → This winning reaction is not really relevant to the article and should be removed
    • I dunno, I just felt that it provided some context to how the winner felt about receiving the honour, and therefore was somewhat relevant. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Notes

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@A Thousand Doors: After my issues have been solved, I'm ready to support this list for promotion. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of works by Ursula Le Guin, an author whose fiction I have done considerable work on. I am confident that it is comprehensive, and uses the best sources available. This is, however, my first foray into FLC; I'm sure there are formatting and style points I could use help with, and I would appreciate patience in this respect. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Courcelles: I'm willing to give it a shot. The question to be decided, should we use a table, is the number of columns/amount of complexity in a table versus the number of tables overall. I'm not keen on reformatting it many times, so here is how the Earthsea section would look, if I tried to make the entire fiction section a table. Is this what you're looking for? How could it be improved? When we're happy with formatting for this one, I'll apply that format to the rest of the entries. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Courcelles: Since you've been active, I just want to make sure you've seen this. If the table formatting here is okay, I'll apply it through the page; otherwise, let's try to find a better option. Vanamonde (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • SOrry, just plum missed this on my watchlist and in a flood of pings. I'd move "sources" to the end and rename it something like "footnotes" to distinguish it form "sources" or "references" in a literary sense as to sources or references in the works... Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Courcelles: No worries. I've tried out your suggestions; how does it look here? I'm honestly still a bit concerned that the table overall is aesthetically not pleasing, but if that's convention I'm willing to roll with it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not particularly aesthetically pleasing, but it brings in sortability. IMO, we should wait for another reviewer to chime in. Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure. As I said, I'm a FL newbie, so I'm willing to set aside my formatting preferences. Vanamonde (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better formatted as a series of sortable tables as well. Sorry, I know that makes extra work... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I'm quite willing to put in the work, but I'd rather not do it multiple times; so, what do you think of the formatting of the Earthsea section [here? If we can come to a consensus on that, I'll implement it through the article. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Courcelles and The Rambling Man: Apologies for my tardiness. The entire page is now in the suggested format. Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles and The Rambling Man: Apologies for a second ping, just a quick reminder...Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
One last niggle, the tables need row and column spans to satisfy MOS:ACCESS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for examples. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Do you mean that all entries for a certain year should be have a single "year" entry, as in the example? I'm uncertain if that's going to work well here; first, because we have month of publication for some entries and not others; second, because the vast majority of sources sort Le Guin's works as I had done in the non-table version of this list; as in, first by series/setting, then by format, and only then by chronology. I'm willing to be persuaded though. Vanamonde (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Nope, not what I mkeant at all, what I meant is much simpler, see my two edits; I did the first three for you as explanation. Courcelles (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Ah I see. Is this to make the entire row sort together? Syntax isn't my strong suite...done, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks right, it's actually for screen readers that we use the row scopes, nothing to do with sorting. Courcelles (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • "and standalone novels and short stories" too many run-ons here.
    Done
  • "She was primarily known for her works of speculative fiction." I would revise this and make the first sentence say "known primarily from her works of speculative fiction, but also for....."
    Well...there's a tiny bit of controversy over this, because some scholars, and Le Guin herself, resent her being pigeonholed as a Sci-Fi-Fantasy author. Hence this construction.
  • "critics such as" more than one? Could you perhaps name another?
    I could, but after re-reading I decided to flesh that out and reorganize a little bit.
    There's several scholars who say the same or equivalent things, but none of them are notable in their own right, and
  • "notable other works" in what sense "notable"?
    In retrospect, this isn't required.
    After further reflection, modified the wording.
  • Title column sorts by punctuation (i.e. all titles with " in them sort before all titles without " in them).
    Should be fixed.
  • I've never heard of chapbook, it's not mentioned in the lead but appears in the table frequently.
    Added and linked in lead.
  • Time of first publication column doesn't sort correctly.
    Fixed (almost...any ideas on how best to deal with months+years would be welcome).
    Now fixed completely.
  • "First edition publisher" should be "First edition publisher/publication".
    True. Done.
  • ISBN numbers are preferred with hyphens.
    I looked into this. It looks like hyphenation doesn't work the same way for all ISBNs, and for a large number of them, there's no hyphenation in the source. These work, and are standardized; surely its preferable to have this than partial hyphenation?
    Yeah, there's no major issue. I use the guidance at WP:ISBN and also the ISBN converter tool at ISBN.org to get the latest and greatest formats. It's not going to stand in my way of support, but something to perhaps consider in future efforts. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Sortable tables need linked items to be linked on every instance as the table can be reordered and there's no guarantee that the linked item will appear first.
    Done, I believe

That's a first run. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've addressed some points; I'll get to work on the others. Vanamonde (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I'm (almost) done with your comments, perhaps you could take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Assuming I'm not forced into retirement overnight, I'll take another look tomorrow morning and let you know where I stand. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Glad to see you're still around; wondering if you've had a chance to have another look at this. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 yup, I'm a Jedi, plain and simple. I'll try to get back here either very shortly (I'm waiting to fly) or later this evening once I've got the kids to bed. Sorry for the delay, but once a marked man, always a marked man. Sorry for the delay. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Don't mean to be a bother, but one last ping. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Yup, still on my list but just too busy for detailed stuff at the moment, been travelling extensively and haven't really had a chance to sort my life out. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries, just making sure it wasn't forgotten. Vanamonde (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm satisfied this meets the FL criteria. 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Cheers, Courcelles. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, although given that she was American should the reference to an upcoming publication in "autumn 2018" not read "fall 2018"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've changed it to read "late 2018", which is accurate but neutral vis-a-vis ENGVAR. Vanamonde (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments. I haven't reviewed at FLC before, so let me know if I ask for something that's not part of the criteria.

  • Any reason why you don't include omnibus editions such as Earthsea? You include short story collections, which similarly include work that has been published before.
    The trouble I had with this list is that there's just so many variants of Le Guin's work, and I didn't want to be reduced to listing every edition, because several of the more popular stories have been published in too many omnibuses (omnibi?), and I don't see that our readers are served by listing them all. The definition I've come up with at the moment is "all collections that include material not previously published in book form" (as the lead says). I'm happy to discuss this if you don't like it;
    That seems reasonable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There's nothing actually wrong with saying "New York City" in the "publisher" column, but it's not the usual style, which would just be "New York".
    I remember a series of edits made a while back via bot/script which changed all the "New York"s in the "location" field to "New York City"; so I've stuck with that since.
    OK -- I don't like it myself, since standard bibliographic sources don't do it, but that's just personal preference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What criteria are you using to determine which non-fiction to include? For example, you are omitting introductory matter such as the introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness which first appeared in the 1976 Ace edition.
    Since she's written a large quantity of non-fiction in a variety of publications, at the moment only things mentioned in commentary about her writing. Again, there's an edition issue here; very many of her books have been reissued, and I'm quite certain a number of them have introductions that are new. The TLHOD one is just the best known.
    Limiting it to just items mentioned in commentary about her writing (and I see I should have paid attention to your definition in the lead) is tricky because you can't be sure you're comprehensive on that basis. I won't oppose on that basis, since I'm a newcomer to FLC, but to verify comprehensiveness you might consider looking at the reviews of her non-fiction listed at the ISFDB. For example, The Wave in the Mind was reviewed by Gary K. Wolfe in the June 2004 Locus; does that count as critical commentary? (You can see reviews listed in the ISFDB at the bottom of the title entry for each book.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, fair enough. That said, she's written 50+ essays outside collections, as far as I'm aware, and many of these are not really essays (They're letters to the editor and such). They're also in marginal publications. I think even attempting a full list is impractical. How would you suggest doing this?
    I think it depends on the purpose of the bibliography. If the goal is to make sure every single thing she wrote is listed, then the ISFDB is the model. I don't think that's necessary here. If the goal is to list all her fiction, and all her non-fiction that is of critical interest, then perhaps review commentary can be excluded. I don't quite see how you can ensure comprehensiveness without reading all the relevant critical commentary, though; I know you've read a lot about Le Guin, but can you say you've really done that? I don't know how the FLC requirement for comprehensiveness is interpreted, so I'm not sure how much this matters to this nomination -- for example, is it OK if you miss something out because you haven't read, e.g., Barbara Bucknall's or Joe De Bolt's books on Le Guin? More entries can be added later, after all, once someone reads those books. Or is that not acceptable to FLC? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Mike Christie: You're right in saying that while I've read a lot about Le Guin, I can't claim to have read all the commentary (I doubt there's anyone who can; it's extensive, and being added to constantly). I've thought about this some more, and I think it's fine to leave it as a partial list. It seems clear that a comprehensive list is not only difficult, but impossible, because Le Guin wrote such a lot in publications that ranged from scholarly journals to private publications which never went on sale. I've skimmed some other FLs, and it seems that partial lists are not uncommon. I'm going to ask SchroCat for a second opinion, as the person who brought Winston Churchill as writer to FL status: that list only includes collected speeches, presumably for a similar reason. SchroCat, thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You might consider giving alternate titles, such as A Very Long Way From Anywhere Else, in the Notes column.
    Done, I think; I'll keep an eye out for others.
  • You give 1977 as the date for Nebula Award Stories 11; Lloyd Currey's Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction gives the year as 1976; the first edition is actually the UK hardcover from Victor Gollancz. I can give you the full biblio details for Currey if you want to cite it; it's the most authoritative work on sf and fantasy first printings, but unfortunately it only covers up to about 1978.
    Yes please!
    The cite is: {{Cite book|title=Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction and Selected Nonfiction|last=Currey|first=L.W.|publisher=G.K. Hall & Co.|year=1979|isbn=0-8161-8242-6|location=Boston, Massachusetts|pages=}}; the title page gives the author as "L.W. Currey, with the editorial assistance of David G. Hartwell" -- not sure how you might represent that. I think I might just ignore it. The Le Guin biblio is on pp. 304-306. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Actually, the SFE entry does list the 1976 publication, and it's already used as a reference. But if it contains information about illustrators, that might be useful. Would you mind taking a look? The illustration information on the early Hainish works is fuzzy.
    Sorry, there's nothing about the illustrators in Currey. What specifically are you looking for re the Hainish books? Are you looking for the cover artists? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    No I'm not keen on cover artists; every book has one, after all, yet they're rarely notable and rarely findable. The issue is that I have seen both ISFDB and other sources occasionally refer to cover artists as illustrators, and I do want to list illustrators. No worries if there's nothing in there.
  • The essay collection Dreams Must Explain Themselves appeared in book form in 1975 from Algol Press, prior to the edition you list.
  • Have you cross-checked with the ISFDB bibliography for completeness? Looking through their list of short stories, for example, I see one titled Dragon of Pendor which you don't list; I don't have this so can't tell if it's an excerpt from one of the Earthsea books, as it appears from the title it might be. I think you're also missing Direction of the Road, one of my favourite Le Guin stories, as another example. The ISFDB includes things such as excerpts from other works, which I don't think you need to include. You could also check the ISFDB for illustrator information; for example, the Capra Press Buffalo Gals was illustrated by Margaret Chodos-Irvine.
    I found no evidence that "The Dragon from Pendor" was anything other than a reprint of Chapter 5 of Wizard. I'll look into the rest.
  • ISFDB gives November 1970 as the publication date for Quark/1, and I have a print reference to back it up if you need it (Mike Ashley's Gateways to Forever).

I think the layout and organization look good. I've listed a couple of fixes above, but my main concern would be comprehensiveness, based on a quick comparison to the ISFDB finding one or two apparent omissions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Here's one problem with ISFDB. They're often right, but occasionally wrong, and would not qualify as an WP:RS. Thus often the only way to verify obscure details from ISFDB is to check the original work, which is difficult, to say the least. I'll give this my best shot (I had done a sweep of ISFDB, but clearly it wasn't thorough enough) but I might end up pinging you to ask about original versions quite often. Thanks for the review. Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I've asked about the ISFDB at RSN in the past; see here, for example. I think it's reliable for what it does list, though if it omits something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The quote at that discussion from SFE3 seems to me a strong endorsement from a trusted source. My use of the ISFDB has made it through FAC at least once or twice, so I think you'd be OK using it to fill gaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A couple more points on another look:

  • No date on the magazine issue for "April in Paris" or for "Legends for a New Land"
    Fixed in one case; there really doesn't seem to be a more specific date for "Legends for a New Land".
  • Suggest giving publisher and location for the cited anthologies such as Again, Dangerous Visions.
  • You're inconsistent about ending the notes with a full stop.
    Now fixed.
  • You're not consistent about using locations with the publishers in the footnotes and sources; they're not required but they should be consistent if you're going to use them.
    Done in all but two cases, one where it's unknown (World Cat doesn't know, the book doesn't say) and another which is an ebook.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a note to say I'm watching this; it looks like you're still adding material so let me know when you're done and I'll go through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)[edit]

Notified: Sceptre, Doctor Who WikiProject, Television WikiProject

This probably falls into the category of a procedural nomination. Some time ago the Doctor Who serials list was split in two, and both articles currently have the FL star. I brought this up on FLC talk a while back. That discussion produced a general consensus that only the list with the 1963–1989 serials should remain an FL (pending a recommended review), and that this list should have its star removed since it is more likely to have unreferenced additions and other issues than the one with the older serials. However, WP:FL only includes this list, not the 1963–1989 one, which is the opposite of what the FLC talk page discussion recommended. My opinion is that this list doesn't meet the criteria anywway, as the lead doesn't appear to have much to do with the modern series, among other issues. I'll create a nomination for the community to review, but I recommend a speedy delist here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Delist As the splitter of the article to the 1963–1989 and 2005–present articles, I support the removal of the FL status. When the article was a FL, it was a completely separate list of episodes from the season articles anyways, not transcluded from those articles. I believe that it could be renominated, but as for now, it doesn't conform to the guidelines. -- AlexTW 03:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree with assessment above, also contains outdated language such as "The following table..." etc. Mattximus (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office[edit]

Notified: Arctic.Gnome, WP:Canada

This is a very old nomination that doesn't seem to pass modern standards. Firstly, it is a wp:cfork of List of Prime Ministers of Canada. The table can easy be tagged at the end of that list, and would make that FL nicer by providing a way to sort ministers. The referencing is also very, very thin, containing things like "He was only in power during an election campaign, making him one of two prime ministers, and perhaps the only one, who never served as a Member of Parliament or Senator during any point of his tenure as prime minister" that are neither referenced, nor decent examples of featured content. Nergaal (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • This nomination has received no attention at all, so I suggest it's closed as stale, some seven weeks later. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. The referencing is very poor. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Referencing is pretty light and prose needs some work. Definitely would not pass today in its current form. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not an FLC regular, but I concur that the referencing is not good enough for a piece of featured content; I cannot judge the rest. Vanamonde (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)