Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • WP:FLC

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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:

edit · history · watch · refresh

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



List of accolades received by Red Dead Redemption 2

Nominator(s): – Rhain 08:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the many year-end accolades received by Red Dead Redemption 2 while also following accessibility guidelines. I believe that list is good to go all the way, and would appreciate your thoughts. – Rhain 08:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Only had time to look at the lead so far, here are my comments:
    • "based on based on 98 reviews" - duplicated words there
    • "largest ever preorders" - hyphen in "pre-orders"?
    • "and named runner-up in four" => "and was named runner-up in four"
    • "won for Excellence in SFX and Technical Achievement" - need a full stop after this
  • That's it for the lead, will look at the table later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
More comments
  • My only comments on the table are:
    • The standard format for recent similar FLs (such as List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue) is to have the columns in the order Award,Year (not full date, although I guess there's no harm in full date being used), then the rest, as well as to rowspan the award title and year/date
    • The sorting on the "result" column seems a bit odd to me. When I sort on that column it goes Gold/Nominated/Fourth/Runner-up/Second/Third/Won. I would have thought it should be either alphabetical or else reflect "finishing order" (so "won" would appear before "second" or "third")
  • That's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, ChrisTheDude. I've addressed your issues with the lead. Good catch with the sorting on the "Result" column; I've reorganised it so it's now sorted by Nominated/Fourth/Third/Runner-up/Second/Gold/Won. Regarding the format: I've based this article on previous video game FLs (Grand Theft Auto V, The Last of Us) but if you feel that the list should follow the format used for artists, actors, and films, I can make the changes. – Rhain 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair comment - if other people are OK with the current format then that's fine. I simply did a quick look for recent awards FLs, I didn't look specifically for video game ones. I note that the two you link to above were both promoted more than four years ago, so it's possible that the consensus on format has changed since then. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Those two lists are actually the only video gaming FLs for awards, so that's as recent as the consensus gets for WP:VG, though I certainly understand your point. – Rhain 07:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess, like you say, it boils down to whether people think video game lists should follow the format of other, more recent, promotions. Like I said, it's not a deal-breaker for me, but I'd be interested to see what other people think, if that's cool........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me. Looking forward to seeing what other people think. – Rhain 12:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, I've thrown together an example of what the article would look like if it followed the conventions of a standard film accolades FL; feel free to check it out on my workspace. – Rhain 13:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It has to be said, I do prefer that format...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • Any reason why Roger Clark is not wikilinked in the lead or in the table? The same question applies to Arthur Morgan.
  • I would wikilink Grand Theft Auto V in the lead.
  • I believe GameSpot,, and USgamer should be in italics.
  • I would wikilink Alex McKenna.
  • For reference 24, I would avoid putting Edge in all caps.

Otherwise, everything else looks great. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoba47. The articles for Roger Clark and Arthur Morgan didn't exist when I wrote the article, which explains their absences (and I have doubts that the latter article will remain for long, but that's for another discussion). I've gone through and addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if you have any more thoughts. – Rhain 02:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your very prompt responses. I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FLC. Either way, have a great rest of your week, and good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Wrath X

Rhain I'm fine with either format, though I'm leaning towards the film table format since the awards look "neater" (due to them being listed only once per column) and I'm kind of biased to alphabetical order. But like I said, I'm fine with either so I have no problems with the current one. Either format, I support this for promotion -- Wrath X (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Nischal Basnet filmography

Nominator(s): ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because he is one of the directors who brought change to the Nepali film industry. Besides directing he also acts and sings.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Any chance of a photo caption that says something other than just his name?
  • "He made his directorial debut in 2002" - shouldn't that say 2012?
  • "25.5 million Nepalese rupees" - any chance of a conversion for this, as I doubt many people outside Nepal would know what this equates to?
  • "who tries abduct a gangster's daughter." => "who tries to abduct a gangster's daughter."
  • No need for a hyphen in "dark comedy"
  • "The film is set in Nepalese Civil War" => "The film is set during the Nepalese Civil War"
  • "Loot 2 was a blockbuster at the box office, earning 10.5 million Nepalese rupees.[15] In its first week, Loot 2 grossed 60.1 million Nepalese rupees" - this makes no sense. How could it have earned 60.1M rupees in its first week but only 10.5M overall?
  • Where multiple refs appear together, they are often not in numerical order
  • Why is no role given for the films in which he made "special appearances"? Presumably he still played a character with a name.....
  • In the TV table, no need for a comma after Raut
  • Titles of songs should be shown in inverted commas
  • In the notes column of the music video table, no need for a comma after the first name if only two names are listed
  • External link section should be called "External links" (it's always shown as "links", even if there's only one
  • Think that's all I have -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't need to be as precise as "equivalent to US$524067.48" - saying "aproximately US$524,000" would be OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No role listed for "Changa Chet"?
  • No need for comma in photo caption
  • You describe both Loot films as "blockbusters", but the box office takings listed are quite small, certainly when most people are familiar with the notion of US films taking over a billion dollars. I appreciate that the Nepalese film industry is obviously very very different, but is there a way to express the success of the films in a way that gives a bit more context, rather than just saying "it was a blockbuster"? Was either the most successful film of the year in Nepal, or even of all time? As it stands we have no way of knowing whether Loot's takings of US$200k actually represent a huge success in Nepal. Does that make sense?
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Loot became the highest-grossing film. ChrisTheDude ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 13:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Aoba47

  • Although this has been discussed above, I am uncertain about the "blockbuster" word choice. I would remove it altogether and revise the sentence to something like this: (Loot earned 25.5 million Nepalese rupees (approximately US$218,000 in 2019), making it Nepal's highest-grossing film of 2012.).
  • I would clarify in the lead that Basnet wrote the screenplay for Loot. That would help to explain why the lead mentions the critical response to the script, which came a little out of left field for me.
  • I understand why you included a sentence that loot reportedly "changed the discourse of the Nepali film industry", but it is rather vague. Without more context, I am not exactly sure what this means. Maybe you could replace the quote with a brief part about why this film is so important to the Nepali film industry to better explain it to unfamiliar readers like myself?
  • A wikilink for hunger strikes in the image caption may be helpful.
  • I would add ALT text to the image.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence (In 2014, Basnet was an actor and producer in Ram Babu Gurung's romantic drama Kabaddi.) as it could read that he played an actor and producer in the film. Maybe something like (In 2014, Basnet acted in and produced Ram Babu Gurung's romantic drama Kabaddi) instead would be better?
  • Loot should not be wikilinked multiple times in the lead.
  • I am uncertain if this sentence (The film went to win a National Film Award.) because it deals more with the movie itself than Basnet's involvement with it.
  • For this sentence (Loot 2 was a blockbuster at the box office, it grossed 60.1 million Nepalese rupees (approximately US$524,000 in 2019), surpassing the lifetime box office gross of Loot.), I would remove "blockbuster" and just say (Loot 2 grossed 60.1 million Nepalese rupees (approximately US$524,000 in 2019), surpassing the lifetime box office gross of Loot.) instead.
  • Any reason why Sarwanam Theater is not mentioned in the lead?
  • Since there is a separate subsection and table for the music videos, should they be mentioned in the lead?
  • I would remove the red link for Dinesh Raut since it was established in an AfD (here) that this individual is not notable enough for an article. Red links should only be used to encourage the creation of an article, and that should not be the case here.

I hope this helps, and good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sussex Wildlife Trust

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

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

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

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

List of Category 1 Pacific hurricanes

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 20:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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

  • "a low-pressure area known as the Aleutian Low, are present" - no need for that comma there
  • What version of English is the article in? I notice spellings like "categorize" and "organize", which are American, yet the word "autumn" is used instead of "fall"
  • "In addition to those, 7 systems" => "In addition to those, seven systems"
  • "The Aleutian Low's retreat in late-April" - no need for that hyphen
  • "La Niña events increase wind shear and decreases" - the subject is "events", so the last word should be "decrease"
  • That's what I have on the lead, I will look at the tables later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Those should be fixed. NoahTalk 20:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

List of battleships of France

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This list comprises the battleships built by France between the late 1880s and the 1940s, and is the capstone of another subtopic of WP:OMT. The list passed a Milhist A-class review in August and should be in pretty good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • canceled vs. cancelled. Canceled is used in some of the sections.
    • Fixed, good catch
  • Service[38][39][23] of the Masséna's table, re-order the refs here.
    • Good catch
  • It is still strange that the Bouvet image isn't restored you sure it still works to you?
    • Yeah, it displays just fine on multiple devices - how odd
      • Quick drive by - it doesn't display for me either Cavie78 (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
        • That's strange - I've checked it on home and work computers and my phone, and it works on all of them. I wonder if you need to purge the page? (See WP:PURGE for how to do it). Sometimes I have to do that with very large file uploads. Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Tried purging and accessing from multiple devices and still doesn't work. Weird Cavie78 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Huh...does it work in the article on Bouvet itself? Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Parsecboy: I did the same but it didn't work. And yes the image works in the Bouvet article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • That's odd - I was wondering if it was something to do with the fact that it was a .tiff file and not a .jpg or .png, but if it's working in the Bouvet article, then that can't be it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A lot of tables use "kn" and others "knots" maybe try to standardise them?
    • Think I've got them
  • Metric horsepower in the table Masséna, link it.
    • Done
  • it difficult to stay within the 11,000-ton limit while incorporating What kind of ton? Or doesn't the source say it?
    • It's already specified earlier in the paragraph
  • The six Dantons remained based at Corfu and Malta for much of the war First are speaking about the island of Malta or the group of islands? Second, if we are talking about the group of islands then we should use the Crown Colony's link.
    • No, just the island - linked to Malta (island)
  • as the total tonnage exceeded the 70,000 tons allowed before the building holiday What kind of ton? Or doesn't the source say it?
    • It's the same 70,000-long-ton limit as mentioned in the Dunkerque section
  • In the Alsace class's table at the armour part please use an em dash like the rest of empty parts.
    • Whoops - guess I forgot to put that field in.

That's anything that I could find I probably forgot one, but I re-read it for a couple of times so it shouldn't be striking to my eyes. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of canids

Nominator(s): PresN 04:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Back in March I successfully nominated List of felids, a list of all species in the Felidae family (aka cats); I figured at the time that the natural followup would be dogs. It took much longer than I expected, but 6 months later here is List of canids, comprising all species in the Canidae family, aka dogs and foxes. The format is based on List of felids, and is generated by an offline script to maintain consistency, while the structure is based off of the tree of life projects' favorite Mammal Species of the World plus generally accepted modern research. Unlike the cat list, this list also includes prehistoric canids, as during the development of the list a rough consensus emerged that the list belonged here instead of Canidae and I plan to backfill the felids list the same way for consistency. The format changes there because the data is frankly impossible to get for ranges and ecology, etc. for the vast majority of animals from millions of years ago, but there is at least a generally accepted taxonomy for most of the extinct species. Anyways, the list as a whole is pretty exhaustively filled in and cited, so I think it's ready to go- thanks for reviewing! --PresN 04:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments on the lead
  • "as well the extinct genera Dusicyon" - isn't Dusicyon a singular genus?
  • Yes, fixed. --PresN 18:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it correct for Epicyon to have a capital E mid-sentence?
  • Yes, genera names are always capitalized. --PresN 18:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • That's all I have on the lead - will be back to look at the tables later.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Further comments
  • Arctic fox has a stray comma at the end of its "hunting" description
  • Fixed
  • How come a handful of extinct canids have refs but most do not?
  • As noted in the text above the tables, the entire section is based on work by Wang et. al. (refs 5, 72-74), except where otherwise noted- which would be for species described more recently than those overview papers/books were published, such as Vulpes qiuzhudingi, which wasn't described until 2014 (though, ironically Wang was also one of the authors of that paper). I've now made that more explicit.
  • What's the source for the first three columns in the extant tables?
  • Name(s)/describer/subspecies from Mammals of the World 3rd ed., as stated above the tables; the rangemaps are from the IUCN catalog, which is cited in each row but I've now made explicit in the text as well.
  • Thanks for clarifying, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • I have a random question about this part: "They are found on all continents except Antarctica, having arrived independently or accompanied human beings over extended periods of time." Would it be beneficial to add a note about how dogs, specifically sled dogs, have been banned from Antarctica? I believe the ban was a result of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which said that all non-native animals, other than humans, are not allowed in Antarctica. It is probably not necessary for the list, but it was just something that I randomly thought about when reading that part about Antarctica in the lead. I will read through the rest of the list sometime tomorrow if that is okay with you to provide any further commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: The Antarctica thing is interesting, but I think outside the scope of this list to give details on why dogs aren't found in the continent since it's trying to give an overview of the entire family and that's just one (important) subspecies. --PresN 01:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my point. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "Population sizes range from the extinct Falkland Islands wolf to the red fox, "the most widespread land carnivore in the world"." This confuses two different criteria. The source refers to the size of the area inhabited, not population size. (I would guess that domestic cats or dogs have the largest population size.)
  • That's fair, swapped out for wolves/dogs (it's dogs, incidentally, best estimate for worldwide cat population I found was ~500 million vs. dogs' 1 billion.)
  • "tribes or clades". This does not make sense. "Tribe" is a taxonomic rank, whereas "clade" links to cladistics, which is a method of classification. A genus is a clade just as a tribe is.
  • Hmm, so the issue (which you reference below) is that there are 2 tribes + a genus that is not placed in a named tribe. Easy problem to solve- now changed to say exactly that.
  • "Vulpini, which includes 3 genera and 14 species, comprising the fox-like canids". I think it would be clearer to say "Vulpini, the fox-like canids, comprising 3 genera and 14 species"
  • Done
  • "and the Urocyon genus" You say 3 tribes and then give two tribes and a genus, which is confusing. You need to give the tribe name.
  • As per above, there isn't one- reworked to make it more clear.
  • It would be helpful to spell out in the lead that the Borophaginae and Hesperocyoninae are extinct.
  • I do, right when I first mention them: "In addition to the extant Caninae, Canidae comprises two extinct subfamilies designated as Hesperocyoninae and Borophaginae."
  • Coyotes " including small to large mammals" This is rather vague. Is information available on the maximum size of prey?
  • It's vague because coyotes are super-omnivorous and will eat pretty much any animal that doesn't fight back successfully- they'll pounce on mice, and gang up on large cows (or other ungulates), though typically they stick to deer and smaller. "small to large mammals" does read strangely, though. Maybe "Preys on a wide variety of foods, including both small and large mammals, fruit, and insects"?
  • Falkland Islands wolf. Is an estimated date for extinction available?
  • 1876- added a note to that effect
  • You should link less known words such as lagomorph.
  • Whoops, got ungulates but missed that one. Fixed.
  • Perhaps have an additional symbol for sub-species which are critically endangered, such as the Chadian wild dog?
  • I'd prefer not to add more symbols/data for subspecies, due to inconsistent sourcing and varying definitions of what constitutes a "subspecies". Additionally, and possibly more importantly, for species I'm using the IUCN classifications, but they don't seem to classify subspecies in general- sometimes they'll do major population regions, and in fact for the African Wild Dog they do Global and Mediterranean, but not by subspecies and not often, so I'd have to mix data sources for different taxo levels.
  • This is a first rate list but I had to read the lead several times to understand it. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: Thanks! Hopefully it's at least a bit better now. Replied inline. --PresN 19:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Paul McCartney

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hendrix has two supports so I think I'm good to go with my next song list. This time one of the most important musicians of our time – and all time – and (very debatably) the greatest English musician of all time, Paul McCartney. I've already done George Harrison and John Lennon's song lists so I figured I might as well do Paul's. It includes all of his solo work, his recordings with other bands such as Wings, the Fireman, among others, and songs he's credited as featured artist, as well as classical music he has composed. As always, any comments or concerns are appreciated. Up next will be Ringo Starr's list and of course, the Fab Four together. – zmbro (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Another comment on the classical section, and maybe this is me being overly pedantic, but we'll see ;-) I had a look at the article on "Ocean's Kingdom" and it says it was "performed by the London Classical Orchestra". I understand that ol' Macca composed the score, but should the tracks from it be included on a list of songs recorded by him, if he didn't actually perform on it in any way...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I had wondered that too. I mainly put it in the list since it's technically a "Paul McCartney album" even though he doesn't explicitly perform (same with Working Classical); AllMusic lists the performer as "Paul McCartney / London Symphony Orchestra" so I think it's good. Should I just remove it? – zmbro (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. It's a bit of a grey area - most performers with lists of "songs recorded by...." haven't also composed ballet scores :-) I will see what other people think...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just had a quick look, and found that the notes and references are over linked per MOS:OVERLINK, there are many, like "the beatles", " Paul McCartney", " Parlophone", "Capitol Recors", "Apple records", "All music" and many other. Linking once is enough. If I find any other issues I will let you know. Dey subrata (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The tables are also over linked, mainly "Original Release" column in Songs table and "Release" column in the table Classical pieces.
  • Dey subrata It's actually customary in these types of lists to overlink like that, primarily the release cols with albums so that the reader can get to them with every song they look at. But I can definitely take care of the ones in references and notes which should not be a big deal. In previous lists I've done I've tended to overlink locations like the US and UK which I've stopped but you're probably right about record labels and whatnot. – zmbro (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • I understand the meaning of this sentence (Originally gaining prominence as a member of the Beatles, his songwriting partnership with bandmate John Lennon was one of the most celebrated in music history), but I am not certain if it is grammatically correct. I believe the initial, dependent phrase, in this case "Originally gaining prominence as a member of the Beatles", is supposed to describe the noun of the next part of the sentence. In this case, it would be attached to "his songwriting partnership with bandmate John Lennon", and that would not be correct.
  • Changed to "As a member of the Beatles, he formed a songwriting partnership with bandmate John Lennon that is one of the most celebrated in music history." That better?
  • I think that is better. Thank you for the revision. Aoba47 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "Around this time McCartney collaborated", I believe there should be a comma between "time" and "McCartney". – done
  • For this part "More recently, McCartney has recorded music", I would avoid the phrase "more recently" as its meaning will change as time passes. "More recently" to a reader in 2025 or 2030 will mean something different to someone reading this now. It would probably be better to put in the decade or some approximation instead. I have always been told in the past to avoid using phrases like "recently" for the above reasons.
  • Changed to "in the 2010s"

Surprisingly enough, I genuinely know very little about the Beatles or Paul McCartney outside of their respective greatest hits so I can only speak to the prose of the lead. You have done an excellent job because it is both informative and interesting and makes sense to a completely unfamiliar reader like myself. I just have three rather minor remarks, but once those are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

All done. They really are one of the greatest. And now's a really good time to listen to them, since the Abbey Road remix just came out last week. You should check more of their stuff out if you get a chance! Thanks for the comments :-) – zmbro (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I will definitely make sure to check out more of their work in the future. Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

Looks good, but there's a lot to take in. There was a separate Wings list – there are enough songs and they have their own discography. Or is it similar to Hendrix vs the Experience, where it's sometimes hard to distinguish the two? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo I originally made a separate one for them but eventually realized doing that was dumb since other bands McCartney was in (like the Fireman with Youth) were included and Wings wasn't. A few things I thought about were: one of the main criticisms of Wings throughout their whole run was being none other than backup musicians for McCartney (was actually Henry McCullough's stated reason for leaving the band in 1973). On top of that, multiple compilations including All the Best! and Pure McCartney include Wings with his solo work and McCartney himself on his tours performs Wings' work colloquially so I just decided to merge it back and keep it with his post-Beatles work as a whole. In the case of Hendrix vs the Experience, I think it's a little easier to distinguish between McCartney's solo work and his work with Wings but not that much, considering both "Maybe I'm Amazed" and "Coming Up" achieved greater commercial success with live versions by Wings than their studio versions, but again that's why I just decided to merge it, because to me it makes more sense. – zmbro (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. I did some spot checks on the album and singles refs and they look fine, so I'll support. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1980

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A total of 32 of these annual country #1 lists are now at FL and another seems on course, so here is the next in the series, covering a year in which none other than Clint Eastwood had a chart-topper. As ever your comments will be welcomed and acted upon promptly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • It may be helpful to make this part (all three singles spending three consecutive weeks at number one.) into its own sentence with something like (All three singles spent three consecutive weeks at number one.) since the sentence is already pretty dense with information from introducing four different song titles and two singers.
  • Reference 8 leads to a dead page (i.e. "page not found"). I would recommend archiving all the references if possible to avoid link rot and death.

Otherwise, everything looks good. Once both comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the long sentence, replaced the dead ref -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me. Great job as always. – zmbro (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good, I support the move, but as suggested by the other editor try to archive the citations, it will be better. Dey subrata (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – I spot checked a few refs and all look good. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

List of highest individual scores in ODIs

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

I am nominating this for featured list because,

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

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

Support Comments from Aoba47

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

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

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

ok will fix

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

Jennifer Love Hewitt discography

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Jennifer Love Hewitt is primarily known as an actress, but some people may be surprised to learn that she also had a music career. I had previously worked on the list of songs recorded by Jennifer Love Hewitt earlier in the year, and it successfully passed through the FLC process. It seems like the right time to draw attention to its companion list. I have only done one discography (for Alyssa Milano) before so any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


  • "American actress and singer Jennifer Love Hewitt has released: four studio albums, a compilation album, seven music videos, and thirteen singles (as well as five promotional singles)" => "American actress and singer Jennifer Love Hewitt has released four studio albums, a compilation album, seven music videos, and thirteen singles, as well as five promotional singles"
  • "Hewitt moved Los Angeles" - where did she move it to? ;-)
  • Mention that her first album was credited to "Love Hewitt" (and any other releases as appropriate)
  • "which resulted in Hewitt being removed from Atlantic" - I would say "which resulted in Hewitt being dropped by Atlantic" - that's the usual wording, I think, and "removed from" makes it sound like she was physically removed from the premises :-)
  • "The song reached number 59 [...] as well as number eight [...] and number 5" - bit of inconsistency here in how the numbers are shown
  • "It was gold certification" => "It received a gold certification"
  • "number 31 on ARIA Charts" - I think ARIA publish multiple charts so probably need to be more specific
  • "number 75 on the GfK Entertainment charts, and number 72 on the Dutch Charts" - same for both of these two. Even if the individual charts don't have their own articles, I would still write "Dutch album chart" or whatever
  • "both charted in the United States and internationally, and received a gold certification from the ARIA" - did both receive the certification? If so, I would say "and each received a gold certification from the ARIA"
  • The compilation album has what I presume to be its catalogue number shown, but the other albums don't - better to be consistent
  • Personally I would not include "acting" appearances in other artists' videos, as I don't feel they are part of her discography
  • "Madeleine's Love Song" is spelt differently in the table to the lead
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comments! I believe that I have address all of them. There were definitely some amusing typos in there lol. Maybe, Hewitt literally pushed Los Angeles to an entirely different state or was kicked out of the Atlantic offices by security lol. Let me know if there is anything else that requires further revision, and have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I did not expect to get comments so quickly. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem. Enjoy the rest of your day. As for me, as I live in the UK, I am off to bed now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Onceinawhile

  • Is there a source for the first sentence "has released four studio albums, a compilation album, seven music videos, and thirteen singles, as well as five promotional singles" and what date is this verified to?
  • I have followed the model for featured lists on discographies, like Lorde discography and Meghan Trainor discography. The citations used in the body of the lists are used to reference this information. It is also the most current information. I have not seen a discography FL include a date verified for this kind of sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. Which particular source(s) makes you feel certain that the sentence is accurate (i.e. that we are not missing any)?
  • I do not think there is a single site/source that lists all of Hewitt's music (albums, singles, and music videos). Hewitt is far more well-known as an actress, and I would not be surprised if people did not know she released music at all. I have checked through sites like AllMusic, Discogs, and others to make sure I have not missed anything, and I am pretty confident that I have caught everything. Aoba47 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "on March 1992" => either put the specific day in March, or change it to "in March"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "it produced three singles" seems an odd way to refer to an album. Perhaps "it included"?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "under-performed commercially" -> underperformed what exactly - her other singles, or just Altantic's expectations
  • Revised. It pretty much means that the albums did not sell. Aoba47 (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "spawned two singles... was the only promotional single for the album." -> I don't understand this. Doesn't this mean there were three singles? And what is a promotional single - can this be wikilinked?
  • Promotional single is already linked in the first sentence, and a promotional single and a full single are treated as two separate things in the music industry. Aoba47 (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and played a lead role in it" -> "in which she played a lead role"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "has shifted her attention to acting over music" -> this sentence should move further up chronologically (before the 2006 reference).
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Well done Aoba47! A very well written list. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Onceinawhile: Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed everything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, you have my support. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Let me know if you need any help with any of your projects. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


Not an expert but after a quick look got some points which need attention.

  • it included three singles: "Dancing Queen", "What's It Gonna Take", and "Please Save Us the World". need a citation at least you can link youtube.
  • The citations for the singles are already present in the body of the list. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Last line, The same year, Hewitt collaborated with Sophie B. Hawkins on a song for the comedy film Alpha Males Experiment. needs a citation
  • The citation for this is already present in the body of the list. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • While using italics for albums, series and movies, any reason why such used for Billboard, its not in any of the category mentioned before.
  • Billboard is a magazine so it should italicized. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would rather ask to have seperate column for reference in the tables.
  • To the best of my knowledge, discographies use references this way. See Meghan Trainor discography as an example. I understand what you mean though. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference- 4 needs to add original date.
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 9,18,19, 35- Billboard have dates, ncan be added
  • The dates show when the album or song peaked on the Billboard chart, which is not exactly the same as when the site published the information so I do not think it would be appropriate to use the dates here. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything else seems ok to me. Dey subrata (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Dey subrata: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. If there is anything else that needs to corrected, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks ok to me, I support. Dey subrata (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

  • All looks good, but I have a question about the tables. In the "Album" column of "As lead artist", the first entry "Non-album single" is shaded, which is usually used for entries in the first columns of tables. This also appears in columns for "Other appearances" (use rowspan=2?) and "Music videos". They all use {{n/a}}. Is there a reason for this? (I hope this isn't a peculiarity of my system, which happens from time to time). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ojorojo: Thank you for the comments. I changed the "Other appearances" table to include "rowspan=2", and I revised the "N/A" in the same part to "None" to be more descriptive. I have seen the {{n/a}} template and shading used in other discography lists, but I would be more than happy to remove it if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Apparently, there are a number of templates that may be used in tables to provide contrast, including {{n/a}}, {{Non-album single}}, and {{Unknown}}. Their use reflects stylistic preference, so no need to change. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

  • Good for me. Happy to support. – zmbro (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from Rhain

  • I really wanted to find something to criticise here, but I've got nothing. You've got me stumped! It's a support from me. Well done. – Rhain 07:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Cartography of Jerusalem

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

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

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

Support Comments from Aoba47

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

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

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

Reywas92Talk 00:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Comments by Dudley

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

List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, first it follows all the Featured List criteria:

  • Written as prose with a good lead.
  • The article is comprehensive with all necessary informations and sources.
  • Have a organised structure with all tables, sections and heading required to display the the information.
  • Complies with WP:MOS.
  • The article is stable, no edit wars can be seen in recent times and also as all information are well tabled and with citations, there is very little scope of edit wars.

Secondly, the article has been constructed taking inspiration from FL articles like List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi and List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo and shows almost identical in nature and thus can be included in Featured list. Dey subrata (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support: Satisfies a no. of requirements.--Anbans 585 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Despite the extremely quick support above, I found a lot of issues. Most of them are minor, but nonetheless they need fixing............

@Dey subrata: I will do a full check later, but is there a particular reason why you have left in the goals for India's under-20 team? As I mentioned above, no other equivalent list includes goals for under-age teams..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: The only reason I have kept it because, AIFF considered them as international goals against his tally, though FIFA don't recognise it in "senior" international goals (but are FIFA recognised goals though are under age group goals ofcorse) but FIFA respect the federation tally, for which you can see in news when AIFF announced Sunil Chhetri as all time highest scorer after scoring 39 goals not 31 goals because I M Vijayan also scored some U20 goals which were considered as international goals by AIFF (not FIFA), for this I often see new editors come and put these goals in the list without knowing the official data which often creates chaos (also that goal against Qatar), so better I have kept it such so that if any new editor comes, he/she may not do such mistakes. I think its better for the article to follow the last but a important criteria "to be a stable article", without this I think it will often be unstable. Dey subrata (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I am not 100% sure about that but I will leave it here to see what other editors think.
@ChrisTheDude: Here check AIFF is declaring him as the second highest goalscorer with 39 goals, I M Vijayan 38 goals (including u20 goals) by AIFF where as he has 29 goals only (FIFA recognised here). Though in reality by FIFA A international match stats Chhetri become highest goalscorer when he scored his 30th goal. Thats why so that no confusion may occur among readers and editors as many such articles you can find online. Here is one such example. My intention is to keep it stable, if we remove this information from the page, some one in future must be there will get confused and will do edits. Trust me very few people here have Indian players international knowledge, and no one is permamnent here to resolve these issues, if such issue arise i am afraid it will not be resolved. One thing that can be done is that, that line from the lead can be removed and just the goals in the table later be kept as mentioned seperately after the main list or if you suggest any thing else. Dey subrata (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Good work including sources for the goals. Important for verifiability.
  • "Appearances and Goals by competition" might need some rework, it seems unnecessarily detailed, for example Nehru Cup, King's Cup are not official tournaments, it's ok to keep them in individual goals, but not for aggregates. Appearance and goals in that should be clubbed under friendlies. SAFF Championship can be retained I suppose. Coderzombie (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Coderzombie: Thank you for reviewing the article, ofcorse credit goes to you a lot as you have added lot of the goals and statistics in the first place. Anyway coMing to your concern, Nehru Cup and Kings' Cup are mentioned as because these are actually FIFA certified tournament (though Nehru cup is dissolved now), very few tournaments are FIFA certified and AFC certified another example is Pestabola Merdeka, the points counted on importances for FIFA certified tournament are little higher than normal friendlies. So its been added. You can see that I have not included intercontinental cup or anyother cup he played. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The second sentence has two linked uses of Indian national football team.
  • "and country's most-capped player" > the country's...
  • The second image is a fragment so doesn't require a full stop.
  • "in the King's Cup. and the rest have come in the AFC Challenge Cup", full stop half way but the sentence carries on.
  • Second paragraph could do with a source for the final part.
  • "but are official goals", if they're not counted by FIFA then they aren't considered official. I'm assuming they're counted by the All India Football Federation? If so, I'd add that to the sentence.
  • "FIFA allows a maximum of three substitutions by each team", that's only in competitive fixtures which, according to the table, this wasn't. The ref you're using is for the 2017 Confederations Cup which is a competitive tournament. It's usually seven for friendly matches which would make sense as the RSSSF ref states India made 10 substitutes.
  • I'd probably agree with ChrisTheDude's comments about removing the under-20 goals. If they're not recognised by FIFA, then it's probably placing undue importance on them in comparison to senior international fixtures.
  • Refs 4, 11, 12, 14, 21, 26, 27, 31, 32, 48 and 52 need an author.
  • Ref 13 uses a different date format than other refs, stick to one style for consistency.
  • Ref 22 needs a publishing date as a parameter, rather than included in the title.
  • Refs 23, 32, 52, 54, 55, 56 and 59 need a publishing date.
  • Avoid shouting in ref titles, as in ref 57, per WP:ALLCAPS.
  • Basically, any AIFF refs also need a publishing date which is listed at the bottom of the article.
  • Ref 58 is Giovanni Savarese's profile, not a match report as stated.

I've done a run through and picked out some points above. Kosack (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Thanks for taking time to review it. All your concern are resolved. Except one thing I want to add, those u-20 goals are kept, as I have mentioned before, because 90 percent readers and editors who visit the article are Indians and because of the fact that AIFF consider those goals as official goals, there is very high chance and we have seen before too editors doing mistakes, mostly new editors, they try to change the goal list and edit to include those goals without having any knowledge that those goals are u23 or u20 goals. I just want the article to be stable, I don't want that when the article gets FA status, someone coming here adding those goals in the goal list. So, lets take a final call, you know my concerns now, my decision is "Aye", let it be here for stability of the article, now you four give your final call.. Do you want to keep it or not? @Anbans 585:, @Coderzombie: @ChrisTheDude: Dey subrata (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Under-20 goals should definitely not be included. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
U-20 goals should not be included. Coderzombie (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW, one other thing I noticed - why are the unofficial games/under-20 games/hat-tricks tables centred on the screen whereas the big one is not? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Check now. Dey subrata (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say they should all be left-aligned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Dey subrata (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: and @Kosack: Ok, I removed the u-20 goals from the lead and also from the list but added a footnote instead. I think that will go good with all. Dey subrata (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just noticed one more thing (can't believe I did not spot this before): out of his 72 goals, 39 came in friendly matches, 17 in the SAFF Championships, 14 in the Nehru Cup, 13 in the World Cup qualifiers, 9 in the Asian Cup qualifiers, 5 in the AFC Asian Cup, 1 in the King's Cup and the rest have come in the AFC Challenge Cup and its qualifiers - 39+17+14+13+9+5+1=98 (and that's without including "the rest" which came in the AFC Challenge Cup), so at least one of those numbers must be very wrong......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: its written "in the AFC Challenge Cup and its qualifiers-"8 and 6" which is everything was correct brother. you misread the sentence. Dey subrata (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The sentence cannot be correct, because it states that he has scored 72 goals in total, and then it lists figures for each competition and they add up to 98. The numbers cannot possibly be right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
How its clearly wriiten the rest came in AFC Challenge cup and its qualifiers, 98 and the rest whatever goals...its from afc challenge n its qualifier... What's wrong in it. Dey subrata (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Forget the bit about the AFC Challenge Cup specifically. What is wrong is that you say he has scored a total of 72 goals, but the numbers for each competition add up to 98, as I have stated twice above. As an example, you say he has scored 39 goals in friendlies, but I checked the table and there are only 16 listed, a massive difference. Similarly, the lead says he has scored 14 goals in the Nehru Cup, but there are only 9 in the table. So all the numbers in that sentence are wrong. Do you understand the issue? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I was talking about appearances. My mistake. Dey subrata (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, but this isn't a list of appearances, it's a list of goals, so you need to change those numbers to the number of goals he scored in each competition -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Dey subrata (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Have you included his goals in the Intercontinental Cup in the total for friendlies? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is. included the intercontinental in the friendlies. Dey subrata (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
If they are not listed as friendlies in the table, then for consistency I would not lump them in with the friendlies in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. listed as Friendly with name of the cup in bracket. Dey subrata (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support' - thanks for bearing with me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
No thanks to you, for taking your valuable time for it. And its a learning process for me. I will be nominating few other list too, hope and like to work with you in those articles too. Dey subrata (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A further point, the table should be using scoperows, per WP:DTT. Kosack (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Done Dey subrata (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've taken another run through and picked out a few more:
  • "The captain of the India national football team, he is the all-time top goalscorer of India and the country's most-capped player", I would suggest merging the goalscorer and capped parts together to avoid a double mention of India. Something like "The captain of the India national football team, he is the country's most-capped player and all-time top goalscorer".
  • The link for I.M.Vijayan is redirecting back on itself.
  • "With his 72 International goals", no need to capitalise international and I'd add a comma after goals.
  • Pakistan is already linked in the first paragraph so there's no need to repeat the link in the third.
  • "Chhetri's first international tournament for India was the 2007 Nehru Cup where he scored two goals against Cambodia in a 6–0 win", it seems odd to only mention one of the three fixtures he scored in during the tournament especially as he was Indian's top scorer and they won the tournament.
  • "7 in the World Cup qualifiers, 4 in the Asian Cup qualifiers", I don't think we need the before these two tournaments. It sounds odd when it's referring to multiple qualifying campaigns rather than a single one.
  • Use the same name for the Asian Cup rather than having "Asian Cup" followed by "AFC Asian Cup" later on.
  • Probably not worth having the ref column as sortable given that it doesn't sort refs.
  • The refs (46 & 47) have author and publishing dates available. Kosack (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kosack: All the above done, but I don't understand the I M Vijayan thing, redirecting back on itself?? I don't get it. Dey subrata (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The link is piped to his full name but the actual article uses his initials. So you're forcing a redirect to the page for no reason. Kosack (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kosack: Done. Dey subrata (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The two refs (now 47 & 48) have not been amended. Kosack (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kosack: What to do in it, please let me know, wat to amend..or can you please do it. Dey subrata (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The refs just had an available author and publishing date is all, I've added them in now. Anyway, that's it from me, happy to support this nomination now. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • For the second image in the lead, I would add (left) and (right) by the people's name just to make it clear who is who in the photo.
  • A majority of the dependent clauses with dates (i.e. "On 9 December 2011 Chhetri netted" and "On 5 September 2019 Chhetri") do not use commas to separate it from the rest of the sentence. The only exception that I see is this sentence "As of 5 September 2019, he has scored 72 goals in 112 official international appearances since his debut on 12 June 2005 against Pakistan." I would remove the comma for consistency with the rest of the lead.

These are the only two things that I can see. It seems that this list has already received an extensive review from other editors at this point. Once my comments are addressed and resolved, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Fixed. In the image, its sufficienet to add only Chhetri(left) as there are two people only, its obvious the other person will be (right), so added Chhetri (left). and commas are used after both of the dates. I hope all done. Dey subrata (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - meets all relevant criteria Spiderone 19:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sunil Chhetri is an Indian professional footballer, who..." The comma is unnecessary.
  • "His tally of 72 puts him as the tenth highest goalscorer..." Add a hyphen to make it "tenth-highest".
  • "In his debut match on 12 June 2005 against arch-rival Pakistan Chhetri scored..." Add a comma after "Pakistan".
  • "He is the only Indian footballer to score 50 international goals and..." Add a comma after "goals".
  • "1 in the King's Cup [6][16]" There is a space between "Cup" and the references. Either move them to the end of the sentence, or add a comma after "Cup" and remove the space.
  • The second image needs alt text.
  • The first table uses "#" for goal number, but the second two use "Goal". Choose one or the other. Also...
  • "#" should not be used to indicate number; use "No." instead (if you choose this style).

*My personal preference would be to apply column widths to the first three tables for a cleaner look/transition between the three. (Optional)

  • Why is "FIFA allows a maximum of six substitutions..." smaller?
  • The three International statistics tables need row and col scope.
  • Some references are in title case (1, 2, 4) others are sentence case (3, 7, 10). Choose one style and apply to all refs.
  • All else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@NatureBoyMD: All fixed. That line in small is because its secondary and extra information, not a summary for the section. Thank you for the review. Dey subrata (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding applying column widths to the first three tables: What I meant was applying fixed widths to all three tables in this section so that the columns of all three would be aligned. I now realize that the first table has a "Cap" column, but the other do not. This extra column would make it impossible to align correctly. Please disregard this comment. I have removed the fixed widths you added since they force some of the dates to wrap.
  • The row/col scope in "Appearances and goals by competition" and "Appearances and goals by opposition" tables needs adjusting (scope needs to come first).
NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@NatureBoyMD: Both Ronaldo and Messi articles are using later. Please let me know. Dey subrata (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Comments from KingSkyLord

@Dey subrata: I have a lot of issues with your list before I can reasonably say I would want to support it. I will try to do a source review very soon.

  • Don't refer to the 2011 SAFF Championship as the "2011 SAFF Cup" as the former is its official name.
  • Remove the list of his hat-tricks and unofficial goal. As interesting as they may be, I think that it is a little too niche to mention them in their own section. Those hat-tricks are already in List of India national football team hat-tricks and are listed inside the main list itself. I don't know why an unofficial goal is mentioned in this article but it is definitely not noteworthy considering that it was scored in a match where India made 10 substitutions, almost enough to replace an entire squad.
    • Anyways, those were my major gripes with the list. I look forward to seeing you improve this list considering how interesting Chhetri's international career is. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@KingSkyLord: Thank you for review and valuable inputs. I have mostly fixed all your concerns except four of your concerns:
  • 2nd point, its a necessary info, other FL articles include such for example list of Messi you can check or Bale where you urself is the nominator i think.
  • third point, also added because the same is used later in the lead which I mistakenly removed before while editing, same you can find at FL articles like list of Messi and is also discussed in the first "resolved comments by the first editor Chris the Dude", you can check above.
  • Fouth point, Confusing, I don't find SAFF as SAF anywhere, please let me know what you are pointing, I will rectify if there is such.
  • Last point, about unofficial match (unofficial by FIFA, for AIFF its international goal for which they celebrated Chhetri's 100 caps while it was not 100) so, for viewers and readers it necessary to provide all information, most importantly he scored a goal in that match, is a international friendly match for both the Federation. Thats why not opposed by other 5 reviewers. And the hat-trick, its a very big achievements in football, are considered as an important statistics and a measure of accomplishment as they are rare. Secondly, its a record for Chhetri as most number of hat-tricks, and a related viatl info just like the "Statistics". As in other FL list, stats of hat-tricks are linked to series articles like of Roanldo or Messi (the box thing added below), it can't be done here in Chhetri's article as such series of articles is not created for Chehtri and also not possible as his careers is not illustrated as them. Secondly hat-tricks mentioned in other articles does not mean we can't add here, when its a vital information and a smooth read. Similarly most of the informations in the article is also mentioned in Chhetri's main article, but that does not mean it must not be added here. Again, I must bring to your notice that, if you go through Messi, Ronaldo and Bale's list you will find that international statistics are differently presented, some have "appearances and goals by opposition", "goals by confedearation" and "series of article" boxes, some don't have, but it shows that, all articles need not to be similar and can be unique but are correct and have proper structure and follows all citerea. So, such a list does not make the article bad rather making more interesting for readers. All other editors agreed to keep and I would also like to keep it. But rest all your concerns are addressed and fixed accordingly as mentioned. Thank you again. Dey subrata (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dey subrata: Sorry for the late reply, but I do not think you fully understood what I was trying to say. I understand why your first two points and I will let them slide considering how minor they were. I still have a few problems though and those include your last two points and a few new ones.
  • For your third response my criticism, I meant to say "SAFF Cup" and not "SAF Cup", I accidentally made a typo. It would be better if you referred to the competition as the "SAFF Championship" rather than the "SAFF Cup".
  • The official name is SAFF Cup, it was my mistake that I did not maintain consistency the same in the table, now corrected. It was earlier known as SAFF Gold Cup, now known as SAFF Suzuki Cup. It is sometimes called as SAFF Championship, but the offcial recognised name is SAFF Cup. Here is latest cup website.
  • For your last response about why you justify the info about the hat-tricks and unofficial goal, I just think that making it "a little unique" is just an excuse to add a little bit more stats about his international career. Now there is no problem with making the list accessible, but adding the list of hat-tricks and the unofficial goal seems a little too far. No other list article lists every international hat-trick the footballer has ever scored. Cristiano Ronaldo has scored 7 international hat-tricks throughout his entire career, yet none of them are listed on his international goals list. I would rather have it if you mentioned how many hat-tricks and when he scored them in the second paragraph of the prose rather than in its own separate table. The hat-tricks can be clearly seen in the easily readable list that is provided below the prose. Putting when he scored those three hat-tricks in the second paragraph (which is about his goalscoring progression) can allow the reader to be able to understand why he has scored so many international goals so far. Can you at least remove the unofficial goal? It's not counted onto his international goalscoring record and is very useless compared to the hat-trick list. Yes, the AIFF may have "celebrated" it when he played for the senior side 100 times (not 100 official caps as you say), but they aren't the only ones who make a final say of whether or not a match is considered official or not. FIFA are the ones who make a decision on whether or not an international friendly is official or not as they are the ones who help organize the fixture. Clearly, the match was intended to be a public training match and not a full international as India swapped 10 of their players at half-time.
  • Ok, I removed the table for unofficial match, the fact being only one match, and as already being defined in the sentence above, and so included in the footnotes. But for hat-trick list its very ok to keep. Ronaldo's article does not include hat-trick list that does not mean we can't include here. Its problem to not display all facts but not problem in displaying all facts. Secondly, as already mentioned above that, we no need to be similar with other articles but to inspire from them, such as Messi and Bale's list have 2 table of "goals by year and goals by competiton" but where as Ronaldo's list have 4 tables "goals by year, competition & opponents and federation" Do we need to question why Ronaldo's list have these extra 2 table whether other lists don't have. Its not that Ronaldo article was promoted before Messi's, it was in June 2018 and Messi's was in Jnauary 2018. But I like the Roanldo article more as its more interesting as its presenting more information. Thirdly, though Messi and Ronaldo's list does not include hat-tricks but they have those "Series of article box" where all their hat-trick international and clubs are mentioned which is not possible for Chhetri's to make as there is none such series of article, if in future such a series of article is made, we can think on it. The thing is that, this table making the article interesting for readers and it follows all critereas. And as i moentioned all editors agree on it. Anyway, I gave a thought on the unoffcial match and find it not necessary, so removd as mentioned. I am ok with it. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This list definitely suffers from WP:OVERCITE as references 1 and 6 are used more than four times, which is more times than they need to be used in the same article. I would highly recommend if you could at least put Ref 1 as an external link as well, seeing as how it is currently being used six times in this list. If you could at least remove the references to Source 1 from
@KingSkyLord: Fixed and added that one in the externals.
    • Those are my concerns for now. I genuinely want to see this list improved and actually become an FL for once. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Denmark

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

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

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

List of cyclists with a cycling-related death

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

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

  • fix dashes.
    • I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the dash-placeholder for the blank images? I fixed that down below. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to "-" to "–" some i.e. Case 36-74. Walrave and Koch -> Case 36–74. Walrave and Koch.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Working on it - this will take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Went through and checked all the hypens/dashes both dash-em & dash-en, adjusted when necessary. So far as I can tell (and I might have missed some), the hyphens that are left aren't incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink For future reference, install this script and you can fix dashes with one button. – zmbro (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • remove unused "publisher=" from refs.
  • publisher=ABC (newspaper) - > ABC
  • | -> Piet Dickentman biography
  • no shouting in ref.
    • Heh, ok, I just took the refs/titles exactly as I found them, so if a title was all in caps (not unusual in early 20th C newspapers for instance) I left it alone but Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • archive sources.
    • So. Just to make sure I understand before I set down this long road...I need to convert the approximately 160 simple cite webs to wayback urls, correct? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
You can use this tool [3].___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Working on this one too, it'll take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Cycling related deaths including professionals who died during training section (why are some date in brackets and some are not)
    • Are you referring to some being set off by periods? I have made the date-style in that section consistent - does that address your concerns? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring below the image some dates have brackets on them however other two don't.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh! You're referring to the 4 photos in the training section. The parentheses for the 2 photos are a stylistic choice for those photos - I didn't have a firm date for them, just a decade for the one and a year for the other. The dates without parentheses are for the two dated photos. Using the parentheses for this gallery isn't incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • in the table it contains dash, some don't have the dash
    • Done. The dash is a placeholder for possible photos. Which, sadly, can be very hard to find. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • overlinking in table
    • I need more info on this particular bullet point, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying is overlinked. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Countries are overlinked.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Countries are you mean in the Nationality section of the table, that just the Name of the country should be linked and the flags should be unlinked? Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

────────── for archiving ref, you can use this [4] which automaticly archives all the refs in the page. Also see the comments that I've left above.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Table vs bullet points

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

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

Lana Turner performances and awards

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

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In the whole lead, only one sentence is sourced - pretty much everything else needs sourcing
  • "including Dancing Co-Ed (1939), Ziegfeld Girl (1941)" - if there's only two examples listed, then they should be separated by "and", not a comma
  • Personally I would combine the "By decade" film tables into one
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude and Aoba47: Hello all, I've addressed these concerns above--for some reason it never occurred to me that leads for list articles needed citations, as the contents of the article don't adequately source the summary of the lead. Long story short, I've added appropriate sources for all of the sentences in the lead, aside from the film count in the opening sentence, which is self-evident (and sourced throughout). --Drown Soda (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Banana Fish episodes

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I worked on this list back when the series was airing; it has been off-air for about eight months now, so the content is stable and unlikely to change in the future. The list concerns Banana Fish, an influential manga series in the 80s/90s that was adapted into a series last year. I believe the list provides a plot overview without veering into excessive detail, is throughly sourced, and has a well-written lead section. I appreciate any feedback or comments. Morgan695 (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • "(alternately stylized as BANANA FISH)" - is this needed? If all it means is that the title is shown in capitals, I think it is unnecessary. Coronation Street has its title shown in caps in its opening sequence, but I don't think the lead needs to say "(alternately stylized as CORONATION STREET)"
  • "although detectives Jenkins and Dickenson believe he is innocent, Evanstine arrests Ash" - presumably Evanstine is a third detective? Might be worth saying "their colleague Evanstine"..........
  • "used as a frontfor a" - missing space between two words
  • "Together with Shorter, Max, Eiji and Ibe, the five men visit Ash's family home" - that makes a total of nine men, which I don't think is what you mean. Best to just say "Together with Shorter, Max, Eiji and Ibe, Ash visit s his family home"
  • "Shorter later discovers that the Alexis Dawson" - don't think the word "the" is needed there
  • "the then kills Abraham" - seems to be at least one word missing here
  • "the National Health Institute, federal health facility run by Dr. Mannerheim" => "the National Health Institute, a federal health facility run by Dr. Mannerheim"
  • Spelling of Blanca suddenly changes to Blanka (and then later back to Blanca)
  • "Golzine and Yut-Lung hire Eduardo Foxx's group of mercenaries and former members of the French Foreign Legion, to capture Ash" - comma after Legion not needed
  • "Meanwhile, Lao Yen-Thai, Sing's half-brother has never forgiven Ash for killing Shorter, is ordered by Yut-Lung to kill Eiji, though he refuses to do so" => "Meanwhile, Lao Yen-Thai, Sing's half-brother, who has never forgiven Ash for killing Shorter, is ordered by Yut-Lung to kill Eiji, though he refuses to do so"
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A few further comments
  • The image seems to have disappeared?
  • I can see both "the group prepares" and "the group use" (eps 5 and 6) - is a group a plural or singular noun in the form of English in which the article is written?
  • "After visiting to Max's ex-wife" => "After visiting Max's ex-wife"
  • "discovers that young man" => "discovers that the young man"
  • "Golzine and Yut-Lung hires the militia of Eduardo Foxx" => "Golzine and Yut-Lung hire the militia of Eduardo Foxx"
  • All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've incorporated these changes. Looks like the infobox was removed by an intervening edit, so I've re-added the image. Morgan695 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be a massive pedant, which I am sure you find very irksome, but in episodes 5, 6 and 7 I can still see four uses of "the group [verb]" and in two cases the verb is singular and in the other two it's plural. I would just fix them, but I am not sure which version of English the article is written in (American?) so I am not 100% sure which usage is correct. Sorry again...... :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would add ALT text to the image in the lead.
  • What do you mean by a "key visual"? Is it like a poster?
  • This part "adding modern references such as smartphones and substituting the Vietnam War with the Iraq War." should have a citation.
  • Since almost everything is cited in the lead, then I would recommend adding citations for these sentences as well: "The series consists of two cours, totaling 24 episodes. Aniplex encapsulated the series into four volumes, in DVD and Blu-Ray formats."
  • I agree with ChrisTheDude's concern about the "the group [verb]" parts not being consistent in terms of the verbs being singular or plural.
  • I am uncertain if the reference/note in the episode synopsis for "The Catcher in the Rye" is entirely necessary. That information seems more relevant to the main article on the series rather than here as it is more about the writing and production while this list is more focused on plot, broadcasting, and release.

Otherwise, everything looks good to me. I believe ChrisTheDude already has covered a lot so thank you for that. I have heard of this manga/anime when I was doing research on the boy's love genre as part of my M.A. project so it is nice to learn more about it. I hope my comments are helpful, and have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @User:Aoba47 Thank you for your review, and I'm happy to hear you learned more about the series from doing it. I've incorporated the citation and copy edits you suggested; a key visual is essentially a piece of promotional art, so I've used that word as a more widely-recognized alternative. Re: the citation in "The Catcher In The Rye," I added it awhile ago because this article and Banana Fish were the subject of a quasi-trolling edit war over whether the series truly ends with the protagonist dying; the citation clarifies the plot directly from the creator of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything, and that all makes sense to me. I support this for promotion. It was a pleasure to read this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. However, I understand if you do not have the time or interest so do not feel pressured to do so. Either way, good luck with this nomination and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from lullabying

I think it would be better if the article contained information about the anime production process, because so far I'm not seeing the jump from a B article to a Good article. I know Spoon 2Di released staff interviews which I think would be helpful in building the article. Also, this is the first time I'm seeing audio dramas listed in the episodes... for some reason I don't think they belong there because this article should focus on the animation itself. lullabying (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lullabying: I can do some research into fleshing out information on production. Regarding the audio dramas, I think this is a specific case where they merit inclusion because they were produced by the same studio that produced the anime, with the same voice cast, and were released exclusively with the physical media release of the series. If this were a typical anime radio drama, where the audio may have been produced by a different company with different voice actors and given its own discrete release on a CD/other physical media, I would agree that it would be strange to include it here. The Banana Fish audio dramas are essentially minisodes for the anime series, and I think it enhances the list to include them in the article. Morgan695 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
A lot of drama CDs use the same voice cast in the anime and they're released as bonuses in the manga/home release. It just doesn't fit considering that the list is supposed to focus on animated episodes IMHO. I know Ao Haru Ride had a drama CD released with one of the manga volumes to promote the anime, and had some bonus comics released with the limited editions of the home release but I wouldn't necessarily list it in the episodes section because they're not the same format. It's a similar case with the Persona 3 drama CDs. lullabying (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I still believe Banana Fish is a distinct case, as the audio drama episodes were included with the physical anime release (and not the manga, as in the case of Ao Haru Ride) and did not receive their own discrete media release (as in the case of Persona 3). I can continue working on your note re: production, but we can route to a second opinion as necessary if the audio drama issue is an impasse. Morgan695 (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Digimon Tamers also had a new drama CD with its new Blu-ray release. Anyways, the inclusion doesn't fit the format for WP:EPISODE, since these pages are supposed to focus on television episodes or shorts. lullabying (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The Digimon Tamers Blu-ray example appears to be a one-off single episode release, rather than a multi-episodic release as Banana Fish was. And I'm not seeing any specific guidance at WP:EPISODE that circumscribes content for television "list of episode" articles in the way you've described, beyond the content needing to be notable and sourced (aka the standard for any Wikipedia article). Morgan695 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I recommend you opening a WP:3PO request because as stated, this article should ideally focus on televised episodes or animated shorts, whereas audio dramas are simply audio dramas and aren't part of the format. These are simply drama CDs that come with the limited editions of the home release and would put some WP:UNDUE. Some anime home releases come with limited edition comics, just like the CDs, and I wouldn't list them here just like the CD dramas. As it currently is, I disagree with it being on the page. lullabying (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lullabying: Third opinion request has been made. I will continue to edit the list's information on production and ping you when it is in acceptable condition to review. Morgan695 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lullabying: Lede has been revised to include more information on production. The section now contains 2563B of readable prose, making it of roughly equivalent size to the featured list List of Grey's Anatomy episodes (2366 B), listed at Wikipedia:EPISODE as a "good example of a 'list of' page" Morgan695 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, the names of musicians and song titles cannot be in all capitals unless they are acronyms per MOS:JAPAN#Titles of media. lullabying (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Morgan695 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: Given that the audio dramas were an official, canon part of the releases, were offered with the series media, and were a series unto themselves rather than a one-off or novelty, I think their inclusion is warranted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC) {{subst:signature}}

Thank you for your comments, Seraphimblade. Given your comment, and that two reviewers have already elected to support the list for featured status in its current form with the audio drama episodes included, I am going to keep them in the list at this time, and would welcome input from other editors who wish to review the list for featured eligibility. Morgan695 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1987

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Came back from holiday to find that the list for 1986 has been promoted, so here's the list for 1987 which (assuming it's successful) will complete a 30-year run of country number ones at FL status. As ever, all comments will be addressed promptly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • The first sentence of the lead's second paragraph is somewhat long. I would start a new sentence at this part "which had moved into the number one position in the issue of Billboard dated" with something like "It had moved...".
  • I have a question about this sentence: "Between those two chart-toppers, the only song to spend more than one week at number one was "Forever and Ever, Amen" by Randy Travis, which topped the chart for three weeks during the summer." I am wondering if there is a way to avoid repeating "top" twice in the same sentence? Maybe something like "The only other song to ..." as it would cover the "Between those two chart-toppers" part in a more concise manner.
  • I have a comment about this sentence: "The song won Travis a Grammy for Best Country & Western Song and an Academy of Country Music award for Song of the Year." According to the Grammy website (here), Travis won the Grammy Award for Best Male Country Vocal Performance not the Grammy for Best Country & Western Song.
    • Actually, the song did win the C&W Song award, but it won't show on your search for all Travis's awards, because the C&W Song Grammy is awarded to the song's writers, and he did not write it himself. I have re-worded the sentence slightly to take that into account -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Just to confirm, Travis's Grammy Award for Best Male Country Vocal Performance was not for this song -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the clarification, and apologies for my mistake. However, I still have a question. According to this Wikipedia page, the category was only known as "Best Country & Western Song" between 1965 to 1968? It seems like the category would be Best Country Song for this. Either way, I would include a link to the specific Grammy award. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
          • I am very unfamiliar with this part of the Grammys so apologies for any confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As always, wonderful work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. It is about a country music album so it somewhat falls in your area of interest, although it did not appear on any music chart lol. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments. I will endeavour to take a look at your FAC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – looks great as always. Care to check out Ojorojo and I's new FLC? – zmbro (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Will do. I am working my way through the eight FLCs which were started while I was away on holiday, and will get to that one in the fullness of time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) and – zmbro (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

After a previous failed nomination, User:Ojorojo and I have resolved the differences we had from that nomination and have collaborated extensively over the past few months into what we feel is FL worthy. Hendrix is known as one of the greatest guitarists of all time, and we made sure to make that known. We also decided to split the table into songs released during his lifetime and songs released posthumously, as we feel his most well-known songs were pre-1970, as well as most of his posthumous catalogue not being majorly well-known. As always, we'll take any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! – zmbro (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "However, Hendrix supplied his own interpretations, " => "Hendrix supplied his own interpretations, however"
  • "as well as more the contemporary rock" - think a couple of these words are in the wrong order
  • "Songs, such as "Freedom"" - don't need that comma
  • "nonetheless has become part of his recording legacy" => "nonetheless it has become part of his recording legacy"
  • "A majority of Hendrix's song catalogue" => "The majority of Hendrix's song catalogue"
  • I would put the notes about alternate titles (Instrumental Solo, etc) against both listings, that way whichever one comes first will always have the note and readers don't have to scroll down to the other
  • When sorting by title, "...And the Gods Made Love" comes at the end because of the dots - this should sort under A.
  • "The Stars That Play with Laughing Sam's Dice" also sorts at the end when sorting by title but I have no idea why
  • Stone Free is missing its opening "
  • Refs against the last sentence of the Songs released posthumously section are in the wrong order numerically
  • Might be worth clarifying that this section contains (I presume) only songs from the Douglas and Experience Hendrix releases and not the nine million other albums of dubious provenance released since his death. Or if it does include tracks from other releases, clarify which.
    Clarified: all are official, but kept it simple. There are others including by Kramer and Mitchell, Michael Jeffery, John Jansen, and Eric Blackstead, but thought this was too much detail. If it helps, I'll change it. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Same comments as above about multiple title/see also entries
  • When sorting the second table by title, "The Little Drummer Boy" / "Silent Night", "The Queen" and "The Sunshine of Your Love" all appear at the end, again not sure why.
  • Note Z - "Up from the Skies" was as a single in the US - missing word there
  • Note AQ - "Hey Baby" is sometimes titled "New Rising Sun", although that is also the title of different earlier demo => "a different...."
  • Note BE - "Straight Ahead" was titled "Pass It On (Straight Ahead)" on Live at Berkeley - in that case should there not be a listing for "Pass It On (Straight Ahead)" as per other alternate titles?
  • Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Everything should be taken care of. Sorry it took a while, been pretty busy irl lately. – zmbro (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • Would it be helpful to link "demo" in this sentence, "He also left behind a large number of partially completed songs, demos, and jams in a variety of styles, which continue to be issued.", to the demo (music) article?
    Added link. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a citation for this sentence: "The majority of Hendrix's song catalogue is now made up of recordings released posthumously." I am just wondering because all of the other sentences in the lead except for this one has a citation.
    There's no citation I could find, but thought that it could be reasonably drawn from the relative lengths of the main vs posthumous tables (or one could count them). It was intended as a lead-in to the tables and doesn't add much; since it is conspicuous by the lack of a citation, I removed it. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    Understandable. I agree with your comment. The only reason I pointed it out was because it was the only sentence in the lead without a citation. Aoba47 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Overall, wonderful work with the list. I have never listened to Hendrix's music, but this list was an interesting read. I only have two very minor comments, and once those are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

  • I feel like the Jimi Hendrix Experience should be mentioned more in the lede. It may have just be a vehicle for Hendrix, but regardless, they are still considered one of the most important bands of the 60s, if not all time. The fact that the Experience are briefly mentioned in a footnote doesn't feel right. I would mention how a lot of Hendrix' material was recorded with the Experience in the first paragraph. Outside of "Machine Gun", every song mentioned in the first paragraph was recorded when Hendrix was with the Experience.
    Actually, "All Along the Watchtower" and "Voodoo Chile", were recorded with additional musicians (without Redding), so technically they are not songs recorded by the Experience (a significant number of songs on Axis and Electric Ladyland do not include Redding). Additionally, "The Star-Spangled Banner", "Johnny B. Goode", "Blue Suede Shoes", "Freedom", and "Hey Baby (New Rising Sun)" were recorded after Redding left the group and were released under "Jimi Hendrix" rather than JHE (this applies to most of the posthumous releases). Rather than include all the various backing musicians, the focus of the lead is on songs. JHE and their albums are noted in the first sentence of the "Main songs" section. Zmbro made a similar point; maybe they can add something. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah I had originally said the same thing when we were building it up to FLC but Ojorojo brought up the same point, that he recorded with many more individuals than just Mitchell and Redding (and Miles and Cox on Band of Gypsys), so to me it's not a big deal to not mention the Experience. – zmbro (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Something I noticed is that there are a couple of songs Hendrix recorded before he became famous which aren't listed here. For example "Testify" by the Isley Brothers features Hendrix on guitar. I'm not sure if this song should be included, just something to point out.
    There's a lot of material that Hendrix recorded as a sideman. The focus here is on songs he recorded as the principle artist. To include all the recordings made with and released by other artists would change the scope and lengthen an already long list. Perhaps a separate "List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix as a sideman" could be created to handle these. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll be completely honest, I'm just gonna assume that the actual list itself has all of the notable songs, and that there aren't any mistakes with the years or writers. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
    After some more checking, I found a 40-second solo private recording Hendrix made in a hotel room in 1968, which was included on the 50th anniversary deluxe edition of Electric Ladyland released last November. In his hand written lyrics, he titled it "Our Lovely Home", but it was released with the title "Snowballs at My Window". I'll add it to the list. I'm confident that all the notable songs ("subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label") are included and are suitably referenced. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Famous Hobo Status update on this? – zmbro (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Austria international footballers

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

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

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

Basshunter discography

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Previous nomination failed to reach consensus after very long time nevertheless whole list and the lead has been almost completly rebuilt since start of previous nomination. I tried to resolve every mentioned problem. This time the discography is starting from significantly better position. Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • "Basshunter's second single" => in the table it's his third single
    •  Done. Numeration could be removed anyway. Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was also certified platinum by British Phonographic Industry" => "It was also certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry"
  • "was certified gold by British Phonographic Industry" => "was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry"
  • "like the single was certified platinum by British Phonographic Industry" - guess ;-)
  • "The album was certified silver by British Phonographic Industry" - ;-)
  • "the tracks "Go Down Now"" =>: "and the tracks "Go Down Now""
  • That's what I have so far........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - can't see any issues with the tables so now content to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • I would add ALT text to the image in the lead.
    • Any ideas? Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • If you look at the linked article, it tells you how to do ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Once the ALT text is added, I will support the list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The third single release was "All I Ever Wanted",), I would say "The third single" instead of "The third single release". I do not think "release" is necessary.
  • For this part (The fourth single released was "Angel in the Night",), I do not think "released" is necessary.
  • For this part (which accompanied a Deluxe Edition re-release of the album), I do not think "deluxe edition" needs to be capitalized.
    • It's re-release called "Deluxe Edition". Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • That's not really true, because according to the Apple Music source, the re-release was called Now You're Gone (Deluxe Edition) not just Deluxe Edition. I will leave this up to other editors who review this though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes. Full name is "Now You're Gone (Deluxe Edition)" but I thought it's obvious. Anyway in some articles main title of film or video game were omitted. Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
          • I will not press this point further. I still disagree with it. Articles that shorten the title of a film or video game would first establish the full title. I did not find it obvious, which is why I pointed it out, but I will leave this up to other reviewers to decide. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Isn't the title established with information about initial release? Eurohunter (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
              • Not really, but again I will not press this point further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (The second single from the album was "I Promised Myself", a cover of a Nick Kamen song), I do not think "from the album" is necessary as it is understood from context.
  • For this part (A Basshunter compilation album titled The Early Bedroom Sessions was released on 3 December 2012), I would remove "Basshunter".
  • For this part (and the tracks "Go Down Now", "Trance Up" and "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass", which had previously appeared on singles and three unreleased songs), I believe there should be a comma after "singles".
    • I think no because it mean exactly these three songs from album previously appeared on singles. Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I think the comma is necessary to break up this phrase "which had previously appeared on singles and three unreleased songs" as it can literally that "Go Down Now", "Trance Up" and "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass" appeared on singles and three unreleased songs. I'll leave it up to other editors though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • You are right. I missunderstood your point.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is the release for "Calcutta 2008" marked as "unknown"?
    • @Aoba47: Date of release is unknown. Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Why is the release date unknown? Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Aoba47: Release date never been announced. Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
          • That is odd, but if the information is not available, there is nothing that can be done. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
            • @Aoba47: Not that odd in promotional releases. Maybe in the future information will be avaiable.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I support this for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Source review – One issue that needs addressing is the presence of Discogs links in refs 37, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 60. This is a site with user-generated content, making it unreliable in general, and certainly not reliable enough for an FL. The liner notes are okay to source by themselves, so removing the links will be enough to solve the problem. Otherwise, the reliability and formatting of the references are okay, and the link-checker tool turns up no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Giants2008: Release is a source but link is optional which supports it with images or additional data instead of nothing. It's probably not possible or it's very limited to find detailed release photos of CD, box or notes in "professional soures". We could expect that there is atleast one example of CD or notes photo on Discogs that may be fake/messed with unofficial release but wouldn't it be really overcomplicate the problem? I guess it's the reason why you are oppose of these links but otherwise I have no other ideas. Eurohunter (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    If the source isn't reliable, and I don't believe it is (this thread dismisses its reliability pretty strongly), then we shouldn't be linking to it at all, regardless of whether it provides additional information. As I said earlier, the liner notes themselves are perfectly fine as sources (offline references are still verifiable), so there's no need to link to an unreliable site. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Giants2008: Let's focus directly on scans/images of releases alone avaiable on Discogs. Are they not reliable and should be removed above all? Eurohunter (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Since they are on an unreliable site, they are not reliable and should be taken out of the citations. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Giants2008: I have removed all links to Discogs. Eurohunter (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Lorenzo Bandini Trophy

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This list concerns the Lorenzo Bandini Trophy, one of the most famous and prestigious awards in the world of motor racing. I have recently redone the list and I believe that it meets the necessary criteria to be a featured list. MWright96 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • That first sentence is epic in its length - any chance you could break it up?
  • "12 judges, which is composed" - don't think the words "which is" are needed
  • "determine the recipient of the award" - the subject of the verb is "panel", which is singular, so it should be "determines the recipient of the award"
  • The second table is headed "Winners by nation represented", but my understanding (not being a fan myself) is that in F1, drivers don't "represent" a nation in the way they do in, say, international football. Maybe change to just "Winners by nationality"?
  • Any reason why the country names aren't written in full?
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Have made all the necessary changes in response to the queries raised above. MWright96 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


  • The title List of winners could be shortened to just Winners, as the content here is obviously a list.
  • Ref 20 looks questionable to me in terms of reliability, as it is self-evidently a blog. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Not so sure. It lists an editorial staff per [5]. Nevertheless, have replaced it to be safe. MWright96 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Have addressed the concerns raised. MWright96 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – Everything looks good after the changes. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

List of chief ministers of Jharkhand

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My previous nomination is now at three supports. This list is about the chief ministers of Jharkhand, another state created in 2000. This time, the legislature website and the official CM website had no CM list, so I had to create one myself and search the Frontline archives to source it. The list is in good condition, but there may be some problems with how some things are worded, probably. TryKid (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "Three people have served as the state's chief minister". There are six, not three.
  • "Half of them belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including Babulal Marandi, the inaugural officeholder." I think this sentence can be rearranged. Mention Babulal's name first and then the party.
  • "come from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)". Come from? Use a better wording.
  • "Koda is one of the very few independents".
  • "current incumbent"? Use either of those words.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I've tried to solve the issues, please take a look. Also, @Yashthepunisher:, do you like or dislike pings? I realized some time ago that not everyone likes to be pinged. TryKid (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this nomination. Well, I don't like or dislike pings. They are simply a necessity. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead is quite short at less than 1400 characters. I think you could beef it up by talking more about Shibu Soren. The fact that he held the post three times and was never an MLA both probably merit highlighting in the lead. Also, one of his terms only lasted nine days - how was this possible? Why did Munda leave the role for nine days and then return to it?
  • "Half of them, including the inaugural officeholder Babulal Marandi, belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)" - I think "Half of them, including the inaugural officeholder Babulal Marandi, represented the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)" would be better (this also gets around the fact that at some point one or more won't belong (present tense) to the BJP because they will have retired/died.
  • "Two chief ministers, Shibu Soren and his son Hemant Soren belong to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)" - need a comma after the second Soren's name
  • "The state has also been governed by Madhu Koda; Koda is one of the few independents " - could be streamlined to "The state has also been governed by Madhu Koda, one of the few independents"
  • "In between their reigns, the state has also been under President's rule thrice" - "thrice" is a very archaic-sounding word, I would just say "three times"
  • In Soren's cells, there's no line break between his name and the brackets - be consistent with the other rows
  • In note d, write "could not" in full
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • ChrisTheDude, I've solved second to fifth issues. Also, after thinking about it for a day, I've made a decision to remove constituency data entirely. This means no need for note d. I made the decision because it was unverifiable, and plain wrong in one instance. It's actually possible to find the required information, but I'll need to search up the election archives for individual constituencies, as many of chief ministers were elected in bye-elections. It's sad because it was very interesting that Soren got to be chief minister three times without ever being an MLA. So, what do you think about the change? Do you recommend that I reinstate constituency information and source it some way? TryKid (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • A map showing the location of the state in India would be helpful - or in words in the lead if no map is available.
  • "as he could not prove his majority in the house" This does not sound right to me. Maybe "as he could not prove that he had the support of a majority of the house"
  • The lead is rather short. Some more background would be helpful - e.g. Why was the state formed so late? What is its capital city? Presumably the first and last assemblies had BJP majorities and the frequent changes and periods of president's rule in the 2nd and 3rd assemblies were because no pary had a majority, but this could be spelled out.
  • There is a lot of white space on the right - maybe add some photos of the state? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think images of the state's location are necessary, the current shape is consistent with other featured lists of chief ministers of India and governors of US states.
  • I've replaced it with your version.
  • Information regarding the state can be accessed by a reader by clicking on the link to Jharkhand article. I'm sure someone looking for a list of chief ministers of Jharkhand would be reasonably familiar with the state. I'll try to expand the lead as per your recommendations.
  • White space seems to be a device specific problem; there's no white space on my device, but adding images would certainly introduce some white space on my device. TryKid (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in West Sussex

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. I have not been able to archive the citations as the bot appears to be down. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1

An impressively comprehensive list, well-structured and fully referenced. There really is very little to complain about, and I'll be pleased to support, subject to consideration of the meagre gleanings below. With apologies, my comments will be in batches.

  • "Designation as an SSSI gives legal protection to the most important wildlife and geological sites" - I'm not quite getting this. Does it mean that all SSSIs get legal protection, due to their designation, or that only the most important of the SSSIs do so?
  • Changed to "The most important wildlife and geological sites are designated as SSSIs in order to give them legal protection." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "five are Ramsar sites" - I appreciate that it's linked and explained below, but the term, unfamiliar to me and I suspect most readers, caused me to stumble. Perhaps, "five are Ramsar sites, designated as internationally important under convention,"
  • Ambersham Common - "including the nationally rare" - I'm assuming this means rare to the UK, but more common elsewhere? I wonder if "nationally rare" is actually necessary, as you go on to state that it as been found at only three British sites?
  • Bognor Reef - "It is one of the few areas which has the full sequence of layers in the London Clay" - two points here. "the few areas", is that one of the few SSSIs in West Sussex or one of the few areas anywhere in England? Also, I didn't know what "the London Clay" was until I hit the link. Is it possible to clarify?
  • On the first point I think that "one of the few areas" implies one of the few anywhere and I do not like to say in England as London Clay is only found in parts of the southeast. On your second point, I am not sure how to give an explanation without going into excessive detail. Can you suggest a wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Chapel Common - "rare and scarce invertebrates" - is the "scarce" doing anything that the "rare" doesn't, or vice versa?
  • I have again linked to the article which explains the terms. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Cissbury Ring - I appreciate that this list is focussed on the SSSIs, but is it worth mentioning in the Description that this is the largest Iron-Age hillfort in Sussex? Perhaps, "The site, the largest Iron-Age hillfort in Sussex, has unimproved chalk grassland..."?
  • I am not sure there is a reliable source for it being the largest but I have cited Historic England for it being a Neolithic flint mine and a large hillfort dating to the Iron Age. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Coates Castle - "There are an estimated 200 individuals" - are the crickets individually identified, Jiminy etc.? Perhaps, "They number approximately 200"?
  • Coneyhurst Cutting - "fossils of large Viviparus (freshwater river snails) preserved in three dimensions" - I'm displaying my ignorance here, but aren't all fossils three-dimensional? Or are most flat and only two? Forgive me, I did Combined Science for O-level, when only the most stupid boys were entered for that subject.
  • Many and maybe most fossils are two dimensional as they have been crushed flat. Three dimensional ones give far more information. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for the responses. All excellent. Shall move onto Batch 2 of comments as soon as I can (day or two most). It is a long list! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fyning Moor - "Open rides have diverse flora" - what are "open rides"? Horse-riding? The source doesn't say and I don't know.
  • Horton Clay Pit - "a thick and stratigaphically important" - typo, "stratigraphically".
  • Rook Clift - " this steep sided valley" - should "steep-sided" be hyphenated?
  • It seems to be commonly hyphenated so I have done so. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Pleasure all mine. A superbly detailed list, which I am delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


  • It took me till K to find anything but then I got this: "This reserve's yew woods are described by Natural England as the best in Britain as it has the most extensive stands unmixed with other species." - singular plural disagreement?
  • I think this is correct. The reserve has the most extensive stands, not the yew trees. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "which are relicts" - is "relicts" a typo for "relics" or simply a word I am not familiar with?
  • "There are 1 metre (3.3 feet) high fossils" - earlier you converted a measurement in metres into yards, now you are using feet - why the change? As the earlier distance was shorter it seems odd that that one was converted to yards and this one to feet.....
  • "These disused railway tunnels are the fifth most important sites" - sites or site? If it's considered to be one SSSI then I would say the singular is more appropriate.
  • "This former quarry exposed.....It provided excellent three dimensional sections" - why the past tenses? All other notes are written in the present tense.
  • Clarified that the past tense is because the quarry has been filled in. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "These woods have steep sided valleys" - "steep-sided" should be hyphenated I think
  • Last three notes need full stops
  • Think that's it from me. Fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Review from Mattximus

  • I moved it because an editor objected in a review of another FLC to starting with the description but I agree with you and have moved it back. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "There are also intertidal mudflats which are nationally important for ringed plovers and other birds include redshanks and dunlin", Should be "including" if the redshanks and dunlin are also nationally important, and if they are not, then simply a semicolon or a second sentence "Other birds include redshanks and dunlin". Together in one sentence is a bit confusing.
  • Arun banks, can you link "fen"?
  • 160 fish species do you mean fossilized fish species?
  • Added "fossils of" for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a colon is needed: "on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive: woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler"
  • Shingle beach should be linked
  • Homo heidelbergensis isn't considered a human remain, but Hominin remains
Yes, however Homo heidelbergensis is not human, but a different species. It is Homo heidelbergensis, a Hominin. Saying it was human remains is not correct, even if it was a distant ancestor to a human. There are defined uses for the words human, hominin and hominid. In this case the word to choose would be hominin (although hominid is also correct, it is less specific).
  • The article you link to, homo sapiens, starts "Homo sapiens is the only extant human species", implying that there are also extinct human species. OED defines "Human" as "belonging to the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo". The definition of archaic humans as including Heidelbergensis also defines them as humans. I am using a definition which is generally - although not universally - accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we found a point of disagreement, however the link you provided archaic humans does have a box that indicates a list of hominins and includes Homo heidelbergensis... but I can see using either the vaguely defined term archaic human (with a link to that page), or the precise term "hominin", but certainly not simply "human" as is indicated now. That is definitely incorrect. Mattximus (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We may have to agree to disagree. "Human" is not definitely incorrect. As I said above, it is correct according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The genus "Homo" is Latin for man. Homo sapiens is wise man and Homo Heidelbergensis is Heidelberg man, but nowadays we prefer "human" as non-sexist. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In all technical circles, of which I was once apart, the word Human is for Homo sapiens only. I suppose using the term "archaic human" though not a scientific term, will at least avoid the incorrect use of human and would be a compromise. If we follow your logic, would Australopithecus afarensis be a human, because it is our likely ancestor? Or just when the genus name changed? If so, you would call Homo habilis a human? What about Homo neanderthalis? Both humans? I think we can agree that at least homo habilis is not a human. But then you just picked an arbitrary species on the homo lineage to start calling human? Help me understand your logic here. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not operate on logic, but on following reliable sources, which define humans as members of the genus Homo. The Oxford English Dictionary defines human as belonging to the genus Homo. I am currently reading Early Humans by Nick Ashton (a British Museum curator), which is a history of human occupation of Britain from the arrival of (probably) Homo antecessor around 900,000 years ago to the end of the Mesolithic around 6000 years ago. The Smithsonian at [6] describes Homo erectus as "early humans". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I looked up your sources, and the Oxford Dictionary [7] uses the term hominids to describe extinct ancestors to humans. The Smithsonian uses "early human" which is equivalent to the other acceptable (not not scientific) term above Archaic human. I don't have access to the second book you cited. So far, all the sources I can find call it either a hominin, hominid, or early/archaic human. Not a signle source so far calls Homo heidelbergensis a "human" with a cursory search. Encyclopedia Britannica calls it an archaic human [8], science articles [9] also do not call it a human as far as I can see, and some [10] do not even call Neanderthals humans, of which like quite likely are. Do you have a source that calls that species human? Mattximus (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The Oxford Lexico dictionary at [11] gives meaning 1.3 of 'human' as "Of or belonging to the genus Homo". The paper at [12] by Laura Buck and the leading expert on human origins Chris Stringer describes Homo heidelbergensis as "a critical human species in the Middle Pleistocene". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Heronry

Looks great so far, I've reviewed several of these and the standard is already very good. Just these few minor quibbles. Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael W. Smith discography

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because my nomination for List of National Football League rushing champions has passed. My other nomination, [[13]], has unanimous support so far with all problems resolved so a second nomination should be acceptable.

This is the second in a series of discographies I have been working on for the most important contemporary Christian music artists. Michael W. Smith is one of the best-selling Christian artists of all time (the best-selling male artist, perhaps), with over four decades of fairly constant music output. He started as the keyboardist for Amy Grant, the best-selling Christian artist ever and the two are great friends to this day. Uniquely he's had RIAA certified albums in at least six different areas: Christian pop/rock, Christian worship music, mainstream pop/adult contemporary music (including "Place in This World" and "I Will Be Here For You", top 40 hits in the US and Canada), Christmas music, video albums, and an instrumental album written in the style of film scores. Making a discography for such a varied career required extensive research and tough decision making for the lede, but I think this article does a great job of balancing everything. If there's anything I'm iffy on its the exact prose in the lede, but I think a good discussion here will help hammer out any issues. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments on the lead
  • "as well multiple holiday albums" => "as well as multiple holiday albums"
  • "and his 16 No. 1 albums" => "and his 16 number one albums"
  • "I 2 (EYE) (1988) became Smith's first No. 1 album" - same again
  • "peaked at nos. 6 and 60" => "peaked at numbers 6 and 60"
  • "charting at No. 8 in Canada and No. 27 on the Hot 100" - you can probably guess what I am going to say here ;-)
  • ...and there's two more instances towards the end of the lead ;-)
  • Lots more uses of "No." in the notes
  • All of them are replaced now. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks really weird to have a heading of "Notes", immediately followed by a sub-heading of "Notes". I would have the Notes > Notes section as a L2 heading in its own right called Notes, and then below that I would have a References L2 section, with sub-headings of General (for the two books) and Specific (for the individual footnotes). Does that make sense?
  • Yeah, that makes sense. Good solution. I think I’ve fixed that now? Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Walter Görlitz per his request. Toa Nidhiki05 12:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: why are you advising to ignore the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO? It should be consistent in the article and it should not change over time once consistent. No. is correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Probably I wasn't familiar with the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO. Having "No." in the middle of a prose sentence just looked wrong to me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Having read the guideline, do you agree that it is acceptable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems so, yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Possible support: I don't see any issues apart from this possible one: Is the use of "rowspan" in the tables within WP:ACCESSIBILITY? This is an issue with numerous discographies (hundreds if not thousands) that has come to my attention today. I've opened up a discussion on the WP:ACCESSIBILITY talk page regarding "rowspan" in tables.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for looking at this, 3family6! I’m by no means on access so I’m kind of in the dark here, but what’s the potential issue here? If it’s an issue I can definitely change it. This article and all others should comply with access, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We've had the accessibility issue discussed in ACCESS before, and I think the decision was to avoid its use, but most modern screen readers can deal with the complexity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. As for the accessibility issues, if the relevant MoS guidelines don't prohibit rowspans (they apparently do not), then I don't think promotion needs to be delayed over the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Discussion at ACCESS advises against them but does not prohibit against them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references look okay, except that reference 48 is missing an access date. The link-checker tool shows no issues, so there's just that one little problem to fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed the access date issue on 48. Toa Nidhiki05 13:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of that quickly. The source review has now been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchises

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to get this page nominated for FL status a while back, however it has failed for a number of reasons, mainly with the list not being able to pass WP:V. After quite a bit of time revamping the page and making large-scale improvements, I've decided to try and renominate the article again. All corrections were based on those brought up by other editors in the first FL nomination page. Here's what's been done to clean up the page:

  1. Table has been completely redone (thank you Dissident93), with franchises listed in a greyed-out column to distinguish them from the other columns. Licensed series are now highlighted in yellow to indicate they are not an original creation by Bandai Namco. The "Platform" section has been cut entirely, instead replaced with columns listing the first and latest releases.
  2. All entries present are reliably sourced, and all of these prove they are an actual series and not a one-off title. The articles themselves are also dedicated to these games/series and don't simply reference these franchises in articles for other companies' games, as was the case before.
  3. Minor edits have been done to the lead, simply removing outdated information.

Namcokid47 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick drive-by comment: you seem undecided as to whether the company is singular or plural, viz "The company is (singular) best known for their (plural)........" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll retract my oppose as all issues are dealt with. But I'm confused regarding this edit. How is Demon's Souls not apart of the table when it's officially the first game in the Souls series and was also released in PAL regions by Bandai Namco. – zmbro (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Dissident's edit summary, the GameSpot article states Bandai Namco only owns the Dark Souls games and not the Souls series entirely. Plus BN only published it in Europe, while Sony and Atlus published it in Japan and America respectively. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sony owns the Demon's Souls IP, per this Polygon article. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I have also added a very short (heh) short description. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia no images.png
Also, you mentioned earlier that you added alt text for the logo, but it didn't have any, so I added it myself. If you're using Firefox, you can check if a image has alt text by typing in "about:config" in the adress bar, then searching for "permissions.default.images" and set it to 2. That should turn off all images in the entire browser so that they will just display as alt text. To turn them back on, just set it back to 1. I have attached a photo of what the page "Go Vacation" looks like without images, for your own reference. (I actualy only learned how to do this yesterday, I didn't expect it to come in handy this quickly!) I am not sure how to do this in other web browsers, sorry. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You can also just use @Dispenser:'s alt text viewer, but I prefer to just turn off images. But, I think im going on a bit of a tangent here :p. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you find a better source for this, though? The Wired article discusses Go Vacation and simply mentions the We Ski series, which would make it fail WP:V. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What? But the Wired article says that Go Vacation is the third in the series. "After a little play I realized why it all looked so familiar: It's the sequel to one of my favorite Wii games, We Ski. This game (and its followup We Ski and Snowboard) [...]" I don't see how that fails WP:V. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain

  • One of the lead sentences still refers to the company as plural ("They are best known for their video game franchises...") whereas the rest of the paragraph is singular. Other than that, refs 11 and 38 need archiving, but I think that's it; once those are sorted, I'd be happy to support. Great work. – Rhain 03:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Wayback Machine was having issues for a while on my end, so I wasn't able to get those links archived. Should be working now. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 13:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
      • That makes sense; thanks for making those changes. I edited the last few instances that referred to the company as plural. With that, though, I'm more than happy to support this article's promotion. – Rhain 00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

List of governors of Georgia

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another state, another list of governors. This one was hard. I've been going generally in alphabetical order, and Georgia is the first state that was both a colony and secessionist, so it had complications from all corners. The fact that there were, at one time, as many as three schismatic governments didn't help. The state finally supplied a list from a blue book from the '70s that helped a lot in filling in the gaps, and I think it's ready. Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • The most immediate thing that jumps out is that the lead is far far too short. It should have three good-sized paragraphs, not three sentences.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Fleshed out. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The governor of Georgia is the head of the executive branch of Georgia's state government and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor also has a duty to enforce state laws, the power to either veto or approve bills passed by the Georgia Legislature, and the power to convene the legislature." - none of this seems to be in the body, so it needs citing here
    • Done
  • "the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War" - same for this
    • Done
  • "The state seceded and was part of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War," - ....and this
    • Done.
  • "each of which served two full four-year terms" => "each of whom served two full four-year terms"
    • Done.
  • "The current governor is Republican Brian Kemp who assumed" - need a comma after his name. Also I would tag this onto another paragraph so that we don't have a one-sentence "paragraph"
    • First part, done. Second part, What do you propose? The previous graf is about extremes in the office, so it seems improper to just latch this on to it for the sake of avoiding a single sentence graf.
      • I think it would fit OK onto the end of the very first paragraph.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • Governors section starts with another one-sentence "paragraph" - join this onto the next para
    • Done.
  • "This article relies on" - we try to avoid using "this article" or "this list" within an article, so find a way to re-word this bit
    • Done
  • Maybe it's because I am dumb and/or British, but I really don't understand why the first governor is number 7. The note says "It begins the numbering from the colonial governors" (which, BTW, should really be "it continues the numbering....."), but our article on the colonial governors says there were 10 of them???
    • Each state has a unique method of numbering. Alabama ignores acting and repeat governors; some states don't. Georgia and Connecticut number starting from their colonial governors. According to the source, that puts Bulloch at #7. I haven't looked at our other list, so I don't know where they get ten governors. I have to use exactly what is in the source, because there are so many different ways of counting and listing Georgia governors that once I found the source, which is the closest I'm going to get to an official source, I had to rely on it entirely. Deviations are handled in footnotes and text, but the numbering should stay. Either we start at 7, or we come up with our own numbering system. Changed to 'continues'. For fun, looking at the colonial list.. our source omits their #1, since he was a trustee, not governor; it omits their #8 and #9 because they were military/provisional governors; and #10 is the same as #7, and they don't number repeats.
  • Once you're re-sorted the table, it's impossible to get back to the original order, because there are 3 nulls in the "no" column. I suggest using hidden sort keys to make sure these appear in the appropriate place when sorting by number.
    • Done.
  • Quite a few of the notes are unsourced.
    • I'll work on this.
  • Some notes are not full sentences are therefore don't need a full stop
    • Is this really that important? :P --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, it isn't correct as it stands.... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
        • oh fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's it from me at the moment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Reywas92
  • I know this isn't the place to go into detail, but "local rule was re-established" (used twice) is quite the euphemism for "the right of black citizens to vote was no longer protected"! "exerted some control" also obscures that it enforced the US Constitution, the fifteenth amendment being relevant here. I'm not sure the best way to word this but Georgia during Reconstruction should at least be linked.
    • It's nicely euphemistic, isn't it. But that is the terminology near-universally used for the end of reconstruction. I did drop 'some', as the generals had dictatorial power.
  • I support your decision to go with your source on numbering to begin at 7, but this should be explicitly stated in the prose, not just hidden in the footnote. The numbering in List of colonial governors of Georgia should be made consistent with this source then, since it also goes through 7.
    • Made an attempt.
  • No comma after "provided for a lieutenant governor"
    • I dunno, that makes it seem like the constitution provided for the Lt Gov to serve the same time, etc ... no, it provided for a lieutenant governor, stop, which also has these other qualities.
  • The second paragraph could be split to be more chronological
    • I don't know which paragraph you mean.
  • The final paragraph seems out of order, should be more chronological
    • You mean the one about the Battle of Savannah? I thought it would be useful to mention it right before the list. It's also a separate topic from the constitutional changes, so making it chronological doesn't seem to help...
      • The entire thing being chronological may be the clearest. It reads as early history - statehood - civil war - back to statehood, term limits, and succession - civil war again and term limits again - back to succession, back to term limits - finally back to the revolution era for some reason? I know you're doing history of the state - everything in the constitution chronologically - facts relating to numbering, but it feels quite jumbled. It would would be more cohesive to do everything chronologically (the cleanest, which puts the line on readmission dates and the capture of Savannah near the relevant constitutional changes, or do one paragraph with everything about term limits, one with everything on succession, one with Civil war changes, etc. Subsections either way could also work, but not the best if a couple only have one paragraph. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I combined the first two grafs, since they're purely about when it became a state. As for the ordering, I agree. When I wrote this I probably thought chronological was needed, but yeah, it works better going by subject. I still think we need a notice why the list is going to be so different from most lists online, and it doesn't work "chronologically". --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The final sentence is not grammatical, I think "which" and the comma should be removed.
    • Dunno how the 'which' got there, but I don't know which comma you mean.
      • The one between clauses, I got it.
  • Update see also link to First Ladies of Georgia (U.S. state)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The early days were chaotic with many gaps and schisms in the state's power structure, as the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War." 1. "The early days" is vague and the word "early" is repeated later in the sentence. 2. The sentence is a non sequitur as a battleground does not necessarily cause schisms. Maybe "The state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War and between x year and y year the state's power structure was chaotic with many gaps and schisms."
    • Tried to fix.
  • "as the state capital of Savannah was captured". "as" implies that the capture was the sole cause of the schisms. Is this correct? Otherwise, I would profer "and" or "partly due to". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • All sources linked say or indicate that the fall of Savannah was the sole cause. On the other hand I have no sources that state any other cause; therefore it would be incorrect to offer a sourced statement of "partly due to", wouldn't it?
  • "The state was solidly Democratic-Republican until the 1830s" Only from 1789.
    • Parties didn't exist before then. I tried to fix.
  • "split elections" This sounds odd to me. Is it AmEng?
    • Don't think so? They split elections, they went back and forth. Like how you might split your time between work and home. Not sure how better to write this.
  • How about " the governorship swung between the Whigs and Democrats"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Tried something.
  • The rest of the paragraph is vague on dates and I suggest clarifiying.
    • Is it? It has few dates at all, because it's prose, not a rote list of dates. That's what the list and later paragraphs are for.
  • The second and third pagragraphs of 'Governors' are the wrong way round.
    • I'd disagree but since I rejiggered that section anyway, this criticism is moot.
  • "While the 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, the other constitutions surrounding the American Civil War brought lots of changes." "surrounding the American Civil War" does not sound right and "lots of changes" is too colloquial. Maybe "The 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, but later constitutions during the American Civil War and Reconstruction brought many changes."
    • In the above-mentioned rejiggering I fixed some of this. Did a little more editing.
  • "An amendment in 1941..." This belongs in the next paragraph, not the one about the Civil War period.
    • Moot, I think, since I moved things around.
  • "The revolutionary government was thrown into disarray by the capture of Savannah in 1778, which led to two governments with varying levels of influence; they would reunite in 1780. The Official and Statistical Register of Georgia ignores the Council of Safety of William Ewen in favor of Archibald Bulloch's government, and omits the government of William Glascock and Seth John Cuthbert.[26] The Register also begins the numbering at 7, including the previous colonial governors." 1. I think it would be better to merge this with the first short paragraph of 'Governors'. 2. I assumed at first that the omitted governors were British appointed, but I see that this is wrong. I think you should clarify this, particularly for Ewen as he is not mentioned in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I tried clarifying this. I still strongly think that a paragraph explaining 'why is this list different than all the others' is about more than just chronology, it's important info.
  • I still think you need to clarify that Ewen, Glascock and Cuthbert were not British appointees. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Why? There's nothing in the article to indicate that they were British appointees. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

Fantasia Barrino discography

Notified: Candyo32, WikiProject Discographies

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

List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson

Notified: WikiProject Rock music

This list has multiple citation-needed tags, a table that doesn't adhere to WP:Sorting nor is it updated per MOS:ACCESS, it also doesn't even adhere to the basic rules of MOS:ITALICTITLE that albums are italicized. Also largely based on a book source and many "refs" are just urls. It clearly no longer deserves the star. – zmbro (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove. This list has slipped very low since it was featured. A bunch of changes have been made, especially using false Halstead references with impossible page numbers, which I have removed. Other poor quality changes include violations of WP:NOR such as unreferenced assertions about songs being leaked to the internet. The list is in terrible shape. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist - Lots of other strange things going on. Like "Name of this song was mentioned in 1993 Mexico deposition"... what is the Mexico deposition? Where is the missing "the"? In addition to citation issues and sorting issues and unaddressed tags. Mattximus (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the issues related above are trivial (I fixed one of them) and access could be solved in no time. Likewise, taking italics off text is trivial. Most of this could be fixed in a jiffy in someone who cared about it just got on with it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - not seeing any significant issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Digimon video games

Notified: Tezero, WikiProject Video games

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

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

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

Hey it does not look like you informed the original nominator and WikiProjects about this. GamerPro64 14:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just something that you can fix yourself. If you see something you don't like, just be bold and make those improvements yourself. Personally, I am not a huge Digimon fan, so I would have little knowledge of how to fix the lead and make it better. According to your name and user page, you are a big Namco fan, so this seems like something you could do better research on than me. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 18:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep a few dubious sources need to be replaced, but otherwise it's okay. A pity the nominator couldn't fix said issues rather than attempt a delisting here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
But that's the thing, before nominating this for a delist I spent a long while combing through Google and the Internet Archive to find info on these, and turned up with nothing. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

List of cetacean species

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

  • "The following is a list..." archaic and discouraged wording
Do you have any recommendations?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the subject matter enough to recommend an alternate, but "This is a list" is frowned upon. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it not a list? You shouldn’t feel compelled to avoid recognizing it is in fact a list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that it is a list is not the point. TPH is correct that "This is a list..." or the like is not an appropriate way to open a Featured List. But I think the revised current opening to the list is fine. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead overall is way too short. Three sentences for such a huge list.
I expanded it a little, but this is a list so the lead doesn't have to be so big   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Vast stretches are entirely unsourced. I get that it's a summary of content largely sourced elsewhere, but it still feels undersourced.
Where specifically? If you're talking about the footnotes, it's the IUCN website which is already hyperlinked in the table   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Way too many footnotes with poorly written trivia like "Virtually nothing is known about the abundance of Baird's beaked whales, except they are not rare as was formerly thought" which is also unsourced.
Seems like appropriate usage of footnotes to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's still unsourced, vague, and informally written. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
that reads pretty formal to me, and the IUCN link is the ref. To create a footnote ref would be redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The "cetacean needed" thing is cute, but I don't think it lends credence to a supposedly "featured" content
this was already discussed as a harmless note   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Several sourcing errors, including a "missing URL" error and otherwise incomplete citations.
I see just the 1 ref with an error, are there any other incomplete or otherwise incorrect citations or is it just the 1?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

  • Delist – per nom. Clearly no longer FL worthy, especially just based on the lead. – zmbro (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think it's not bad, I'd like to see MOS:ACCESS applied to the tables for row/col scopes, and units converted, but otherwise it's alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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