Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 {{ArticleHistory}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  • Disambig links
  • Edit count
  • External links
  • Alt text
  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:

Nominations

List of international cricket centuries by Kane Williamson

Nominator(s): Vensatry (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pushing 27, Kane Williamson has plenty of records under his belt. I've modeled this list based on existing FLs. Look forward to comments and suggestions, thanks Vensatry (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Rise Against

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Major pop stars like Katy Perry and Rihanna seem to be getting all of the attention when it comes to Featured song lists, so let's try to change things up by bringing in a rock band (as a side note, no offense to the editors who work on pop articles, you guys seriously do some awesome work with heavily trafficked articles). Anyway, this song list is a bit different from previous Featured song lists, as you might be able to tell quickly. However, I believe that it does its job well, and meets all of the necessary requirements. Famous Hobo (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Ivy

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite never really receiving the attention they deserve, American indie pop band Ivy creates only the finest of music. I have worked on all of their articles over the past two years and have just completed this list (which I began working on in December 2016). I am submitting it to reviewed as a competitor in the 2017 WikiCup. I believe it satisfies the FL criteria and have no doubt that it will eventually become a featured list. Thanks to all who may help me achieve this. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would revise the first sentence to avoid the repetition of the phrase "has recorded".
  • I would rephrase the second sentence to as follows to make the flow a little bit stronger (Formed in 1994, the musical trio consists of Dominique Durand, Andy Chase, and Adam Schlesinger.)
  • I would clarify in the lead that Lately is an EP.
  • Could you clarify this part (a disappointment for their record label)? Was the record label disappointed in the sales or just the general product?
  • The phrase (including by the group) seems a little odd and forced into the sentence. I would recommend trying to find a way to more seamlessly incorporate this information into this sentence.
  • I would remove "all-covers" as you say "cover songs" later in the same sentence so it is a little repetitive. Do you think it would also be beneficial to include a link to cover version for the phrase cover songs?
  • Just a clarification question, but is there any current news on the band? Their last song was released in 2011 so I was just curious if they disbanded or retired? It may be helpful to include a brief sentence about this at the end if this information is available.
  • I really enjoy this band, and "Edge of the Ocean" is one of my favorite songs of all time. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Hope these comments help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I believe I addressed your concerns. Regarding any current news, their official site has pretty much been obsolete since 2012 and considering they've never been too popular, I can't find anything regarding their current status as a band. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to review this. Also thanks for the kind comments on my talk page. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; your final comment makes sense, and I assumed that this would be the case but I just wanted to make sure. It is a shame that this group is no longer recording music, but it is pretty nice to get as much as we got from a relatively obscure indie group. I support this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Oh, and "Edge of the Ocean" is a great song. Carbrera (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

List of secondary school sports team names and mascots derived from the indigenous peoples of North America

Nominator(s): WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria, documents a category relevant to other articles, but could use the attention of other editors. WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment this could have the longest title of any FLC ever. I'll review shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I know we don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but each of these claims needs a reference. Also, a lot of non-free images used illegally here. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. There is a ref for almost every sentence in the opening section, so I need to know what is missing to fix it.
  2. Some images are needed to illustrate meaning that is poorly conveyed by verbal descriptions. I think this is a valid fair-use argument since the images are already in use on WP to illustrate the articles on the schools.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed two non-free images, will write fair use rationale for two others.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not the lead that needs referencing, it's all the rest of the list. Also I noticed some external links within the main body of the list as well, those need to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I will look for the external links and convert them to refs. There are refs when available for questionable items, but I do not understand any need for the vast majority; this would indeed be citing that the sky is blue.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow. How do I know that Chieftains play for "Nashoba Regional High School, Bolton, Massachusetts"? The school is not even notable enough for its own article? That's hardly blue sky citing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
A search for Chieftains in the database MascotDB.com lists Nashoba Regional High School. This source needs to be an inline cite for each school?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
For sure, as I said, this is definitely not a case of citing that the sky is blue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget to include publishers (or works) in the references you add. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Question The scope of this page seems a bit vague. Is it just schools in the United States and Canada? What reference is used to show completeness? By the way, very interesting topic. I just did a quick google[1] search and found high schools in Ontario with the name Eskimos, Braves, etc not included here. Mattximus (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence "Among the categories of names for sports teams in North America, those referring to Indigenous peoples are second in popularity only to the names various animals" defines both scope and importance. The completeness for Canada may be lacking, since the sources listed in External links are for the US.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, then I must oppose based on grounds of incompleteness with respect to the scope. Mattximus (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the list is complete and stable for the US, but narrowing the scope would increase the already lengthy title.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
North America and the United States are almost the same number of characters. Mattximus (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It would have to be "List of United States secondary school sports team names and mascots derived from the indigenous peoples of North America" in order to include teams in the US called Eskimos and Aztecs.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Urmila Matondkar filmography

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 13:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the extremely underrated Urmila Matondkar is one of the most beautiful and versatile actresses of Indian cinema and one of the few actresess who can really dance. I think the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 13:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997
  • "box-office hits" can be replaced with a better phrase.
  • Cant' India TV, Koimoi and Book My Show citations be replaced with better ones?
  • Are all of the YouTube links free from copyright infringement?
  • Citations should appear at the centre of the column.

More later on. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Skr15081997: Done. Koimoi is not suitable to cite box office figures, so. I had to use IndiaTv and other sources because there are no better sources available and, yes, Youtube links are fine as those are the official distributors of the respective films.Krish | Talk 08:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • critics public alike --> critics and public alike
  • Source for Satya being 1 of the greatest films?
  • possessed woman can be linked
  • the 1947 partition of India, simply the partition of India
  • Needn't link the Filmfare for Ek Hasina Thi
  • Sort the roles column by last name
  • Either link RGV at all instances or merely at the 1st mention.
  • Why list her awards and noms in the "Notes" section when there's a separate page for that?
  • Her TV presence deserves mention in the lead.
  • In Ref 5, News18 shouldn't be italicized.
  • I understand that the 90s film cast list are hard to find, but you can use other sources to cite the newer ones instead of Bollywood Hungama. 54 out of the 76 citations are from BH.
  • Are all of the character names cited? --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Skr15081997: Done with most of the things. If you didn't see the same News18 source lists greatest claims. I have worked on several FLs and all of them have awards listed in the notes section and no one sorts character names. Coming to your other queries, I would like to say that I wasn't even able to find that "recent" film Shabri article on any major Indian movie database (which aren't any apart from BH). Plus, her tv career boasts of forgotten tv shows and she has never been known for her tv roles or work, so I don;t think it requires a single mention in the lead.Krish | Talk 17:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ever wondered why {{DEFAULTSORT}} is used in articles? Please check a few of the recent FLC promotions and you will realise how common it is to use {{Sortname}} or {{Sort}} in the tables. If you are mentioning the important awards in the lead and there's also a separate page (Awards and nominations received by Urmila Matondkar) then I don't see the need to let them clutter the notes column. I just checked Google for "Jaanam Samjha Karo" "Chandni" Matondkar site:rediff.com and it shows a 3 April 1999 article. What I mean is that BH sources can be replaced with others if necessary otherwise the list relies heaving on it. You can check Ajay Devgan filmography. She played a cameo in Shabri so a name for her character wasn't really necessary for the story. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Skr15081997: Okay, so I have sorted the character names. But I don't think I will remove the awards, which is listed in every Bollywood awards list. What I wanted to say about Shabri is that the reviews don't even mention Urmila's appearance.Krish | Talk 10:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, leave out Sabri, if that's really hard, at least work on the others. There are still 54 uses of BH sources. Yashthepunisher has raised the same concern. --Skr15081997 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I would be careful with the phrase "accomplished dancing skills" in the second sentence of the first paragraph as it reads like a fan wrote it. According to the source cited, the actress "is known for her dancing", which does not translate to "accomplished". I would also specify the type of dancing that she is known for if possible, as dance is a rather diverse field.
  • I am still not completely sold on your second sentence. I appreciate that you have removed "accomplished", but I do not see anything in the source that support that her beauty helped her to gain popularity. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Tweaked.Krish | Talk 17:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would rephrase "acting skills" as it reads rather informal to me. I would simply say "Apart from acting" or something along those lines.
  • I do not believe the "Later" transition in the first paragraph is necessary, especially since the date of the film is cited.
  • I would simply say (1983) rather than (1983 film) for consistency.
  • Something sounds very wrong with the phrase "her adult role debut". I would revise this as it makes me think of an adult film (a porn film).
  • In the sentence about Rangeela, I would rephrase it to avoid the repetitions of the word "success". Also how did this film in particular mark her "successful" transition from child actor to adult actor? I am not quite seeing the connection.
  • I have tweaked a bit. Well, I have heard that her Rangeela success was equivalent to that of Kate winslet's Titanic. The film was a craze and so was she, her looks and her costumes.Krish | Talk 08:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • While I understand your point, I would just remind you that all of this should be supported through citations. If you want to put this information in, then you must have a citation that fully backs it up. I think the sentence looks much better now, and it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The film Satya is not on the list article (List of films considered the best) linked in the lead. In the same part, you say that Satya has been cited as one of the best film in Indian cinema, but the source cited says "a modern masterpiece, perhaps one of the best films of the last decade". I do not think that translates to what you are saying in the lead. I would honestly remove this part altogether as this is a rather large claim that is not fully supported, with the author of the original source even further contextualizing this with "perhaps". Again, it raises some concerns with POV/language from a fan's perceptive. You could replace this part with information on the role she played in the film instead.
  • This does not appear to have been addressed. Also Reference 4 is dead and needs to either be replaced or located through a website archive. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 4 is an archive. So how it could be dead? It's working fine for me.Krish | Talk 17:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • For some reason, it was not working for me at that moment, but now it is fine. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "box-office hits" is rather informal and I would recommend revising it.
  • I would revise/rephrase the transition "These were followed by a" as it reads rather awkwardly to me. I would use stronger language here instead.
  • I would revise the prose for the third paragraph as a majority of the sentences rely on the same sentence construction (i.e. she plays X role in X film).
  • According this page, her last film was in 2014. Did she retire or provide a reason for her absence/hiatus from acting? I would recommend adding something to the end of the last paragraph to address a reader's potential question on her recent activity. I even went to the person's main page to make sure she had died or anything like that as there is a definite cut-off point in terms of where she stopped acting altogether.
  • Well, this is Bollywood. Bollywood actresses are punished for ageing (40s) unless you are married to a notable actor, director, producer. Urmila is a complete outsider and she don't even have offers so I don't know what to add there.Krish | Talk 08:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure as it seemed somewhat odd to me that her career just stopped completely at a point. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would recommend using other sources other than YouTube to support her appearances in film. I would even rather have you cite the films themselves.
  • I would still discourage the use of YouTube links to reference her appearances in films, but it is fine if you believe that it is the best way. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I would like to tell you that we have no Bollywood database such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Allmovie etc for Bollywood films. So forget about the regional films which are not even covered well. There is just one Bollywood Hungama which only provides information about Bollywood films. There are no sources available to cite these regional films and those links were the only choice for me.Krish | Talk 17:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree Skr15081997's comments, and I believe you should address those as well.
  • @Krish!: Great work with the list; my primary concern is with the prose, particularly some of it coming across as too much like it is from a fan. I can tell from the nomination that you really like this actress, but you want to be as objective as possible in the actual list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Fixed: Well, everybody loves Urmila. She was the best looking (and talented) actress of her generation and still is. She is one of the few who can really act, dance, and look great at the same time. You should watch her films mentioned in the lead. I chose this nomination because she's always been underrated and underappreciated. She actually changed the way actresses used to dress in films and in general. It's also another thing that the she was ruling the industry when I was six or seven and I used to watch her film songs and later her films on TV, an innocent crush maybe.Krish | Talk 08:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Krish!: Please strike out the points that you have addressed so I can keep a proper tally of what you have addressed in the article. I have added a few responses to my comments. There are only a few areas that I believe that still need some improvement. I found one source that is dead. I cannot find the support for her beauty being a factor in her career and her success in the source cited. I believe that my comment about Satya still needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I think that you have done excellent work with this, and I would be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. My remaining comments are relatively minor, but let me know if you have any questions or comments about them. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Let me know if you have more queries.Krish | Talk 17:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response to my comments and great job with this. I will support this. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my FAC if possible? Aoba47 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Delink 'Indian' in the opening sentence per WP:OLINK.
  • Matondkar gained popularity for her.. --> has also gained popularity for her dancing skills.
  • " She made her acting debut as a child in Shreeram Lagoo's 1980 Marathi film Zaakol." It should be 'child artist'.
  • I guess it can be merged with the next sentence that talks about Masoom.
  • Provide a link that says Masoom was critically acclaimed.
  • You should mention Ram Gopal Varma somewhere near Rangeela.
  • You can't use 'portrayed' unless its a real life character.
  • Again you are extensively relying on a single source (BH). The same thing you did here.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after over 1,500 edits and over 500 references added I think I've finally brought it to FL quality. While this is a dynamic list, I firmly believe it contains as comprehensive a list of all notable persons who can be reliably sourced to have died from overdose or acute intoxication as is currently possible. In populating this list I have decided to be as inclusive as possible so as to not be accused of overlooking anybody. I anticipate several people on the list will be challenged, and have no issues with anyone being removed if their cause of death is deemed to not clearly meet the criteria. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just a quick comment, since this list is about people who died, I think it would benefit the article to have a small image gallery of some of the most famous people on this list, and remove the picture showing an injection of heroin. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Thanks for your comment. I'm not exactly sure what this gallery you would like look should look like. Do you mean a collection of images under the lead like at List of municipalities in Wyoming? Or having them running down the right hand side, like at the List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle? Or is there another way you think would work better? Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I prefer down the right side, however this does give users with small screens some issue if the table doesn't format correctly. A gallery would also be good. If this was "list of recreational drugs" then that picture of someone injecting heroin is perfect. However this is a list of people, not drugs, so you should have pictures of people, especially in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Have a look at this gallery at my sandbox. Is that what you're after? I figured it would be good to add some text info about the deaths. As per the discussion below, additional columns have been requested for this table. The longer 'Cause of death' texts are already taking up several lines on my 13-inch screen on it is. Adding those columns and a column of images down the right head side will make the table very annoying to read on smaller screens. I don't think that's a good idea, but i'm happy to ditch the current image and have a gallery of some kind. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah something like that looks good, and we should do a gallery as you are correct, smaller screens will have trouble. I do like how the table is now sortable, it is easy to see, for example, all authors who overdosed. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
A gallery of 10 of the more famous deaths has now been added. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I think (a) it ought to be sortable, by name (using {{sortname}}, life, profession; (b) it ought to have columns (which should also be sortable) for nationality and drug involved. As it is, the list can't really be interrogated for information - if I'm interested in seeing which musicians have died in this way, or who on the list has died from heroin overdose, I can't do this. BencherliteTalk 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: Thanks for your comment. The article is currently broken into subsections by letter. If I used this sortname template, I assume people would only be able to sort each letter at a time. Am I mistaken? Is this what you want? Or do you think I should scrap the alphabetised subsections altogether and just have one massive table? Freikorp (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer but you guessed what I was after - one large table. BencherliteTalk 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: Questions now that the table is sortable:
I've split the table to have seperate 'Born' and 'died' columns, instead of just 'Life & Death', so readers can search for both. Considering how much space is left, and how it may display on smaller screens, do you still think adding a 'Nationality' column is a good idea?
Do you think I should be more broad with profession titles? Like condensing 'Drummer' and 'Guitarist' to Musician? 'Writer' and 'Novelist' to just Writer? Etc etc. That way more people will appear under certain titles when the table is sorted by profession.
I don't think a column that specifies the drug used is going to be very helpful. A large number of entrants are listed as 'Unspecified', and in many other there are multiple drugs and they are listed in no particular order, i.e 'Cocaine, alcohol and barbiturates' 'Barbiturates, alcohol and marijuana' etc etc. Keeping the column as it is (Cause of death) isn't overly helped by being sortable either. There are too many variables. i.e causes of death 'Fell and bled to death while under the influence of alcohol' or 'Crews was legally drunk when he crashed a boat, killing himself and Steve Olin'. Some drugs will get sorted together, others will be spread all over. I think it should just be left as it is though, unless you have a better suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of awards and nominations received by Peter Dinklage

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meet the criteria and Peter Dinklage is awesome... AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Baahubali: The Beginning

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 08:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Baahubali: The Beginning is a very important film for Indian cinema and the articles related to the film deserves to be in great form. I feel it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 08:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash
  • "epic fantasy film" - says who? Fantasy, according to me, is a genre that deals with the supernatural and magical, none of which is seen here. Perhaps you could mention somewhere that it is a historical?
  • "Made simultaneously in Tamil and Telugu" - I think it should be "Telugu and Tamil", considering how much priority the makers give the Telugu version, and the fact that the production company is in Andhra Pradesh.
  • "At the 63rd Filmfare Awards South, the film won five awards from ten nominations, including Best Film, Best Director for Rajamouli and Best Supporting Actress for Krishnan" - we know it was the Telugu version that won those awards, so please mention.

More to come soon... Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • "At the 63rd National Film Awards, the film won Best Feature Film and the Best Special Effects" - You could mention that Baahubali was the first ever Telugu film to win in the former category (courtesy, this source). On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if the awards were shared with the Tamil version. Pitiable, since the NFA announcement did not mention the language.
  • I see that, regarding IIFA Utsavam, both the versions were nominated and won in multiple categories (such as Kattappa winning in Tamil and nominated in Telugu, but Sivagami winning in both). Please mention that.
I guess that's it from me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kailash29792: Done (the first one) but I really don't know how to mention the Utsavam awards. It would be too confusing.Krish | Talk 14:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Then please ask someone. Or write, at the IIFA Utsavam, both the Tamil and Telugu versions won numerous awards, including Best Supporting Actress in both Tamil and Telugu categories, or something like that. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Just that I show my support for this and hope it becomes TFL-worthy before Baahubali 2's release. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Pavanjandhyala

To the best of my knowledge the list is good, sourcing is nice, alt text and prose are fine. I support this nomination though i have two minor issues with this.

  • "Grossing gross over ₹6.5 billion worldwide against a budget of ₹1.2 billion, the film became the first South Indian film, and the first non-Hindi film to gross over ₹1 billion in the dubbed Hindi version" -- I suggest you to source this as the claim is quite big.
  • "At the 63rd National Film Awards, the film won Best Feature Film,..." -- the Best Feature Film?

That's all from me. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Done.Krish | Talk 16:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I do not believe that the "See also" section is necessary as it add much to the article. While looking through other FLs on film accolades, I did not see a similar section.
  • To the best of my knowledge, you only need to link something in the table on its first mention. For instance, you link Mohan and the film multiple times in the article. Please revise this.
  • @Krish!: Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Great job with this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Well, many Indian lists include the "See also" section. Coming to your second point, well, the linking is done for the tables. Someone very early had told me that either link all or just the first appearance, I have always chosen the latter.Krish | Talk 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my points. I am still not certain about the value of the "See also" section, but if it is standardized, then it is okay with me. I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Vedant
  • "the highest grossing film in India and third worldwide" - this can be misleading, you might want to switch to "the third-highest grossing Indian film worldwide".
  • "Grossing over ₹6.5 billion worldwide against" - That's the third occurrence of grossing in close proximity, you might want to rephrase.
  • Be consistent with the use of "the" with the awards.
  • "Both the Tamil and Telugu versions won several awards in the both Tamil and Telugu categories" - "Both the Tamil and Telugu versions won several awards in their​respective categories".

Rest looks fine. NumerounovedantTalk 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, gets my Support. Good luck getting this promoted in time. NumerounovedantTalk 19:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Ssven2
  • You have my support. The list looks quite solid. Good luck with your FLC.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose (from The Rambling Dude)

  • Any reason why no infobox like most other accolades articles?
  • Lead image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
  • "Made simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil," I think you just mean it was made in both languages.
  • Only 1/3 of the lead actually deals with accolades received by the movie.
  • Link ₹.
  • Why are awards which don't have Wikipedia articles, such as "Ananda Vikatan Awards" even notable enough for inclusion here?
  • "Best Music Director - Tamil" en-dash please, many of these.

The Rambling Man (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man: Tweaked some of your points. Coming to your concern, well, Indian accolades lists don't the pattern similar to the American lists. Plus every accolades list's lead focuses only 1/3 on the awards (American lists too). I don't know how to fix or link the Indian currency and "Ananda Vikatan Awards" are widely covered by Indian publications. It's just no one has created an article here. I hope I cleared everything. Let me know if you have any more concerns.Krish | Talk 04:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting you follow "American" lists. But I am strongly concerned with awards that English language Wikipedia does not consider notable being listed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid to say that Ananda Vikatan is among Tamil Nadu's oldest and most famous magazines, so their awards hardly look unnotable. Besides, you wouldn't remove unnotable/unsourced films from filmography tables, would you? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I would certainly remove unsourced films (or tag them with [citation needed]), and whether a magazine is old or not doesn't impart notability on any awards, if those awards are truly notable, they'd have an article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thant is not into my hand.Krish | Talk 06:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. FYI, that square thingy is not our currency sign. I don't know why it does not work now, it did earlier.Krish | Talk 06:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There's no square thingy. Presumably you don't have the correct font sets installed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: So are you now happy with the list?Krish | Talk 08:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Wiggles discography

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I had success with Hi-5 discography and thought I'd give the same treatment to The Wiggles, also a very popular Australian children's group. They have many more releases so much more to dig into.SatDis (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: Wonderful work with this! Aoba47 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Norwich City F.C. managers

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Dweller (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dweller and yours truly are nominating this for featured list. We've working across the divide for the first time in a while, this is another in the series of Norwich/Ipswich featured articles/lists that we have collaborated on. The list is almost secondary as the mighty prose preceding it is thorough, well referenced and (the bits that I didn't do) well written. In light of some of the recent managers nominations, we think this is in keeping with the current standard expected of such lists. We are both dedicated to resolving any and all issues as soon as practicable. As ever, our combined thanks to anyone prepared to give up their time in reviewing this list. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a few comments:

  • "but most notably in the 1958–59 FA Cup" - I've just never been happy with "notably" in articles, see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED - I'd normally go for "most significantly" or something like that. The word appears quite a few times through the remainder of the prose too. Any thoughts?
    Fixed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Norwich City was founded as an amateur football club" - what year?
    Done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "and we know that he spent the summer of 1903" - as "we know" doesn't appear inside a quotation, shouldn't this be something like "it is known" (ie: using third person)
    Don't think we need it at all. Deleted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "remains as one of the truly great periods in Norwich City's history" - though this is a quote, I think a simpler paraphrase like "it is regarded as one of the most successful periods of the club's history" would be better
    I think this kind of [what would become] editorialising is far better done as a quote from RS --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but in which case I think it would help to attribute who said the quote - in this case the official history of NCFC (?). The source attributing the quotation is a dead link, incidentally. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Attributed to the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "but bounced back to the top tier the following season after finishing third" - I'm not sure that "bounced back" is particularly encyclopedic
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Independent described the win in Munich as "the pinnacle of Norwich City's history"" - the source given is the Eastern Daily Press - I can't see where in the linked article that The Independent is mentioned as attribution for the quote
    Great spot. Probably my fault. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the club's performance nosedived" - "nosedived" - see "bounced back" earlier
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Norwich's spell in the top flight" - same issue, "top flight"
    Not sure, this seems okay-ish to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A very informative list about a longstanding team you don't hear too much about outside the sports columns, despite major success from time to time. Well done, chaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Major success"? I don't think so... thanks for your comments, we'll get to them ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oi. Watch it. ;-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I think all your comments have been responded to and addressed where appropriate? Thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one issue to follow up, above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 done I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, one more thing is I'm picking up quite a few deadlinks, which are :

  • http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025325,00.html
  • http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5182545.html
  • http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025325,00.html
  • http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1023784,00.html
  • http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025327,00.html
  • http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025326,00.html

I assume most of these can be fixed relatively straightforwardly with a Wayback Machine link. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think, but one or two were already there with archive urls. Could you check again please? Ta. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025327,00.html is still being reported as dead. I'm going off this script, btw Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Got it I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that works. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - no more concerns, everything checks out Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @TonyTheTiger – it's already noted in the 2nd sentence of paragraph two. In fact, more of his single-game records (XBH, HRs) are discussed than anyone else's in the list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Should you mention the at bats breakdown. Only 2 had 8 at bats and the majority only had 6.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, do we want to mention whether any of these people reached base in other ways in addition to their 6 hits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    Try to avoid devolving into baseball stat minutiae. This needs to appeal to general readers, a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Nanjing Metro stations

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am putting forward this list as a potential FL. I've been working on it since late last year, and I believe it fits the FL criteria. I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions on how to improve the article if you disagree. Thanks to all reviewers in advance! haha169 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Looks great, well written article. I made some tweaks to the wording of the lead.
  • There is an issue with station number. The list has 126 stations but the lead says 139. This discrepancy should be fixed. Also since this article is about stations themselves, we should not count one station multiple times for each line that goes through it. Maybe this is the root of the discrepancy?
  • Under lines, start date should be opening date. Grand Total should just be Total.
  • The lines table should only include lines actually constructed (or only the parts that are constructed), and totals adjusted for accordingly.
  • Again in the stations section, we should not double or triple count transfer stations, since this is a list of physical stations.
  • The list sorts by line image a bit weirdly, can this be fixed?
  • No need to include stations in both tables, for example Nanjing South Railway Station is there twice.

Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thank you for your comments! I've gone and fixed them thus:
  • Regarding the station count discrepancy, I went and compared this list with the official station list at Nanjing Metro's website, and after confusing myself back and forth with math, I think I've finally figured it out. Without counting interchanges, there are 128 stations -- two were mistakenly left off the list and have been added. Counting interchanges, there are 139. I've changed every instance to reflect 128 stations, although the note mentions the 139 figure.
  • I changed opening date to start date, and grand total to total.
  • I moved the under construction lines table to the under construction section; does this move satisfy your concern?
  • The way I've designed the list to sort is, from top to bottom: interchange stations, L1 stations, L2, L3, L4, L10, LS1, LS9, and alphabetical order within each category. I'm open to new suggestions if this is not intuitive.
  • I've included stations in both tables because not including it in under construction would hide the fact that parts of those stations are currently under construction in order to add platforms for the new line.
Thank you again for your review! I really appreciate it, and it helped me catch an error that I really should have caught before listing this list. Please let me know if my fixes and replies satisfy your concerns! --haha169 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No prob, looking very good. Just a few more little discrepancies. You say the number of stations is 128, which now matches the number of stations in your list, however the next line says "with 105 stations on the system's five urban lines and 25 along its two S-lines" 105+25 = 130? If a station is double counted you can add "and x intermodal stations" or something like that. This occurs twice. Other than that, it's the only problem I can find! I haven't done a source check, but formatting looks in order. Mattximus (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: There's a note after each instance that leads to this sentence: "Discrepancies between these figures are explained by interchange stations. If interchange stations are counted once for each station line they serve, there would be 114 urban line stations, 25 S-line stations, and 139 total stations.". --haha169 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks for satisfying all my questions, as long as source review passes, this is a great list! Mattximus (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful review! It means a lot! --haha169 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oops, I just realized that you forgot one of my points. You have strange issues on sorting by line number, I suspect is has something to do with the use of "data-sort-value=" as it is only the interchange stations that are out of order. I see you want to keep the interchanges at the top (I would strongly suggest you just sort by line number, with the interchanges at the top of each line), but if you want your method, at least the interchanges should be in order. Mattximus (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't really understand how you want me to sort the interchange stations. Unfortunately, sorting by line number is messy, not least because of the S-lines, so I came up with the current arrangement, which is to list the interchanges by alphabetical order. Each interchange has at least two lines, so I don't know how I could order by line. Could you please explain your suggestion again? --haha169 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The best would be something like this:
  • 1-2, 1-3, 1-3-S1, 1-10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ....

or if you want to keep your way and have the interchanges first, they should be in order

  • 1-2, 1-3, 1-3-S1, 1-10, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10.....

Mattximus (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Done, thank you so much for your helpful suggestions! --haha169 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That is better, I would just switch the order of Gulou and Nanjing South Railway Station, and then it's much more consistent. Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, that was a mistake on my part. Fixed it! --haha169 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the sort order is much better now. Mattximus (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Mel Gibson filmography

Nominator(s): Bluesphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Mel Gibson's list of film and television credits, which includes some of my favorites. After completing the article extensively from top to bottom, I'm now confident that this deserves the featured list status. Have at it! Bluesphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Australia Test cricket records

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedians, I present for review this list of Australian cricket records played the oldest and greatest form of the game – Test cricket. Based on the Sri Lankan list which was promoted to featured status back in April 2010, this has just appeared on the Main Page in the DYK section. I look forward to your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, Ian. I've started to take a look at it, making some minor fixes. One question - declared totals show as 758–8d (for example). I've only ever seen scorecards show it as 758/8d, and as it's an Australian list, should it be 8/758d? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lugnuts, thanks very much for your comment. This format was a carry over from the Sri Lankan article. I have changed it as requested. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Rhode Island

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am continuing my attempt at standardising all list of municipalities. Specifically, and with the help of many others, my goal is to have high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 14th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities of Rhode Island.

I have modeled this list off of other recently promoted lists such as Montana and Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • " 5 historic counties which have no government." This sounds a bit odd. Maybe "which have no municipal functions as the state has no county level of government" - and delete same somment below.
  • What is the difference between a city and a town? Are there any differences in powers between them and is the definition a USA one or specific to Rhode Island?
  • "cities provide services commonly granted to county governments in other states." What does this mean - that cities provide services which are provided at state level to towns?
  • An explanation of the different forms of government would be helpful.
  • Looks fine - these queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Inna

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I've never promoted an 'awards-list' to FL status so far, but I've put a lot of work into this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • Please provide an ALT description for the infobox image.
 Done
  • Be more descriptive than that with your ALT description. "A photograph of Inna" could refer to almost anything related to the singer, and your ALT needs to be more specific to be actually helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Done now!
  • I would remove the dynamic list template from the top of the page as I would assume that this could easily be completed as done with either awards/nominations pages.
 Done
  • I would rephrase the first sentence to the following (Romanian singer-songwriter and dancer Inna has received various awards and nominations.) to keep the focus on her awards.
 Done
I have altered this to include the "nominations" part as this list goes to both her awards and nominations, not just her wins. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest looking at the structure of the lead for similar lists that have already passed FLC, such as List of awards and nominations received by Adele. The second sentence from the first paragraph should be removed as it is more appropriate for her main article but not necessary for this lead. The same goes for her studies in political science. I would start with her unsuccessful audition for A.S.I.A.
 Done Tried to amend this
  • I would look through the lead again and revise the language. There are many examples of awkward wording and sentence construction. Looking at similar lists that have already passed FLC would be helpful with this. I would also suggest a c/e from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
 Done Tried to work on lead; I knew it's problematic ;)
I will do a more detailed prose review soon, but I would recommend trying to correct any prose issues prior to putting something up for FLC in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation.
 Done
This has not been done. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation to support the "the first time for Romania" bit. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the brief descriptions with each award section, you do not need to include the references to her wins and nominations as the references are already present in the tables. The references about the awards themselves should stay.
 Done I've only left refs for award galas without an own article or if there was any other info mentioned about the award that needed support from a ref.
@Cartoon network freak: You still need to include references for the definitions for the awards even if they have a Wikipedia article so please add those back per my original comment. The lead itself still needs a lot of work and revision and I will provide a more thorough review of its prose later in the day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Good job with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through it again. My primary concerns are with the lead, which has several prose and sentence construction issues that need to be corrected/revised. Hope this helps. The actual list itself seems really good. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for your review! Please let me know your follow-up thoughts ;) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: I will provide a more extensive review of the prose later in the day if that is okay with you as there still some problem areas in the lead that prevent me from fully support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would organize the lead chronologically to help make a cohesive narrative for the reader. Right now, the first paragraph has information about a 2011 award for a 2010 song. This should be moved down to one of the later paragraphs. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • I would spell out 13 in this context as it looks odd to have that be the only numeral in the first paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • In the start of the second paragraph, I would include information about her initial record deal if possible. See the Adele example I linked above to see what I mean by this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done I have no source to add this information; sorry :(
No worries. I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "native trio" is very odd. What do you mean by "native"? If you mean "Bulgarian", then just say that for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Remove "itself" in the phrase "the record itself" as it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Just say "singles" instead of "single releases". "Single releases" is unnecessarily long. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Could you go into more detail about the awards and nominations from her first album. You only devote a sentence to it, and I believe that it should be expanded. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done She only received a single nomination for the album at the RRA Awards, so there is in fact nothing to expand.
Makes sense, thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would put the phrase "her second studio album" in front of the album's name for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • I do not know what you mean by the transition "The same year" as you list two years (2010 and 2011) in the previous sentence. Do you mean 2010 or 2011 by this? Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Could you also expand on the awards and nominations she received for her second studio album? You only have a brief sentence about one award, and this should be expanded if possible to not give undue emphasis on a singular award. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Eliminate "for purchase" in the phrase "made available for purchase" as it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Please include any information about the awards and nominations associated with the third and fourth albums in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done She only won awards with her third album
  • The sentence about "P.O.H.U.I." needs to be revised as it reads awkwardly to me. It also comes out of nowhere following the brief statement about the third and fourth studio albums so a transition would be helpful in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done Tried to do both things
  • I think you should include information about the awards and nominations for "P.O.H.U.I." in the lead, but provide a more comprehensive overview of its awards and nominations. You only include one nomination in the lead, but it was also up for other awards.
 Done Included the other award received
  • This question is not specifically relevant to this review, but do you think that "P.O.H.U.I." is notable enough to have its own article or at least a red link? Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I may make an article about it this weekend. It really is notable, you're right :)
Good luck with it. If you put it up for GAN, let me know and I will review it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would move the sentence "Diggy Down" closer to the sentence on its parent album to make the connection clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • In the lead, I would recommend including a sentence or two about the awards and nominations that the singer has receive outside of her music career, such as those for her style or her dancing, to provide a more comprehensive overview of the awards and nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
@Cartoon network freak: I have added additional comments above. Also, remember to address my responses to my original comments. One of my main issues is that there is not enough of an overview of the actual awards and nominations in the lead. It lists the albums and includes one or two notes about its awards and/or nominations, but this needs to be expanded. Please refer to a FL on a similar topic and use that as an example for the expansion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: The lead is in a MUCH better shape now. Please check it out again! I'm going to add refs for the award definitions tomorrow. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the prompt responses. I have also made some edits/revisions to the lead as well. Ping me once you have added the references for the award definitions and I will look through it again and most likely support this nomination. Thank you for your patience while going through my rather long review. You have done an excellent job. I have to admit that I have never heard of this singer until reading through your work on here lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I've added the sources for the awards. Inna is not big in the US, she's only had a few Dance Airplay hits there ;) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Thank you for your patience with this review as I know it was rather long and drawn-out. I think the list, specifically the lead, has been improved a great deal and I could support this as a FL. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose with regret

  • Image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Romanian singer-songwriter Inna has received various awards and nominations. " maybe worth contextualising her career, e.g. let us know when she first became prominent, is she still active etc?
Not done The article initially included more about her bio, but the previous reviewer suggested that I should leave that out, e.g. I have inspired myself from this featured list. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It's simple enough to say "whose ongoing career started in xxxx with yyyy". That way everyone wins. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with a short/brief part being added about this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If Media Music awards aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, why should they be listed here?
Not done See below... Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Similarly, all the other awards which don't have a Wikipedia article, I'd question why they should be listed. Or alternatively red link them, and even better, create articles about them to demonstrate why they're notable enough for inclusion here.
Not done Wait... You confused me. Isn't this list here to include all the awards won by the respective singer? For example, this featured list has many awards without an own article, and nearly all the awards here keep a certain level of notability even without an own page. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Not if the awards aren't notable. Inna could have won hundreds of inconsequential awards that aren't handled in this list, what I'm saying shouldn't be that confusing, if an award isn't notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it, then why should it be notable enough for these lists. I would remove the non-notable awards from the Adele list, which I didn't review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Bob Sinclair is a dab link.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "ultimately lost in the favor of " not normal English, it would be "ultimately lost out to" or "ultimately lost in favor of", preferably the former.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "she was awarded with the Special International award." awarded with the award? Not brilliant English, maybe the first "awarded" could be "presented"?
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Split the refs by |30em, not |2.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My oppose is based on the non-notable awards issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you for your review! Check out my responses to your comments. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Finally done all your points (sorry for the delay!). There are still two awards that are notable but don't have an article, but the rest has been removed as suggested by you. Please ping be back! Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Celtic F.C. players

Nominator(s): ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added sources for all appearance info, added photos and some narrative text to give some more context. ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments sorry you've had to wait a month for any comments.

  • Lead is a little brief considering the size of the list - I've added a couple more sentences (ShugSty 20/4/17)
  • I would designate current players with some colour/symbol - I haven't seen this on other List of xxx FC players articles, but it does seem a good idea. I'll see what I can come up with (ShugSty 17/4/17) I've now highlighted the current players in green (ShugSty 20/4/17)
  • Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:DTT - Done (ShugSty 17/4/17)
  • Alec McNair image cannot be used here, has no fair use rationale for inclusion in this specific article - as it was myself who originally uploaded the image to Wikipedia, I've taken the liberty of amending the fair use rationale. The guidelines appear to allow for a non-free image to be used in more than one article, and given the duration of his Celtic career it seems more than reasonable for the image to be used in a list of notable Celtic players. Please advise if this is ok. (ShugSty 17/4/17)
    It might be okay, but you need to mention (and link) this explicit article title to the fair use rationale on the image page itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why "John "Dixie" Deans" has his nickname included? - I've amended this to "Dixie Deans" as he is generally only ever referred to by his nickname rather than his "real" name of John (ShugSty 17/4/17)
  • And Rab? - I'm inclined to leave this as "Rab Douglas" as he is generally only referred to as Rab rather than Robert (ShugSty 17/4/17)
    If that really is the case, then the article probably should be moved to his WP:COMMONNAME. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    Agghh! I tried, but there's already a redirect page called "Rab Douglas". I'll just change name in list to Robert to keep things simple(r) (ShugSty 20/4/17)
  • Ľubomír Moravčík is missing a few diacritics - amended (ShugSty 17/4/17)
  • Dianbobo Balde is missing his diacritic too - amended (ShugSty 17/4/17)
  • Nir Biton has two t's in his surname - amended (ShugSty 17/4/17)
  • Why separate the club captains? Denote them in the main table and add their victories etc in the notes - I'm keen to keep this table; it details time periods the players were captain (as opposed to just their time at the club) as well as honours won. I wouldn't be overly keen to add their wins into the general table as it would probably be a bit unwieldy (ShugSty 17/4/17)
  • Many of those footnotes need inline references - actually all the footnotes are referenced in the table itself, although I could also include them on the list of footnotes itself (ShugSty 17/4/17) * Actually, due to the way I've set up the footnotes, I can't place a citation in the list of footnotes itself (ShugSty 20/4/17)

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

More:

  • "The Celtic Football Club" I've never heard it referred to as "The ...", is that something I should be aware of? In any case, it's not the title of the article, or even close so I'd unbold it and link Celtic F.C. in there instead - Done (ShugSty 20/4/17)
  • Sorry, still think the lead is a little too brief. Add something about captains in there? Done (ShugSty 21/4/17)
  • "He is also the record goalscorer in British football..." is that explicitly referenced somewhere? - Yep, there's a note and an inline citation in the "Notes" section of the table for him (ShugSty 20/4/17)
  • The asterisk is missing from the current players - Not keen on having an asterisk, so I've removed it (ShugSty 20/4/17)
    No, you need a symbol as well as the colour per WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    Okey, dokey; asterisk back into key and added to current players (ShugSty 20/4/17)
  • Hyphens in the captains table could be converted to en-dashes - Done (ShugSty 20/4/17)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it has now been developed to a point where it is comprehensive on the subject at hand, is neatly organized, and well sourced. This list is for the highly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe television series franchise (itself part of a larger media franchise), and with the article most likely to keep growing as the series expand, now felt like a perfect time to nominate, given the hard work various editors along with myself have put in over the years to make the list it is currently. Please leave any comments or concerns, and I (or another highly involved editor of the list) will do our best to address them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Psst- you didn't transclude this nomination. --PresN 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: Thank you! Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments epic.

  • I would restrict the TOC, who uses it anyway, so we don't have all that whitespace immediately after the start of the article.
    • I don't think we should limit the TOC, because users should have the ability to jump to each introduction heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • DIsagree. Have you ever found one example of someone who uses the TOC? The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • WP:READERSFIRST. How can you make a blanket statement like "who uses it anyway" (which I assume was a questioning one) and think all readers do not use the TOC. I for one do on many occasions, so that there disproves your statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Could use some citations in the lead, e.g. " began airing on ABC during the 2013–14 television season"...
  • " in 2018." avoid easter egg links like this.
    • How so? If earlier in the sentence/paragraph, we link the network shows to the television season article, the logic would follow through for the cable/streaming shows. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Linking just the year is an easter egg. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Again, how so? Per WP:EASTEREGG, a reader will be expected to be taken to an article about [Year] in television for the year links, given context. It won't be a surprise for them. An EGG link in this case would be something like this: "Netflix [[2015 in American television|released]]..." Readers would not be expecting to end up at the 2015 in American television article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Clark GreggM [4][5]" loads of these, no spaces before refs please.
    • No spaces if you look in the wikicode. Byproduct of {{note label}} I believe, not our end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay, well that needs to be fixed before I could support this. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • How is the proper implementation of a template used on over 10,000 articles going to prevent the passing of this for FL? If you have an issue with what the template does, please take that up on the talk page of that template. But don't let that be a hinderance for this article when myself and the editors of this article don't have any control on what the template does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention ABC in the lead but not Netflix, yet there's a whole table of Netflix actors.
    • Netflix is mentioned in the lead, first paragraph: "Netflix's Marvel series began in 2015 with..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Some responses above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose clearly no appetite to work collegiately here. I was trying to do you a favour by reviewing it but I'll leave it to others now. Unwatching, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss each point with you, but you leaving the discussion after I've made two responses isn't working collegiately. We can't do that if only one of us are bringing something to the discussion, and because you felt I was unwilling to work with you is a weak reason to oppose the nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For the issue regarding the TOS, you could try following the same pattern done with List of Alien characters. I believe that would be a perfect compromise as it would keep the information already in the TOS, but make it leaner and take up less space than its current version.
  • @Favre1fan93: I would actually say that this is my only real concern about this list. I highly respect The Rambling Man, and he/she is a much more experienced user/reviewer than myself. For me, I do not take issue with the links to 2018 (just make sure you keep up-to-date on this) and I understand the issue with the wikicode and I do not take issue with that either as it is consistent throughout the entire list. I would just suggest changing up the TOS as done in List of Alien characters as that would be appear to be a good compromise to me if that makes any sense. I will support this once my only comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Aoba. I will consider the horizontal TOC implementation. I still don't feel having it vertical is an issue. And even if the horizontal one is implemented as with the Alien article, a {{clear}} would still be needed for the pictures used, which would still have whitespace (though yes, slightly smaller than currently). And implementing the horizontal TOC, though parenthesis are used to distinguish subsection, I feel it is harder to follow the flow of the article than in the vertical position. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Adamstom.97 Do you have any thoughts on using the horizontal TOC? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with all of Favre's comments so far, and hope everyone remembers that this is a discussion that everybody wants to be cooperative with. We just want the best result for the article. If we are talking about Template:horizontal TOC, I just did a test to see what it would look like and it seems to bunch all the links together in what seems like quite an unreadable way. I'm sure it would be appropriate to use this for some articles, but considering the nature of all the subheadings here (lots of long "Introduced in ... season X") I think we would be doing a huge disservice to our readers here, as I do think the TOC is used by many readers (I myself definitely jump to specific sections if that is where I want to go). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If there was a way to better control how the sections appeared in the TOC horizontally, I think I would be in more support of doing that. But looking over the documentation of Horizontal TOC, it doesn't seem to allow much adjustments. And I don't think {{TOC limit}} is an option either, because we only have level 2 headings, albeit a good amount of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the discussion. I completely understand your point about the TOC. I just wanted to try to help by offering some ideas. I will actually support this nomination. I actually did not have any major issues with the TOC as it stood originally (I could see the use of a TOC to readers). I am not sure how it looks on mobile as I primarily access Wikipedia through my laptop, but I think everything is fine for promotion, at least from perspective. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. I hope your nomination gets more traffic and feedback in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments Aoba. FYI, here is how the site looks on mobile, which you can always look at for any article, by clicking "Mobile view" all the way at the bottom of a desktop article. I'll try to look over your FAC as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response; I always wondering if there is a way to see the "Mobile view" of an article or a list so I greatly appreciate the link. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cambridgeshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest of my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as other FL lists of SSSIs such as Buckinghamshire and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Passing comment: All Latin species names should be italicized. Example: Juncus inflexus should be Juncus inflexus. Mattximus (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Done thanks. 09:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Another great article but there are a few passages that could be reworded. For example, it's not the founding of University of Cambridge that made it an intellectual centre, it's the university itself. suggest rewording it to "...and the University of Cambridge made the county one of the country's most important intellectual centres since it was founded in in the thirteenth century." Or something like that.
  • "The only site designated for both interests " I would repeat what those two interests are in this new paragraph
  • I would link the four endangered beetles (Graptodytes bilineatus, etc), just to be consistent with other species, even if they are red links for now.
  • Link Barbastelle, there is a decent page for this bat
  • Italicize Selinum carvifolia
Otherwise looks pretty good! Mattximus (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
All done. Many thanksMattximus. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, support Mattximus (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

This is another impressive list. All entries have pictures links to article and other supporting information as appropriate. Having looked at some of the similar lists I am familiar with the format which we have discussed previously. Random checks of sortable columns all work sensibly. Just a few specific minor comments:

  • Citing the whole of the first paragraph of the lead to Encyclopedia Britanica could be improved (eg by providing a specific ONS source or similar for the population).
I agree that it is unsatisfactory and I devoted considerable effort to finding a better source without success. I could not find a list by county on ONS and the Cambridgeshire site has figures by administrative county which excludes Peterborough. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Here we have "a population as of 2011 of 708,719". Cambridgeshire we see "Population (mid-2015 est.) = 841,200" and Peterborough says "Population (mid-2015 est.) = 194,000" so unless there has been major change between the 2011 census & the mid 2015 estimates (ie an increase to 1,053,000 from 708,719) then something doesn't quite add up. Perhaps the Cambridgeshire article does include Peterborough & the increase has been 708,719 to 841,200 which is more believable.— Rod talk 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I have managed to track down sources with the help of List of ceremonial counties of England, which is referenced. For the area you have to add the ONS figures for the 5 districts and Peterborough, which comes to 339,746 hectares. This is 1312 sq mi, slightly higher than the ceremonial counties figure of 1309, and I do not know why there is a difference. ONS for mid-2015 population has 647,238 for administrative Cambridgeshire and 193,980 for Peterborough, total 841,218, which agrees with the ceremonial counties figure. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for additional work on this. I'm happy with the citations now.— Rod talk 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • How is "major river" defined in the lead
Not defined so I have deleted "major". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the measurements in the descriptions do not have conversions (eg "more than 20 metres of Upper Oxford Clay" in Warboys Clay Pit)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Should "fossils reptiles" on Ely Pits and Meadows be "fossil reptiles"?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally I would wikilink terms such as ancient woodland as some readers may not be familiar.
Done - although I do wonder whether all the writers were using the term in the technical sense described in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On cherry Hinton Pit "British Red List of Threatened Species" is wikilinked to IUCN Red List, whereas on Upware North Pit we have "British Red Data Books" unwikilinked. Are these the same - if so it would be good to be consistent
The British books are different from the international IUCN list and there is no article on the British ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
OK Should the British "Red Book" have an article? I'm sure you could create one as it is mentioned in many articles.— Rod talk 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking again, I think all three Red Book cites are to British reviews based on IUCN criteria, but only one spells out the source clearly. I have added a short section to Regional Red List and linked to it. Is this OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this.— Rod talk 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On Holme Fen should "which aims to create a 3,700 wetland wildlife area" be 3,700 acre, hectare or something?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On Adventurer's Land I would link "BP" to Before Present as some may not be familiar with the term.
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 21:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my issues. I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

58th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1986 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments quick one.

  • Ref 2 isn't working for me, there doesn't appear therefore to be a reference for the location of the event.
  • Macdonald Carey doesn't have a capital D.
  • "With its 11 nominations and zero wins," zero is ugly here, why not "Without a win from 11 nominations..."?
  • Don't pipe The Official Story to a redirect.
  • Hector Babenco is missing a diacritic.
  • Several piped links which link to redirects which then redirect either back to the original pipe or something completely different. There are loads of these, please check each link and fix accordingly.
  • Andraé Crouch is missing a diacritic too.
  • "shorter -- and" (etc) need to be en-dashes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Birdienest81 any progress here? Eight days with no reponse. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it summarizes all of the rail transport installations currently and previously located in properties run or licensed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (the largest theme park chain in the world by annual attendance) and every data item on the list is referenced. Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources look good, but I'm not a featured-nominations expert so someone would be better looking these over. However, I have two main issues:
Do you really need the lead image to be such a wide panoramic view? It might be better at the bottom of a section, like the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts#Walt Disney World section. You should add a lead image that doesn't need to be as wide. Like File:WDW MonorailRed ApproachingStation.jpg (not recommended) or File:Monorail Coral.jpg (slightly more recommended)
Also, the routemaps in the bottom of each section take up a whole lot of server space. It's fine to include routemaps—see Select Bus Service for an example of routemap implementation. But there are about 20 of them in this article. Putting the maps in the bottom of the section is better than putting them in the individual tables, but it's just that there are a lot of maps which, with the exception of {{Disneyland Resort Line}}, are located in the respective articles as well. (Also, {{Disneyland Resort Line}} and {{Disneyland Resort Line RDT}} look similar. I did see the TFD nomination, but I think it would be best to have one template that you can toggle based on the parameter.)
Overall though, everything else looks fine to me so far. Again, I'll have to take a look. epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I'm fine with changing the lead image if you think that's going to be a deal breaker. In a perfect world, I would choose an image that has more than one Disney rail line in the same shot (the Disneyland Railroad and the Disneyland Monorail System criss-cross each other near Tomorrowland Station and from there you can take a picture of both at once, for example), but since no such image is available on the Wikimedia Commons, I'll just change it to another WDW Monorail image for now. As far as the route maps go, there are sixteen total and according to my edit from last year when I added them all at once, they each take up ~55 bytes of memory in the article (i.e.: not that much). The main reason why I included them in the article is so you can compare and contrast them all side-by-side without having to click back-and-forth between the individual articles. I also went out of my way to make all of the route diagrams uniform in size and style (I am the original author for all of them except for the WDW Monorail and the Disneyland Resort Line) specifically so that they would display nicely in this article. Notice for instance how all of them are exactly twelve pictograms high (that's not an accident). Jackdude101 (Talk) 5:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jackdude101: Sounds good. The BS-maps can be easily modified to have one more blank line (just add a back-slash \ on its own line). Also, you can use {{Multiple image}} to add multiple images in the lead if you want to have both the monorail and railroad in the lead.
In regards to "server space," I'm not talking about how many bytes are in the string {{XYZ routemap}} if you actually add it to a page; I'm talking about the post-expand include size after all the templates are loaded. For example, the string {{Disneyland Monorail System}} is 30 bytes, but it may actually use up more CPU. Wikipedia has a restriction that when there are too many templates transcluded on a certain page, it will display a certain number of templates as normal until the limit is reached, then the remaining templates are displayed like wikilinks, like Template:Disneyland Monorail System instead of the actual template. That's what I'm concerned about—the fact that the routemaps may actually go over the template limit. This is not a major issue, but just something to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually discovered the route map template limit the hard way when I first added them. Originally, all of the Disney route diagrams were written using the old {{BS-map}} template and when all of them were included in the article, not all of them would display. So, I converted them all to the new {{Routemap}} template and now all of them display together correctly. The {{Routemap}} template appears to have resolved several of the techincal problems that the old {{BS-map}} template had. Jackdude101 (Talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Jackdude101 this nomination has been stalled for six weeks now, have you pinged a few people/projects to see if anyone would be prepared to review the list? If nothing forthcoming soon, we'll need to archive the nomination as unsuccessful at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I messaged several people and task forces just now. My apologies. I am not very familiar with the nomination process for featured list status and thought that it would be similar to the good article status process, where you simply have to wait a few months for someone to come by and review it. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It should be like that, but we tend allow nominations to persist for a few weeks without comments before archiving them for lack of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on my comments above, I support the Featured List distinction. I'm the only !voter here, so not sure if this means much. epicgenius (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • The lead is far too short and doesn't cover the major aspects of the article. yellow tickY Partly done
    • I added an additional paragraph to the article's lead section. Let me know if that is sufficient or if you would like to see more. I am a big proponent of the "less is more" philosophy, personally. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Have you searched Flickr for images to fill the gaps? The Jolley Trolley (maybe not the right one mind you) seems to have a few hits with appropriate Creative Commons licensing for use on Wikipedia, the others may well do too since they were such big tourist attractions. Not done
    • All of the railroad lines without a picture in the article have one thing in common: they are no longer operating. I looked on Flikr anyway to see if I could find anything and I did find some for the two Jolley Trolleys; however, the copyright claims for the handful of images for the Viewliner Train of Tomorrow and the Mine Train Through Nature's Wonderland are questionable, and there were no public domain-friendly images at all for the Fort Wilderness Railroad. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • See also is bloated, and even includes articles which don't exist, trim down and remove unlinked see also's.  Done

Otherwise it's a nice piece of work. The lead is the key for me, a couple of sentences on each of the parks would probably suffice, a couple of beefy paras and that Disney quote would work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

List of NASCAR race wins by Jeff Gordon

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mondit created the article, while I cleaned it up a bit, added a lead, and cited all the wins through ESPN's website. Tried to model this after the Featured Lists of List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. All feedback is welcome. This is my first FLC so forgive me if I have a couple of questions along the way. Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jackdude101
  • One of the first things I noticed was that none of your references have archive links. I don't think it's a requirement to get an article upgraded to featured status, but if the websites that you are referencing go down in the future, or if the website admins rearrange the website's content and put the relevant data in a different place, it could lead to a lot of dead links, which could lead to an article's featured status being revoked. This could be an especially significant problem if the ESPN website, from which most of your references originate, rearranges its data. Archive links in your references will prevent this from happening, as it will "freeze" your reference the way it was when you retrieved it. In case you don't know, creating archive links is super easy. Just copy the url and paste it into archive.org/web, then copy the new archive link it spits out and include it in your reference using "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=". Other that that, your article looks good overall. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jackdude101: Thanks! I am familiar with this process and will take your suggestions into consideration. ESPN still has articles from over a decade ago that still have workable links, but it's certainly something I'll keep an eye on. Of course, many websites have these race results available; I just used ESPN to be consistent with the other two featured lists. Thanks! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to any potential reviewers: I will be on vacation from April 15-24 and will likely be unable to respond to comments until I return. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Hopefully you're not on vacation yet so you can have a look at these:

  • "Gordon won at least one pole in 23 consecutive seasons, making this a NASCAR record." The "making this" is wordiness that doesn't add anything to the sentence, so you can just cut it to make the writing tighter.
  • Sprint Cup Series: A comma would be useful before "leaving Kentucky Speedway the only track where he failed to win." Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Those were the only issues I had with the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress

Nominator(s): TsangeTalk 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this article to become a featured list as after a lot of work I feel that it now meets Wikipedia's FL criteria. In terms of the article's layout and style I have attempted to make it mirror that of the article Academy Award for Best Actress. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the table reference column contains a reference for both film nominations and individual references for the character names. TsangeTalk 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. Back in November 2016, the list has passed a thorough A-class review from Military history. All the information is cited, and all the sources used are meet WP:RS. The list was constructed on par with List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F), List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army etc. which are featured lists. So I think there won't be much trouble regarding the FLC criteria. I welcome suggestions for the same. By the way, the list is about the recipients for the Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Alt text is missing from the images.
  • Delink 'India' in the opening sentence, since WP:OLINK says that 'the names of major geographic features shouldn't be linked.
  • Indo-Pakistani conflicts --> Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
  • In the second para, the words "..of India" is repetitive. You can remove it in one of the instance.
  • Indian Army is linked twice in the lead.
  • Times of India --> The Times of India
  • Are "Factly", "Topyaps" and "knowingindia.gov.in" RS?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Many thanks for the review. All the issues raised have been fixed. Regarding the last one, http://knowindia.gov.in is an official site from the Government of India, the domain ".gov.in" makes that clear. Factly is strictly constrained by an editorial board, so this can be accepted. Also the content from Topyaps is tailored, the about us section on the site make it clear. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced by Topyaps, you can replace it with a much reliable source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: Done, good catch. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – The fix to the last issue I had looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose – Upon seeing Fowler's oppose, I looked at the main article and can understand why that user would think a split may not be justified. I actually think that if the list was in the main article, that the main article could potentially be eligible for FL status, as the tables would take up most of a combined page. As it stands, however, I do think this is likely a violation of criterion 3b. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would like to see less raiding, of well-established articles, for the creation of content forks that allow easy FLC runs. Seriously, what is the game here? Look how you have mangled the Param Vir Chakra page in the process. There was no talk page discussion before you removed the list from a relatively short article. Do you seriously think we are that clueless? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: In the first place, there is a reason to separate the list. Param Vir Chakra is India's highest gallantry award. Its list of recipients list is good enough to sustain a separate article. If you observe the other countries gallantry award recipients list, there are separate lists. And with 21 recipients and with the current format, it would make the main article ling. When I separated the list from the article, the columns like, date of action, conflict and citations never existed. So if these were part of the article, it would get complicated. I never mentioned about the "clueless" thing, I have improved the original PVC to GA, and this has already passed A-class review from MILHIS project, which is arguably the largest project on en wiki. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I have templated the PVC article for issues I see there, which, in turn, are discussed on the article's talk page. Please reply there. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I will return to whether this list is comparable to the hundreds (of not thousands) of the VC, but here are some questions about the lead:
  • "The Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is India's highest military decoration awarded for the highest degree of valour or self–sacrifice in the presence of the enemy."
    • Is there more than one award for the highest degree of valour or self-sacrifice? Or is there an non-defining relative clause that is not being separated by a comma?
    • What do the terms "highest degree," "self-sacrifice," and "in the presence of the enemy" mean? They might belong to the typically ceremonial language the award citation uses, but what do they mean in WP:NPOV language?
  • "The medal has been awarded twenty-one times, including fourteen posthumous awards; sixteen were awarded for action in Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, and two for action in peacekeeping operations."
    • Did you mean to say, "including fourteen times posthumously?"
  • "Of twenty-one, twenty recipients were from the Indian Army, and one from the Indian Air Force."
    • Did you mean to say, "Of the twenty one recipients, twenty were ...?"
  • "Literally meaning "Wheel (or Cross) of the Ultimate Brave", the Param Vir Chakra is comparable to the Medal of Honor in the United States and the Victoria Cross in the United Kingdom. (cited to a high school education publishing website, NCERT, and Priya Aurora (27 December 2013). "7 Facts Average Indian Doesn't Know About Param Vir Chakra". Topyaps. Retrieved 4 September 2016. ."
    • The (present) participle clause "Literally meaning ..." applies to the award's name in Sanskirt/Hindi, not to the award itself. It is a little confusing when in the main clause the subject becomes the award itself.
    • Why does a reader need to know the "literal" meaning of an award's name, when we haven't been told the transformed, figurative, or metaphorical meaning, especially when the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary defines "chakra" in this latter sense to be "medal," and "param" to be highest?
    • Why is an interpretation offered at a website of the government of India the touchstone of the (award) name's meaning? Where are the secondary sources that have been vetted for scholarship?
    • According to whom is it similar to the medal of honor or the VC, and in what manner is the award similar?
That this this article is a content fork is demonstrated in my post at Talk:List_of_Param_Vir_Chakra_recipients#Content_fork. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

List of songs written by Tove Lo

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on it for the past days and I think it meets the criteria for a FL. Tove Lo is a Swedish singer and songwriter who has not only written songs for herself but for other artists too, and this list features all of those songs, and it is referenced with sources such as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Broadcast Music, Inc.. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • All of the images need an ALT description.  Done
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some instances where you say "Lo" instead of "Lov" so double-check to make sure you correct this.  Comment: The nickname of the artist is "Tove Lo", not "Tove Lov". I understand, it is kind of confusing!
  • Oops, sorry for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know who Lov offered "Love Ballad" to (you identify the person as "an artist" and I was just curious if we know exactly who this person is)? If not, then it is fine as it currently stands.  Comment: Sadly, no. Lo never revealed the name of the artist.
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paparazzzi: Very strong list! I just have two rather minor comments and one clarification question. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments! Thank you so much for the review Face-grin.svg. Regards! --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this! Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Ok, I'm going to take a look at your FLC. Regards Face-grin.svg. Paparazzzi (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Good list. Cowlibob (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Thank you for everything! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Tantalisingly close, just a couple of final comments from me. If "N/A" simply means that the artist is unknown, why not just use "Unknown", the same way that you have for the year column? Then you could remove it from the key entirely (yes, I do remember that it was me who suggested putting it there in the first place). Also, if you're struggling to archive some URLs, check first if they've already been archived by the Wayback Machine. If not, then try webcitation.org. There's not much more you can do if they won't archive them either. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@A Thousand Doors: I have addressed the first comment. Regarding the second one, I have done what you suggest me to do, but both ASCAP and BMI can't be archived by the Wayback Machine or Webcitation. I don't know what to do. Regards and thank you for your comments, --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • "which talks about 'different kind of rushes in life'". This bit is ungrammatical at the moment. I would change one word in the quote to "kind(s)"; the MoS does allow for such minor changes inside quotes in situations like this.  Done
  • In the intro's photo caption, we don't really need "pictured" in parentheses, as it's fairly obvious to readers that this will be a photo of Lo. The other photos refer to both Lo and a singer, so there could be some confusion as to who is in the photo; that isn't the case here.  Done
  • In the table, A l'infini isn't sorting in the right order in the Album(s) column. This is because of the Latin character at the start, and will require a sorting template to fix.  Done

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008: I have addressed your comments. Thank you, Paparazzzi (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – The fixes all look good, and I believe this meets FL standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

WHO Model List of Essential Medicines

Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Over the last 4 years a number of us have been worked to improve all 414 medicines on this list. The leads of each item now provides a decent well referenced overview of the subject in question and an article exists for each of the medicines / combinations. The WHO just released an image under an open license for use to us. World Health Day is April 7th and 2017 also marks the 40 anniversary of the EML. Would be nice to get this ready for the main page for that date. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

comments Ozzie10aaaa

perWikipedia:Featured_list_criteria

  • Criterion 1- is consistent with professional standard [3]
  • Criterion 3- a. covers the scope of WHO Model List of Essential Medicines very well[5]
b. consistent with Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists and does not violate Wikipedia:Content_forking
  • Criterion 4- African trypanosomiasis........ Medicines for the treatment of 1st stage African trypanosomiasis...seems to be "two" headers, would you be willing to merge or get rid of one of them?
b.could use between 2-5 images to bring more interest in the "list" for our readers?


--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Have adjusted the headers[6] let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • perfect,and consistent with the rest of the list, thank you.
  • the other issue is images as indicated above (2-5 images) as our readers will be more interested when they see as well as read.[7] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay will pull in a few more :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


as a result of [8] and [9][10][11][12][13][14] in reference to this Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates nomination I therefore


BlueRasberry
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. No evidence is provided that the WHO released the copyright to this creatively compiled list, nor is any argument made that this list is ineligible for copyright. This is an ordered ranking based on judgement, separating medicines which matter more from ones which matter less. The WHO's copyright policy is at http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/. They forbid anyone from having access to their health information with only some exceptions, and it seems that they do not find it essential for anyone to have access to their essential list of medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, well that could be problematic. Can we obtain permission to use it like we apparently did with ICD-10 (Talk:ICD-10#ICD-10)? (Though I'm a little confused by how we are using ICD-10 unless the WHO relicensed it CC-BY-SA, which I don't think they did.) Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thks Blue. Will work on solving copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry I have gotten formal release of the list under a CC BY SA 3.0 IGO license. Have sent the permission to permissions-en and cc'ed you on it. Here is the ticket Ticket:2017013110007321 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. will work on the ICD stuff next. The prior director recently retired. Not sure who has replaced him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep All copyright concerns are resolved. This article should not be deleted because it has a free and open license. I processed the OTRS ticket and posted a note at the top of the talk page documenting the free license of this list. This is no longer a deletion discussion, and can now resume as a review of a candidate for featured lists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry anything else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Support from bluerasberry

A Thousand Doors suggests that this article include more discussion of the items in the list. That user also suggests merging essential medicines to this article, saying "There isn't really a massive amount of content in Essential medicines anyway – a merge probably wouldn't be entirely unreasonable." I had these thoughts too, and I think other people would.

I do not think these articles should be merged because this article already has a large browser size Wikipedia:Article size and should not be made longer. Also, this list is complicated enough already, with 400-500 technical terms to maintain.

I agree that the "essential medicines" article is short but that article could be much longer. On the talk page there, I posted links to sources about the history of determining what is and is not an essential medicine, and to discussions of drug patents for essential medicines, and the impact of identifying essential medicines. Each one of those concepts probably passes Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines and could be its own Wikipedia article. Besides that, these concepts each apply regionally - so the story about history, patents, and impact of the essential medicine concept in India will be different from Brazil. It seems like there are sources to tell these stories from the perspectives of multiple countries.

There is another muddled concept here. This list is for the "model list", which is sort of general and global, whereas individual countries may have their own list. Like for example, a country with tropical diseases may need medicine which a colder country would not need, and both of those countries may have their own modified lists separate from the model list. There are thousands of papers published on this concept and it seems like at least 100 of them are comprehensive enough to cite. I am not aware of anyone with broader plans to summarize all this in Wikipedia, but combining the list with the concept compromises both. If this model list were combined with information about regional variation, then that confuses the purpose of the model list.

I am not bothered that only a few self-published sources are cited here. Typically on Wikipedia we establish notability and neutrality with third-party sources, but in this case, notability of this list is not in question and the WHO is the only authoritative source for the list.

I did question whether there should be a section about the history of revisions to this list. I would not mind it, but neither do I think it is essential. List articles do not always go into such detail, and I think that history of the concept is better placed in the "essential medicine" article, leaving this article to be a well-considered copy of the list.

The criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Points 3-6 I take for granted; the list is comprehensive, has the correct wiki-structure, follows Wikipedia's manual of style, and this is a non-controversial article. I will comment that not every featured list has established Wikipedia articles for all its list items, but this one does, and that is superb.

Criteria 1 is about the prose, which is suitable. Criteria 2 is the toughest one. I addressed the issue above by talking about what should and should not be in the article. I fail to recognize a sort of additional prose content which could be added to this article to complement the list. Right now, the lead introduces the concept, describes the ordering of the list, describes the historical list versions, and describes a derivative concept. There are other derivative concepts, particularly lists for countries, but I think it is fair to mention the children's list because that one too is a model list where as country lists are not. I am open to conversation but I say pass.  Pass Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)



Support from RexxS

This is a commendably comprehensive list in Wikipedia terms – not just because of the breadth of its content, but because of the depth of coverage provided by all the linked articles on each individual medicine, a factor sometimes overlooked when assessing whether a list deserves to be described as "one of Wikipedia's best works". The contributors to those articles deserve our gratitude for the immense amount of work put into them as well as this list.

I usually try to assess lists for common breaches of accessibility compliance, and baring two minor concerns, I believe that the list meets our accessibility requirements in general:

  1. The list is properly structured with sections and headers meeting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Article structure;
  2. it contains no text that is too small to read per MOS:FONTSIZE;
  3. no use of colour makes text unreadable, per MOS:CONTRAST;
  4. no information is conveyed solely by use of colour, per WP:COLOR;

However, the use of the dagger typographical symbol † might be worth re-considering. Older versions of some of the most common screen readers don't read that symbol, although I'm told that support for many symbols has been improved in the latest versions of JAWS. To address that problem, we have a template {{}} which substitutes an image and alt text that all screen readers can speak. The only other small concern is the lack of alt text in all five of the images, but as those images serve merely to illustrate the appearance of particular medicines, rather than making a point, the caption alone serves the main needs of alternative text. In these sort of cases, I wouldn't feel that the lack of alt text a sufficient issue to prevent promotion, although I'd naturally encourage editors to provide alt text where they feel able. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:RexxS will fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hum, the article uses {{ref}} which does not accept that other template. Might take until I get home in a couple of days to figure it out unless someone beats me to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that template {{ref}} is being misused as it's designed for each {{ref}} to have a corresponding {{note}}, rather than just one note (which breaks the backlink). I have a look at the documentation a little more closely and see if I can find a simple solution. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Added alt text for completeness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS have switched to an "Alpha" symbol. Does that solve the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: That's likely to be an improvement, as most screen readers can make some sense of some Greek characters. You never really know unless you have the time and facilities to test large numbers of screen readers, and there are often settings that can be enabled to speak text that is not voiced by default. Anyway the web helps sometimes: for example, there's a resource at http://accessibleculture.org/research-files/character-references/jaws-we-all.php that gives a survey of what characters JAWS and Window-Eyes will speak. If you really, really want to be sure all screen readers will speak a symbol, you have to stick to normal text plus the symbols you get on a standard English keyboard, like *, #, $, etc. Anyway, I'm not suggesting you should change the symbol again, as one could spend forever trying to cater for every possible case. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I'm sorry to be such a Debbie Downer, but I really don't think this article is good enough just yet to be featured. I see that this candidacy has already achieved support from four editors, but I'm pretty sure that two of them have never even reviewed a FL before and one is apparently "not bothered" by the lack of sources, which raises something of a red flag for me.
I really don't think that this article is of as high a standard as it could be. As I've mentioned previously, there's very little in the way of prose – the Notes section is longer than the lead, which I don't think I've ever seen in a FL before. Speaking of which, the difference between core medicines and complementary medicines should actually be the in lead, not buried away in a note at the bottom.
The layout is a little uninspired – it's just the list itself with half a dozen images dotted about. The WHO structure this list in a table, which contains much more information – could that layout just be copied?
If nothing else, at the very least the lead image issue needs to be resolved, which, for my money, is this article's biggest issue. If that image isn't used yet by the WHO then including it in this article to illustrate this subject is original research. If it might be used by the WHO then it violates WP:CRYSTAL.
As I've said before, this was a challenging article to improve, as there are currently no similar FLs – when this article reaches FL status, it will probably set a precedent for similar lists. But I do think it should perhaps it would benefit from a thorough peer review first. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes getting images is an issue as getting WHO to adopt an open license is a slow effort. I guess all we can do right now is wait and see if they use the image unless you have a better one in mind.
World Health Day is now over. The lead does and has for some time discussed the difference between core and complementary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want an example of a different layout that this list could use, I would expect it to look something more along these lines (not collapsed, obviously):
Beta Lactam medicines
Medicine Image Core/
complementary
Notes
Amoxicillin Amoxicillin.svg Core Powder for oral liquid: 125 mg (as trihydrate)/5 mL; 250 mg (as trihydrate)/5 mL

Solid oral dosage form: 250 mg; 500 mg (as trihydrate)

Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (amoxicillin + clavulanic acid) Clavulanic acid.svg Core Oral liquid: 125 mg amoxicillin + 3125 mg clavulanic acid/5 mL AND 250 mg amoxicillin + 625 mg clavulanic acid/5 mL

Tablet: 500 mg (as trihydrate) + 125 mg (as potassium salt)

Ampicillin Ampicillin Structural Formulae V.1.svg Core Powder for injection: 500 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial
Benzathine benzylpenicillin Benzylpenicillin-Benzathin Structural Formula V.1.svg Core Powder for injection: 900mg benzylpenicillin (=12million IU)in 5-mLvial ; 144 g benzylpenicillin (=24 million IU) in 5-mL vial
Benzylpenicillin Benzylpenicillin.svg Core Powder for injection: 600 mg (= 1 million IU); 3 g (= 5 million IU) (sodiumor potassium salt) in vial
Cefalexin Cefalexin.svg Core Powder for reconstitution with water: 125 mg/5 mL; 250mg/5mL(anhydrous)

Solid oral dosage form: 250 mg (as monohydrate)

Cefazolin Cefazolin.svg Core Powder for injection: 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial

For surgical prophylaxis

a>1 month

Cefixime Cefixime.svg Core Only listed for single-dose treatment of uncomplicated ano-genital gonorrhoea
Ceftriaxone Ceftriaxone-skeletal.svg Core Powder for injection: 250 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial

Do not administer with calcium and avoid in infants with hyperbilirubinaemia.

a>41 weeks corrected gestational age

Cloxacillin Cloxacillin.svg Core Capsule: 500 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt)

Powder for injection:500 mg (as sodium salt) in vial

Powder for oral liquid:125 mg (as sodium salt)/5mL

Phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin V) Penicillin-V-2D-skeletal.png Core Powder for oral liquid: 250 mg (as potassium salt)/5mL

Tablet: 250 mg (as potassium salt)

Procaine benzylpenicillin Core Powder for injection: 1 g (=1 million IU); 3 g (=3million IU) in vial

Procaine benzylpenicillin is not recommended as first-line treatment for neonatal sepsis except in settings with high neonatal mortality, when given by trained health workers in cases where hospital care is not achievable.

Cefotaxime Cefotaxime.svg Complementary Powder for injection: 250 mg per vial (as sodium salt)

Third generation cephalosporin of choice for use in hospitalized neonates

Ceftazidime Ceftazidime.svg Complementary Powder for injection: 250 mg or 1g (as pentahydrate) in vial
Imipenem/cilastatin Imipenem + cilastatin.svg Complementary Powder for injection: 250 mg (as monohydrate) + 250mg (as sodium salt); 500mg (as monohydrate) + 500mg (as sodium salt) in vial

Listed only for the treatment of life-threatening hospital-based infection due to suspected or proven multidrug-resistant infection

Meropenem is indicated for the treatment of meningitis and is licensed for use in children over the age of three months.

Now, I suggest the above as an example only: you may want to do things differently. Perhaps you can think of another column or two that might be useful to include. Perhaps you think the bolding is unnecessary. Maybe you have ideas for better images that could be used. Maybe you'd like to include appropriate use of colour in there somewhere (e.g. to differentiate between Core and Complementary, perhaps). But a layout similar to the above would, I believe, be more representative of Wikipedia's best work, and would therefore make this article a better candidate to be featured. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from DarthBotto
Comments from DarthBotto
  • In the lead, the first sentence reads, "The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines is a list, proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO)..." It says it's a list that's a list. Would it perhaps be better to describe it as an inventory or catalog proposed by WHO?
    It is a list though and not an inventory (which is more physical in nature) or a catalog. We could use the term enumeration but IMO that is overly complicated. I have however linked to that term.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that flies-- and we don't want to over-complicate, convolute or mislead with the opening descriptor. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The flow of the lead gets off the tracks in the third paragraph, where it blurts out a series of short statements with little synergy between one another, save for the connection that it says it is on a two-year basis, with the last one being in 2015, thereby implying that the upcoming one will be this year. Could you include a statement with a source about the upcoming list, if that is possible? Is there a special significance about the 2005 list that I am missing? Perhaps bridge the 2015 mention with the two-year mention, as well.
    Yes. A new list is supposedly coming out in a couple of months. I can find no sources talking about it though. Do you know of any? The reason why the number of items in the 2005 list is mention is because that is the only source I can find. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking around and I cannot find anything that talks about the 20th list, I am sorry to say. Damn, that would really have been a great addition! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Details on the 20th list will be avaliable in a couple of months and will add them than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The organization of the sources is very well composed and reliable. The notes are succinct and so far as I can tell, aptly placed.
    • I do get nervous around the volume of primary sources, specifically Reference 1, but assuming that there are no easily accessible alternatives, I suppose it works.
    It is a statement by a major medical organizations and therefore fulfils WP:MEDRS. I could also add the Lancet review to that statement but not sure it is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of MEDRS. It was certainly not the most pertinent question in my mind, but this satisfies what little doubt I may have had. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at the fourth paragraph makes me realize that the lead is somewhat disorganized. You have some history components between the third and fourth paragraph that is intertwined with content about the core functions of the list. Could you reorganize said paragraphs, so the third discusses core functions, like the fourth discusses the history?
    Adjusted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Very well done! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • All in all, I don't believe extensive work will be necessary. The deterrents are in the flow and organization of the lead. If you could give these core points proper attention, I would be glad to support this FLC. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 09:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If I may say so myself, this list satisfies all six of the criteria for Featured List status- you have my Support vote. @Doc James: If you could spare a bit of time to review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Giants2008, USer:PresN, and User:The Rambling Man was hoping to have a health related list on the main page for World Health Day on April 7th. The review has run slower than I had hoped but wondering your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    • For us to schedule it now, this FLC would need to be promoted in the next day or two. I can't edit the TFL blurbs in the final couple of days before a main page appearance because I don't have the necessary admin tools. Colleagues, do you think a consensus has been achieved here? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I am heading to the mountains tomorrow and likely will not be able to address any further issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment huge list, more like a glossary, one thing that struck me was that all the footnotes are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Does this work[17]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with a .400 batting average in a season

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bagumba

I quickly went through the prose, which has the boilerplate text (e.g. HOF inductees, handedness, etc) that other baseball FLs possess. I'd like to see more a bit more text that uniquely puts .400 into context:

  • Add that .300 is considered a fairly good season already.
    • Added at the end of the 2nd sentence (supported by 2 refs). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To appreciate The Washington Post's comment about it being "unattainable", mention modern day players that came closest: Brett (.390), Gwynn (.394).
    • Done. Hope the wording of the additional sentence is okay and non-weasely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if/when I'll be able to do a complete review, but do want to at least see these addressed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • In the opening paragraph should state unconditionally that .400 is considered a rare feat. Attributing the quote by SABR makes it sound like .400 is not generally revered. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. "—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed, but still left the exact wording in quotations (if that's alright). —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Quotations should always be attributed in text, not merely with a citation. That being said, I don't see why this specific quote is needed. It's probably more common place to say that it is currently considered unlikely to be reachable.[18][19]Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not inclined to use the word "considered" – it's a weasel word in this situation. Not to mention that this article was AFD'd three times in just over a year because of that word in its title. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Feel free to suggest an alternative. Note WP:WEASEL says "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." How do you otherwise propose avoiding use of the specific quote from: "The achievement of a .400 batting average in a season is recognized as 'the standard of hitting excellence'"?—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
            • This issue is still unresolved. Similar point on "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark 'both mystical and unattainable'". The opinion is not limited to the Washington Post, and a paraphrase is sufficient as opposed to a verbatim quote.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
              • The Washington Post quote has been resolved below with the comment from Giants2008. I also agree that with him that it should be attributed, since those are not common words used together by other sources to generically describe the .400 'club'. And those words are, in my opinion, the most fitting words to describe the club – can't think of any paraphrase that captures the same essence. I know I can't satisfy everyone, and have no inclination to act as a middle man between two editors who have differing views on wording or use of direct quotes from sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
              • As for "the standard of hitting excellence" quote, I again can't think of any other phrase that more appropriately captures the feat achieved by this group of players. I'm not trying to water down the achievement by quoting only one source. But I do think SABR is a source universally respected across the baseball world that it is capable of speaking not just for itself, but for the overwhelming baseball community —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I also added a sentence (2nd last one in para. 2) about Shoeless Joe Jackson's .408 mark being a rookie record – hope that checks out as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Bagumba – I've addressed all the comments you've made so far. Is there anything else that needs to be improved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did a Google search on "bat .400", and seems there should be more discussion on .400 being common before Williams, and why it is now considered out of reach.

  • Impact of relief pitchers.[20][21][22]
    • The use of relief pitchers doesn't specifically affect batting .400.[23] They also affect consecutive hit streaks, the reduction in 200 hit seasons today, and the overall decline in offence.[24] The more appropriate place for this info is the general batting average article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Mentioning relief pitchers here doesn't imply their impact is limited to .400 hitters. At any rate, there should be some explanation given in an FL as to reasons why the feat hasn't been duplicated in 70+ years.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
        • You win on this point – added a short note in the first sentence of the last paragraph. But I won't bog this list down with the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 5 players combined to hit .400 seven times in 20 years before Williams.[25]
    • Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 3 players hit .400 in 1922[26]
    • Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Aside from Brett, only Williams and Carew have batted .388 in a full season since[27]
    • Trivia – why the artificial delineation of .388? Could've used a rounded whole number like .390 or .375 … —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The NY Times also mentioned Carew. Multiple experts in reliable sources mention Carew; it's not for us to do OR and create our own threshold of a round number.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not in favour of creating my own threshold. But there is a longstanding norm[28] for baseball FLs to only include players who have successfully attained the milestone, not the 'almost made it' players. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Bob Hazle hit .403 in 1957. His 134 at-bats were most by .400 hitter since Williams.[29]
    • Irrelevant, in my opinion, since he couldn't even qualify for the batting title. If they were instead discussing the most plate appearances, then that would be a different story. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I interpreted it that the feat is so difficult that only a player with 1/3 or fewer of the reqd plate appearances has hit .400.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Like the other baseball stats/stat club FLs, the lead and the tables should only focus on those who joined/are in the club and not mention those who 'almost made it' (also applies to the .388 comment). Notwithstanding the fact that Hazle wasn't even close – again, trivia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • current drought of .350 hitters longest since 1962–66[30]
    • 1968 year of the pitcher, steroid era, specialised RP era – historical trends which are already covered in the MLB GA. If readers want to find out more, they can simply click on the link in this list, which is not the place for me to regurgitate this info (which no other baseball FL does). And once again, .350 is 'almost made it'. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Bagumba – I've responded to all the latest comments above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bloom6132: I've marked the old comments that are still outstanding, and left a comment or two above.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oppose Biggest stylistic concern is unnecessary use of quotes and inline attribution on uncontested opinions reagrding hitting .400. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." As stated at MOS:QUOTE, "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words ... Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes)." As far as content, it does not meet FL expectation to educate a non-baseball fan on the history and later significance of hitting .400. It is not "trivia" to use facts from multiple reliable sources to explain that .400 was a semi-regular occurrence until Williams, and it has rarely been approached since. Do not confuse this with a Wikipedia writer cherry-picking random facts from a stats site. Williams, who in 1941 was the last person to achieve .400, himself stated, “If I had known hitting .400 was going to be such a big deal, I would have done it again.”[31].—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – The one thing that stuck out at me in a negative way was saying that the Washington Post itself was responsible for the "both mystical and unattainable" quote. Since there is an author provided in the piece, this should be worded "The Washington Post's Barry Svrluga" or similar. Other that that, this is a nice-looking list, and I didn't spot anything else to complain about. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008 – I've changed it to "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark …". Is that alright, or would it be better to identify the writer in question by name? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008 – I think I've addressed your comment satisfactorily. Any follow-up vote? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Sorry for the delay, but I've been so busy that I've barely been able to edit here lately. As I said, that was my only concern with an otherwise solid list. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it'd look better if at bat was just written out rather than (AB) on the one extra mention. That's the only nitpick I saw, and am willing to support once fixed. Wizardman 16:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This is great work. The only thing I noticed was that in the second paragraph (fourth sentence), you have a fragment after a semicolon ("all of whom attained a batting average over .400 during the 1894 season."). I would either change the semicolon to a comma or replace "whom" with "them".) EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of works by Sax Rohmer

Notified: WikiProject Bibliographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it contains a section of entirely uncited information reliant on nothing but original research. An editor is insisting that it remains, which means that this article now fails the criteria necessary to be classed as one of WP's best. - The Bounder (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep it appears to have been removed, once again, and I would advocate it be added back into the talk page and discussed for sourcing etc, rather than any further slo-mo edit warring. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=776898173"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA