Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Contents

Nominations

List of accolades received by Moneyball (film)

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Moneyball is a 2011 sports drama film about the general manager of a baseball team trying to build it by using a statistical, sabermetric approach to selecting players and the results he gets through his methods. The film is notable for garnering its lead actor, Brad Pitt, several awards and nominations. It is my tenth attempt at an accolades FLC and my first attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@BeatlesLedTV: Thank you, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments form Vedant
  • I think the "based on the aforementioned book" is really unnecessary. It's mostly redundant and read a a little awkward.
  • I am not sure if "theatrically released" should be "released theatrically". I've gone over both so many times that i can't seem to figure which is right. But, you should cross check.
  • "against its $50 million budget" - can be framed better?
  • "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, surveyed 247 reviews and judged 94% to be positive" - That's a really unusual way of putting the RT rating. Doesn't mean that there​ is anything necessarily wrong with it, but it just seems a little odd.
  • "The film has been" - present perfect?
  • "Pitt and Hill have received" - again?
  • The last paragraph can be reworked a little. It's mostly one dimensional with a lot of similar sentences one after the other. There are also sentences like "It won all of its nominations at the New York Film Critics Circle", that read a little odd to me.

Thank you for asking me for help, it has been longgg. I am sure none of my concenrs and very serious, and can be addressed easily. Great work on the list as always. Good luck with you first Hollywood list Ssven2! NumerounovedantTalk 18:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Vedant. Do let me know if there is anything more, thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Are you using the Oxford comma for the lead. Here are instances were the Oxford comma is either not used (who also co-produced it, in the lead role with Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Chris Pratt) or used (Moneyball received six nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor for Pitt, Best Supporting Actor for Hill, and Best Adapted Screenplay). You will need to be consistent throughout the lead one way or the other.
  • For this part (won the Best Song for Kerris Dorsey's rendition of the song "The Show”), I would clarify that “The Show” was originally a Lenka song as the word “rendition” does not necessarily have to mean that Dorsey’s performance was a cover of an existing song. I would also include the year in which the original Lenka version of the song was released (i.e. 2008).
  • For this part (Bennett Miller, who directed the film,), remove the link to “Bennett Miller” as you already have him linked in the first sentence of the lead. Also remove “who directed the film” as you have already identified Miller as the director so there is no need to be repetitive.

Great work with the list. My review focuses entirely on the prose of the lead as I will be leaving any potential issues with the references to the user doing the source review. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Aoba. Do let me know if there is anything more, thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Quantico (season 2)

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The infobox image needs ALT text.
  • For this part (who has been working undercover for the FBI as a CIA recruit to uncover a rogue faction of the CIA called the AIC), I would avoid repetition of the “CIA”. I do not believe that the “of the CIA” is necessary and I think you can remove it without losing meaning or context.
  • In this part (Parrish must confront a terrorist-instigated hostage crisis at the G-20 summit in), I would add a link for “G-20”.
  • For this part (before moving to Mondays at 10:00 pm after its mid-season break), do you think it would be beneficial to link “mid-season break” to the article hiatus (television)?
  • For this part (The second season was well-received by critics), I would link “critics” to television criticism?
  • In the “Overview” section, FBI needs to be linked in the first sentence. In the same section, I would link G-20 as I suggested for the lead.
  • Since you do not appear to be using the Oxford comma in this article, for this part (the President of the United States, the First Lady, and several other world leaders), the comma after “Lady” should be removed.
  • In the same section, write out “New York City” in full in the link to “New York” as New York and New York City are two separate things.
  • Something about this sentence (The real aim of the group is to get to the surveillance drives the world leaders brought with them before the AIC, who are hiding among the hostages, does) reads awkwardly. I would rephrase it to the following (The group’s real agenda is to get the surveillance drives from the world leaders before the AIC, who are hiding among the hostages).
  • For the phrase “CIA director”, I would link it to the following article Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
  • For the “Overview” section, you refer to Alex and Ryan by their first names, but you reference Roarke by his last name. I would suggest choosing one or the the other to stay consistent. Since you appear to use the first name for most of the characters, you use “Henry” instead of “Roarke”.
  • I am a little confused (While walking in New York City, Alex becomes suspicious of mysterious white vans) by this part. In what context is she suspicious of these vans?
  • I would unlink the G20 link in the “Kudove” episode summary as it would linked in the above section per my suggestion.
  • For the “Mi6” link in the “Kmforget” episode summary, I think that the i needs to be capitalized to read as “MI6”.
  • For this part (Raina is actually Nimah, who is working with CLF; the real Raina is tied up), could you provide context to where the real Raina is tied up?
  • For the “Cleopatra” episode summary, is there any reason why the guest star for the “Hannah Wyland” character is brought up while guest stars from other episodes are not addressed?
It's because this episode revolves around her way too much as opposed to the rest. Important details and the motive is linked to her. That's why.Krish | Talk 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I still do not find that a strong enough reason to put the actor in the episode summary when none of the other actors are mentioned in the episode summaries. If the reader is interested in finding out who plays the "Hannah Wyland" character, they could easily look at the "Cast" section. It appears that the actress' name has already been removed either way. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Please provide ALT text for the Chopra image in the “Production” section. (I am not really sure if the image is necessary as the section does not directly talk about Chopra in-depth and you can already see Chopra in the infobox image, but I will not press this. Just wanted to raise this to your attention).
  • In the first sentence of the “Development” subsection, I would add a link for the first season (i.e. mid-way through the first season).
  • In the second paragraph of the same subsection, you begin three sentences with “Safran”. I think you can replace one or two of these instances with “He” as the pronoun would be understood through context.
  • I am not sure why FBI and CIA are both linked and spelled out in this subsection when they both are already linked (i.e. the contrasting working ethics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, saying). Looking at this sentence, I would suggest spelling out FBI and CIA in full on its first instance with the acronym after it in parenthesis.
  • I would combining the ‘Filming” and “Casting” subsection as I do not see a real reason to put a short paragraph as its own subsection.
Initially, I ha no subsection but AlexTheWhovian insisted me to.Krish | Talk 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have combined the two subsections into a "Casting and filming" subsection to keep up with AlexTheWhovian's advice. Aoba47 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For this part (involving the current real-life political scenario), I would clarify what is meant by “the current real-life political scenario” as it may be confusing to those reading the in the future. Are the critics referencing anything in particular?
  • Is there any reason for the TBD parts in the “Ratings” chart? How is it different from N/A?

Great work with the list. This was a very interesting read and I enjoyed reviewing. I will have to watch this show one of these days lol. Anyway, I will support this for promotion (on the basis of prose) once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your revisions. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts. It follows the format of FLs Essex Wildlife Trust and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, and I believe that it also meets the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Using your other lists for reference, I think you have a featured list right here! The only thing I see is remove the space between the period and ref 73. Honestly other than that I have nothing. Fantastic job!

Athletic Bilbao in European football

Nominator(s): Crowsus (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a high-quality article. There are many citations for the information and many different aspects to the statistics presented, and I feel the format is easy to interpret, follows normal conventions and is pleasing on the eye. The prose is informative but fairly succinct, with a lot of scope to add further referenced detail from individual seasons if deemed necessary.

On a personal level I enjoyed creating this article, as this is my favourite team and this type of information was totally lacking from Wikipedia despite it being a fairly high-profile club. Therefore I had to source virtually all the information myself (luckily, aided by a few high-quality reliable online data sources as well as many relevant news articles). I welcome all constructive criticism which would help me improve this article and the many others I have created or contributed significantly to since joining the project in 2016; I am proud of the work I have contributed but am aware it can be even better with the guidance of experienced reviewers. Crowsus (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The immediate thing that jumps out is that the article definitely needs more than a 2-sentence lead..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Should I deal with that (and anything else) now, or wait for a certain time and try to fix lots at once? Not sure on the correct order. Thanks Crowsus (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Agree with ChrisTheDude lead should be longer.
  • There should be more refs to multiple paragraphs. The first paragraph (The Magyars and the Babes) – zero refs in 1st paragraph, only 2 in the 2nd (& at the very end).
  • Under "most appearances" and "top goalscorers", use En dashes per MOS:DASH
  • All tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (or see MOS:DTAB)
  • "managerial statistics" table:
    • Refs need own column
    • Table should be sortable
    • Present doesn't need to be italicized
  • "UEFA annual ranking" table:
    • Center the whole table
    • Unsort ref column
  • "Results by season" table:
    • Refs should have own column.
    • The whole table could be sortable
    • Center "Round" column

These are some things I noticed that should hopefully give you a good start. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks for comments and advice. I think I have addressed most of it (the tables definitely look better with a ref column) apart from the All tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (or see MOS:DTAB), I really don't know where to start with that or how much work it would involve, obviously I have looked at the guidance pages but it confused me more, very technical. I have been working on trial and error methods when creating tables and don't use any editing aids etc, not sure how common that is. I have just about managed to get the ones in this article to a reasonable level, not sure I can bear completely reorganising columns and stuff so if it's complex or a massive job then it might be a dealbreaker if it's a must for FA status. But maybe it's more straightforward than that? Crowsus (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Crowsus The coding in MOS:DTAB basically shows the more traditional way of making tables, putting everything in one line. I personally hate this method and prefer every column have their own line. Basically, what it says is you put ! scope="col" under every column before you start the table. In terms of scope rows, you usually put these under items in columns that are most specific to that specific row. For example, for the "managerial statistics" table, you would put ! scope="row" before every name in every row. I use a find and replace tool in Google Chrome to make things easier so I don't have to do it manually. Making scope rows will cause the items in the box to be bolded and centered. If you don't want this, put "plainrowheaders" after "wikitable sortable". Also, some people don't want the scoped columns shaded so you use a "|" and not a "!". If you want I can do a table for you to show how it's done. Hope this helped. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Another comment, I think the player records should be in tables as well. Having them not in tables looks weird to me. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, and I'll give it a try but might get back to you pleading if it's a complete failure/bafflement. And will also definitely do the players in tables, as you can tell I'm not not a big fan of using them but once it goes beyond a few names with bullet points it starts to look daft, as you have pointed out. Should have sorted that before any of this FL stuff as that was obviously something that would need addressed if it was going to be beyond me and a couple of other fans of the club looking at the article. Crowsus (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
It might have been a good idea to bring it to peer review first but it's no big deal. Like I said, if you want me to do one table as an example or every table for you it's no big deal because I totally don't mind. If you have any comments or questions just ask. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Laureus World Sports Award for Comeback of the Year

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Next up from the Laureus World Sports Awards stable, the comeback award. Very similar in nature to those that have already passed or are already enjoying considerable support. As ever, my thanks to anyone who has the time and interest to contribute, review etc, and I will endeavour to get to any and all comments as soon as I am able. Yes, I know I have two other noms open, one has two supports, one has three, so it's all ok! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • You mention in the lead that Armstrong and Phelps came back from cancer and retirement – are the reasons for nomination publicized? Since this award doesn't recognize a particular event or performance, I'm quite curious to what constitutes a comeback for other winners.
    There's no official citation available that I can see, only the generic "awarded for" statement that's covered in the infobox. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There should not be a key above the tables when only Armstrong has an asterisk (and is explained in the lead). It would be simpler to just have "Lance Armstrong (rescinded)" in the table. The stats key is written unnecessarily generically when it only refers to one person with one win/one nom.
    I don't think that's a problem. It's consistent with the other articles and there could be more in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    It shouldn't say "individuals" unless it refers to multiple individuals. Whether there is an award or awards is known, so don't say award(s). It seems excessive on the other pages that use it, also only referring to one person. The changeability is the beauty of Wikipedia if there are more. Reywas92Talk 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    It's generic across all these lists. And beyond, to say, the ESPY lists, some of which have multiple abusers listed. It would be nice to present this sor of thing in a common fashion to our readers, not to stick to anal rules of grammar. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Whatever, it's not fucking anal to have basic singular-plural correspondence. Not sure which of the ESPY lists has something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talkcontribs)
    Ok, and with that, I won't be responding to your comments any further. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For some reason Ronaldo sorts first alphabetically. Reywas92Talk 08:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
Thanks Reywas92 for your comments, all responded to above. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oscars is not a euphemism, it is a widely known and accepted name; see http://www.oscars.org/, http://oscar.go.com/. None of your three sources use it that way because it's unnecessary and they do not aid comprehension – nor do euphemisms generally require quotation marks anyway. Reywas92Talk 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is, and it's a quote from multiple sources, so it's staying as it is, I don't see any harm at all in it. And seven editors already agreed with it. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Um, what? You're not presenting it as a quote at all, you just justified it as being used as a euphemism! You'd have to say It has been called the "Oscars of Sports" or something beyond a single word like this that's trying to imply to the word by itself requires them. And just because those people didn't call it out doesn't make it accurate. You correctly didn't use them in the first sentence of that nom! Oppose. Reywas92Talk 21:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Your oppose is noted, but I will not be taking any action on your comments, espeically as they are subjective and particularly as you have resorted to "fucking". Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
And thank YOU for calling me anal. Is that not our job here? The thing is, even if you're calling it a quotation, you are misquoting them, as the award is more specifically being called "Oscars of Sport" or "Sporting Oscars". It is objectively incorrect the way it currently is. Reywas92Talk 22:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

  • Ref(s) → Refs; each year has two refs so (s) is unneeded
  • I'm a fan of have the year and ref columns centered but I know to you it's no big deal so if you don't want to don't worry about it.

That's all I got. Great job! Can't wait for the rest of the awards. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'm going to leave the refs as they are, if someone else wants to add all the additional coding to centrally align the whole table then left-align the columns which shouldn't be centrally aligned, more power to them. Cheers for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I can center them for you. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
BeatlesLedTV thanks for you constructive and helpful input, and especially for the edits! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Great job TRM. Keep them coming! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • Again very little to quibble about.
  • I would make the same comment about "affecting" as in the lifetime list.
  • I would prefer the star for a rescinded award to have been an efn note, but this is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles Ok, made the "affecting" change, but left the rescinded award star as is, it's quite commonplace for athlete's whose performances are later determined to be invalid to have a star next to them (e.g. this report about Barry Bonds), so I think this is a decent way of doing it. Thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi TRM, I am nearly finished this list but this needs quick fix first

  • Fabienne St Louis - is Mauritian not Mauritanian

more to come, regards JennyOz (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

golf - wlink could be to Professional golfer
It could be this is about the sport, not the status of an individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Maarten van der Weijden - his comeback mostly seems 10km marathon eg Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon 10 kilometre, so pipe swimming to Open water swimming?
Seems reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Germany Men's Olympic Eights Team - better link Rowing at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's eight?
Now then we're straying into the territory that Ian discussed above. But changed in this instance. And the instance in the lead for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oracle Team - pipe sailing to Yacht racing?
Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fabienne St Louis - Mauritian not Mauritanian
    Pesky ISO. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Statistics key
"Indicates total(s) exclude those of individuals whose award(s) and/or nomination(s) were later rescinded"
hmm thought this was changed on Sportswoman list..., but not. It is really hard to parse.
simplify to - "Indicates totals which exclude rescissions."?
Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Winners by nationality
Winners column - all good
Nominations - Spain - only 2?
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Mauritania to Mauritius needs change here too
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Winners by sport
Winners column - all good
Nominations - athletics - 18 / golf - 16 / swimming - 5/ boxing - 1?
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(Why do Laureus use Great Britain for someone like Wilkinson when his achievements were in playing for club and England?)

(Dunno, just sticking with the sources...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 9 - John Wilcockson, Richard Williams (journalist), Pierre Ballester, David Millar - author links
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 10 - Rory Carroll - author link
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's me done. Good job! JennyOz (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks as always JennyOz, I've addressed everything I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Another fine list. Thanks! Happy to sign support. JennyOz (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This list has been in the making for a long time. I originally had the list based on the RIAA certifications, but Billboard has come out with an actual bestselling Latin albums in the US of all-time last month (which can be found here and it thoroughly sourced in the list). The article was peer reviewed by A Thousand Doors, who made List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom a FL and is the basis for this article, and Esprit15d who made significant improvements to the article as well. I look forward to your feedback, thanks! Erick (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – Ah that makes sense. Everything looks good to me. I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Beastie Boys

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I created this list last month because I believe the Beastie Boys have enough songs to have a "songs" list. I modeled it after the Rise Against songs list in terms of the table. I have another FLC at the moment that has one support and many comments so I think I'm safe to nominate this one. I believe this list meets the criteria and is well-written enough to become featured. All comments and criticism are appreciated. Thanks and happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

World Rugby Player of the Year

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Another rugby list but this time about the best players in the world. Despite the distinct lack of Australians on the list, I'm still hoping that my antipodean review crew will still participate! I know I have two open noms, but one has substantial support at this time, and the other is unrelated to this topic so everything's fine! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – Everything looks good to me. Great job! Care to check out my new FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


  • The second sentence is out of place; it makes more sense after what the award is presented for. Reywas92Talk 23:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Done, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, I can't find an image of the trophy on it's own either unfortunately. Looks like it has changed design from the IRB days to the World Rugby brand too. I played with the widths in the Stats section a little bit, feel free to revert if you're not keen, but it looks better to me, at least. Harrias talk 07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, that does look better. I was too tired last night to use such a simple approach. Cheers for the review, the fix and the support! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Laureus Lifetime Achievement Award

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Short and sweet this one. Another Laureus World Sports Awards effort, this one a discretionary award irregularly awarded to big-hitters in the world of sport. Imagine my surprise when I saw Brits had more of these than anyone else... Yes, I know I have a couple of FLCs running, one has seven supports, the other three, so and since this one is different enough from those two, I reckon it'll all be okay!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Center the dashes in the image column.
  • There's only 1 ref per year so retitle ref column "Ref.". The extra (s) is unnecessary.

Other than that everything looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Love your work TRM, at this rate we will knock the entire series by the end of the month! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by JennyOz

  • Infobox - hmmm, does it matter that Location="Monaco 2017" when they didn't present this particular category in 2017?
  • "... at the annual awards ceremony held in various locations ..." an annual
  • "Footballers have received more awards than any other with..." - any other sport?
  • "... Bobby Charlton (2011)..." - 2012
  • ..."Sebastian Coe (2012))." - 2013
  • "...died in a climbing accident in South Africa a month before the 2012 ceremony - 2004
he died in January, thehindu says awards ceremony Lisbon 11 May - so 4 months before?
  • "Indicates individual whose award was presented posthumously - sounds iffy, presented to who? (yeah, I know the Laureus site uses 'presented'). 'Indicates individual whose award was posthumous or 'Indicates posthumous award'
  • Template matches table.

I haven't looked at table yet. Will do when Ian answers you. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz Hi Jenny, all done, thanks as always, look forward to your subsequent remarks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Crikeys, you're quick! All above is now fine. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to keep my tip-top review crew waiting...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • recent prose change - you swapped "seven constituent awards" for "two discretionary awards" which has introduced repetition with "it is one of a number of discretionary awards" further on in lede. And..., there are now at least three discretionary awards - "The Academy also has the power to present Discretionary Awards such as Lifetime Achievement, Spirit of Sport and Exceptional Achievement." per last sentence of existing ref. I would humbly suggest simply swapping the newly added "two discretionary" to 'inaugural'.
  • Table and refs - All table columns info, sorting and refs now checked.
My only minor comment is that the 2006 Johan Cruyff BBC ref support is only in a caption. Poss alts here or here.
  • Not related to my support but would it be possible to add the pic of part statuette into the infobox of each of these articles - i.e., the 5th image on this page? - or even the logo top left same page? (Or only fair use on the umbrella page Laureus World Sports Awards? Sorry to ask but I've had no experience with images yet.)

That's it. JennyOz (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz Hi Jenny, thanks again. I addressed your first points, only the statuette one left. I think since the statuette seems to be the same across all awards, it's most likely fair use would only apply at the main awards page, and that's an article which needs a lot of work (it's on my list). So it's definitely a good idea, but I don't think it applies on these sub-articles. Thanks for all your diligence, let me know if there's anything else for me to tweak. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
All done, another fine job! Happy to sign support. JennyOz (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Although the Laureus Awards ceremony is held annually, the Lifetime Achievement Award is not necessarily presented every time; it is one of a number of discretionary awards that can be given by the Laureus World Sports Academy. The award is considered highly prestigious and is frequently referred to as the sporting equivalent of an "Oscar".
The second sentence, by referring to "The award", implies that the Lifetime Achievement Award in particular is what is prestigious, rather than the Laureus Awards in general. Better as The awards are considered highly prestigious and are frequently referred to as the "Oscars of Sports"., which also better matches the source.
Tweaked somewhat. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Meh.
  • Footballers have received more awards than any other sports with five, while only Great Britain has multiple winners with three (Steve Redgrave (2001), Bobby Charlton (2012) and Sebastian Coe (2013)).
There should be commas ahead of both uses of the word with. Why are all in the latter group mentioned here but not those in the former? Might as well just leave them in the table.
Colon added. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It was correct already; if you add a colon the parentheses are no longer needed. My question is why are the footballers not mentioned when the British winners are? Include both set of people or neither. Football and Great Britain are also not contrasting groups so "and" would be more appropriate than "while". Reywas92Talk 23:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks and reads fine to me as it stands, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you edited it to your preference. Anything else to do here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, my preference is that the grammar is accurate. I see no other issues besides Oscars. Reywas92Talk 19:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Well since the Academy Awards page itself refers to the Oscars in such a way, and since numerous other editors have not indicated that they have any issue with it as it stands, and since I have no issue with it as it stands, then it'll stand. If that means you oppose, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It reads more naturally to write "The New Zealand yachtsmanPeter Blake..." like in the paragraph's final sentence. rather than putting it as a non-restrictive appositive. The current suggests that they had been discussed previously. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Being anal, I guess you meant to add a space before Peter. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

All done Reywas92, thanks. Let me know if there's anything else! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "a global organisation involved in more than 150 charity projects affecting 500,000 young people." "affecting" does not sound right to me. How about "a global organisation supporting more than 150 charity projects involving 500,000 young people."
  • I can't find anything else to quibble about. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles thanks, I've adjusted that (I think that was the phrase the Laureus Foundation used) and will roll out the change across all the other Laureus lists for consistency. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents of India

Nominator(s): To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because as a I feel that if this list gets featured it will be a giant step towards ccountering systemic bias on Wikipedia-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – I got nothing else. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Vanamonde
  • I'm new to FLC, but I'm fairly well versed with Indian politics, and I think this list does a very decent job of conveying the relevant information. Somebody less familiar with the topic should check the prose bits to make sure they make sense to folks who don't know the topic.
  • I said this when I took a look at this before the FLC: the Janata Party and the BJP should not share a color (certainly not the BJP's official color). They were distinct parties, with distinct ideologies. Prominent members of the latter just happened to be members of the former during its brief period of ascendancy. Either just say "other parties" or, preferably, split them into two colors.
  • Bit uncertain about the grammar of "Although the president is vested such powers by the Constitution of India", but that's a vague discomfort only, something for a more knowledgable person to check.
Vanamonde93-I have addressed your concerns,Please take a look-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 11:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. You've got a tiny sliver of white space because of the percentages in the pie chart not adding to 100. I'm willing to support now, though. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Removed silver by adjusting the percentages-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 11:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Link De facto.
  • Mention alt text in Images.
  • You can replace 'The President' with simply 'they' at few instances, to avoid repetitiveness.
  • Remove 'current' from the last sentence and replace it with 'as of', per WP:RELTIME.
  • Hindustan times --> Hindustan Times.
  • How "mapsofindia.com" is a RS?
  • m.indiatoday.in --> India Today
  • I feel "presidentofindia.nic.in" should have a better name.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher:Could you please clarify your statements ( statements 3 and 8) -To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 08:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about the prose in the lead where many sentences starts with 'The President' which can be replaced by 'they' in some instances. The fourth one has been fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher:-Done lease take a look(the content in ref 9 has been verified from other sources but since it is the most comprehensive it is used)-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 08:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose too much needs to be addressed for this to be supported at this time.

  • What does "first citizen" mean?Clarified
  • "The post of President is known in Hindi..." this sentence is unreferenced.Removed
  • "... introduction of the post in 1950. The post was established ..." repetitive, could merge.Done
  • "death of Zakir Husain, who died in office" somewhat tautological, perhaps "in 1969 after Zakir Husain died in office"?Done
  • Inconsistent capitalisation of "president" throughout the lead.Done, as far as possible manually
  • " as an independent candidate" this is oddly introduced before you talk (in the next para) about the political affiliations, suggest it's noted in one place.Done
  • "They may remain... " reads odd here, I would make a new para, or move this to the first para which basically introduces the whole concept of President.Done
  • "constitution of India" our article capitalises the C of constitution.Done
  • Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.Done
  • "the only person to be elected as an independent candidate." yet 47% of candidates were independent... did they only become independent after being elected?Removed
  • Two decimal places seems excessively accurate here.Adjusted
  • You can't use just colours to denote something, it's a failure of MOS:COLOR.Done
  • Birth–Death doesn't need that capitalisation.Done
  • The rowscopes should really be on the names of the presidents, not the number.Done
  • Where is the data used to create File:Presidents by state of birth.png verifiable?Ref added
  • Where you don't have an image of the individual, place a {{center|–}}.Done
  • Candidate of [9] - would this be better as "Affiliation[9]"? Either way, lose the space.Done
  • "holding office for 12 years as the only president to serve two terms in office.[10][11][5] " refs in numerical order, but more importantly, I though each term was limited to five years?Removed unsourced statement, Done
  • "vice chancellor" is usually hyphenated.Done
  • " received Bharat Ratna award" missing "the" ... and link the award.Done
  • "He was the first President from South India." no ref.Done
  • As the table is sortable, everything you've linked should be linked on every occasion.Done manually
  • You could denote those who have died in office with a {{dagger}}.Done + some more of footnotes
  • You could add another column for the duration of their tenure, especially as you note the "shortest" duration in the notes.

Not done. Out of 17, 12 presidents will have 5 years, only 5 others will have varied number of years

  • Is it "Acting President" or "acting president"?Done manually
  • "He resigned in a few months" after instead of in.
  • "president during Emergency" again, missing a "The" here.
  • Mysore state should be Mysore State to avoid piping to a redirect.
  • "Muhammad Hidayatullah" or "Mohammad Hidayatullah"?All Done
  • Punjab, India, not Punjab (India).

Not done .Denotes Punjab state of India (Not of Pakistan)

  • "He has also" as he is dead, this should be "He also".
  • Our article does not use a capital G for Governor of Rajasthan.
  • Same for Bihar.
  • Member of parliament links to a generic page, you could be more specific, on that page there exists three links to India-specific articles.
  • What's BJP and RSS?
  • Timeline could be coloured per political party and "acting" could be a symbol (e.g. *) after the acting president's names instead of the way you currently have it.
  • Our article hyphenates "Vice-President".

All done

  • Consistent date formats in the references.
  • Consistent and long ISBNs please.

Both Not Done, Please clarify what you want, I didn't find any thing wrong with them

  • You link Hindustan Times but none of the other works. Be consistent.Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Duly noted, will try to do all by 26th November 2017.( Do not have time to do all just now )-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:-The timeline part of the page has gone askew (behaving oddly in the legend portion ) after implementing your recommendation. -To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)I have corrected the problem after tinkering the Wikisyntax -On a more important note, I have done some edits in accordance to your recommendations and would like you to do a status update (Of your comment or any subsequent new problems )-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S:From what I know at DYK, you probably have the scripts to carry out your last two recommendations(Which I could not locate despite trawling through your monbook.js). Please do it for me(Despite you being the reviewer who asked it to be done)-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man-I have done most of the edits suggested. Please take a look at the article and the notes above-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man - Done All recommended edits after a bit of deliberation.Please take a look and reconsider your oppose-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 2002

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The list for 2000 was promoted, and the list for 2001 now has multiple supports, so guess what is next.....? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment from BeatlesLedTV
  • I think the lead's third paragraph should have more references. The second paragraph has 6 while the third only has 1.

Other than that everything looks good. I got no complaints about the table. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The third paragraph consists almost entirely of content that can easily be verified simply by looking at the table, for example no reference is needed to prove that Toby Keith had three number ones, or that George Strait ended the year at number one, because you can clearly see it in the table. The only reason why the paragraph above has so many more references is because it consists of content which can't be verified simply by looking at the table..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – You got it. All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsperson of the Year with a Disability

Nominator(s): Harrias talk, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Based off the similar Laureus World Sports Award for Sportswoman of the Year, which is well on its way to becoming a FL, this list honours those disabled athletes who have excelled. I have an open FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ruth Lyttle Satter Prize in Mathematics/archive1, but that has three supports and no outstanding comments. Harrias talk 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Great job Harrias and TRM. Look forward to seeing the rest of the series come to FLC. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actress

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Back at the FLC after a long hiatus. This is a complete well written/sourced list of the NFA supporting actress winners. Looking forward for constructive and helpful feedback. Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ianblair23 for your comments and support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job! I got no other comments. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks much for your comment and support BeatlesLedTV. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a well-made list that meets the criteria. Just one concern: there were three instances of a tie, but the lead mentions only the first occurrence. My recommendation: to avoid unnecessarily bulking up the lead, we can simply state that were three ties in the history of the awards, in the years 1999, 2012, and 2013. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Krimuk2.0: Is it okay now? Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Tweaked it a bit. Anyway, good job. I support it for promotion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and support Krimuk. :) Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • The "also known as" name isn't referenced.
    Anything on this? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I couldn't find any source to support the name. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Removed, since the award's name is not "Rajat Kamal" but its the hindi translation of the silver lotus given to the winners. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • " It is presented by the President of India at a ceremony held in New Delhi." that's referenced to a single event that happened in 2015, has it always been the case, and was it the case in 2016?
For the past 10 years, the event has been happening in New Delhi, per the sources.
  • " the government of India has presented" I thought, more specifically, it was the DFF doing the presenting?
The DFF works under the I&B ministry, which itself is under the Government of India.
Yes, but it's the DFF who do the presenting. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Changed.
  • Could add a couple more images, indeed I've started adding images for each recipient in some of my more recent lists where a sufficient number exist.
Added image of the first recipient. I don't think adding image of everyone of them is necessary.
  • Any kind of third party coverage which puts this award into some context, i.e. how prominent an award it is?

That's all, very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Few third party sources are available. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have given it a good read and the list looks quite flawless especially after the previous reviews were resolved. I offer my Support for its promotion to FL.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

List of five-wicket hauls in women's One Day International cricket

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Another cricket five-wicket hauls list, this time for the women's in the one day format. As always, I am happy to address any and all points raised. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from BeatlesLedTV
  • Would it be possible to put the references in their own column? If so make sure they're centered.

Other than that I got nothing. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi BeatlesLedTV, I have rearranged columns in the table and added a separate column for the references. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Awesome. I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "The first two five-wicket hauls in women's ODIs was taken" => were taken
  • "Australia's Tina Macpherson and New Zealand's Glenys Page both achieved the feat as part of their team's victories" => their teams' victories
  • "two of only five players to take a five-wicket haul during their ODI debut. The others being" => merge here, as the second sentence is currently not grammatically correct, so "ODI debut, the others being...."
  • "Despite taking 5/67 off her 10 overs at the County Ground in Taunton during the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup, the match was lost to Australia" => "Despite Luus taking 5/67 off her 10 overs at the County Ground in Taunton during the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup, South Africa lost the match to Australia"
  • "Shah is also youngest the bowler" => "Shah is also the youngest bowler"
  • "Players from every the team that currently hold WODI status" => "Players from every team that currently holds WODI status"
  • "Of the teams that have previously held WODI status only the Netherlands have had a player take five wickets in an innings. No players from teams that no longer play WODIs have achieved the feat" => I don't understand this bit. Is there a difference between no longer holding WODI status and no longer playing WODI matches?
  • Yes there is. As per the notes after each sentence Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands and Scotland formerly held WODI status but still play cricket while Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Young England and the International XI also formerly held the status but they no compete. All four teams played in the 1973 World Cup and all matches were designated as WODIs. However, players from Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago now play for the West Indies and Young England and the International XI are now defunct. Hope this clears it up. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for you review. I have addressed your comments above. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
With regard to the last point, I note the notes (!) but still don't think the situation is made clear. I would suggest the following re-wording: "Of the teams that are still active but no longer hold WODI status only the Netherlands have had a player take five wickets in an innings.[b] No players from teams that previously competed in WODIs but are no longer active have achieved the feat" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi ChrisTheDude, I have made the above change. Thanks again for your review. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't see any other issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for the support. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks TRM! – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz

Hi Ian, that's some list! I only have 3 comments...

  • Looking at the refs, matches 1 to 17 had various numbers of overs eg 60, 55, 54, 45, 60, 40. Did the 50 become standard around match 18 / 1998? Is it worth a tiny mention?
  • Amanda Green - needs dab
  • Momoko Saito - needs dab

All refs and player links checked. That's it! Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Chris Cornell

Nominator(s): Andre666 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete, sourced list of all songs by a notable musician, and provides a valuable source of information for anyone who would like to know about the subject's work. Andre666 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this list. I made a suggestion on the list's talk page re: the Notes column, which has mostly empty cells. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see you nominated it! A couple comments:

  • The writer column should be unsorted as there are multiple writers for many songs.
  • I think having "Credited" in the artist and writer columns is unnecessary because to me that suggests there were uncredited writers as well.
  • For songs that are B-sides only, I think the release boxes should be more evident. In the lists I'm working on currently, I use for example: (box below) Then for A-sides, I just say "non-album single" solely.
Non-album single
B-side to "Song title"
  • Add a content box, where you can click the letter and it goes to songs that start with that letter.
  • Add a heading (or caption) to the table.

Other than that great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose There are numerous problems with this list. In addition to those listed above, the table does not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT) and has sorting problems. The list criteria is not specified, but apparently includes all the recordings Cornell appears on. It includes those with Soundgarden and Audioslave, which arguably deserve their own lists of songs. WP practice is to include only songs recorded in the artist's name (see List of songs recorded by Syd Barrett, List of songs recorded by George Harrison, etc.), since it is often unclear what the extent of their contribution to group recordings is. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Municipalities of Colima

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I aim to create a template for which to apply to all other Mexican list of municipality pages. I did nominate this list before, however due to lack of interest it was not promoted. I understand that the list is small, but it is complete, and am very open to any suggestions for improvement. I've made all recommended changes in the previous nomination and used previous municipality lists as a style guide in an attempt to standardize these types of lists in wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "it is the least populous state" This is obviously accurate but to me it implies a low population density, whereas it has double the Mexican average. How about "has the smallest population"?
  • "Municipalities in Colima are administratively autonomous" I do not understand what "administratively autonomous" means in this context.
  • How is the municipal council chosen - elected?
  • "the cleaning and maintenance of public parks" Cleaning of a park does not sound right to me. I would leave it out as maintenance covers cleaning.
  • "Since 1984, they can collect property taxes" This also does not sound right. Maybe "they have had the power to collect"
  • ""than from their own collection efforts" "efforts" seems odd to me. Maybe "from their own income"
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review and your suggestions, all have been made. Please let me know if it flows better now. Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cobblet

  • When were the municipalities established? You may find this source somewhat helpful.
  • I've searched everywhere for a source on this and have not been able to find one. The link you provided only gives the date for 1 municipality unfortunately, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. If we can find a source I'm very happy to include it. In most list of administrative divisions I do this.
  • This information is usually available in each municipality's entry in the Enciclopedia de los Municipios y Delegaciones de México. I should've mentioned that. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, take a look at this comprehensive historical report on the territorial division of Colima, especially page 67. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I changed the dates to reflect this source. Do you think it is the best one? It contradicts the previous one. I will mark as complete unless you think there is a better source for dates.  Done
  • I don't mind checking the sources myself if you can point out other discrepancies you saw, but for Colima proper, I think you have the correct date now – I'd distinguish between the mere founding of a settlement and the establishment of a municipal administration within a legal framework. Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with using the last reference you cited. By the way, I just want to thank you for such a thorough review. The article is becoming much better thanks to you. I will be away for a few days but will return to complete the rest. Mattximus (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't mention it. I'm very happy to see someone else taking an interest in Mexican municipalities as I myself have just started creating articles on the missing ones. Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What is/are the enabling statute(s) for the municipalities of Colima? Is the Ley del Municipio Libre del Estado de Colima all there is (I have not checked whether that link contains the most recent version of the law), or are there also other relevant statutes?
  • See also Title 7 of Colima's state constitution (Articles 87–96) which also deals with the establishment of municipalities. Pages 89–90 of the territorial division report I linked to above seems to suggest that the Constitution and the Organic Law are the two controlling provisions. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Putting that statute into Google Translate, I notice that it translates regidores as "trustees" and síndicos as "councillors." An OECD publication also does the same. Any translation we provide should be cited.
  • Great suggestion.  Done
  • Article 45 enumerates the powers of the municipal councils. Can you check that what you wrote and cited regarding Mexican municipalities generally also applies specifically to municipalities of Colima?
  • Articles 60 and 61 provide for the existence of local auxiliary authorities (autoridades auxiliares), and a quick Google search and browse through the Enciclopedia de los Municipios y Delegaciones de México indicates that these are operational in several (if not all) municipalities in Colima. These seem worth mentioning to me especially if it is true that not all municipalities of Mexico have them, as is claimed in that article.
  • I have noticed that every major source on Mexican municipalities seems to have a different set of land area statistics. For instance, your source gives Armería's area as 341.6 km2; the Enciclopedia gives 408.38 km2; and SEDESOL's Cédulas de información municipal gives 410.051 km2, citing INEGI's Marco Geoestadístico 2010. I would prefer to use the last of these sources as it was adopted for the 2010 Census and the underlying GIS data is available.
  • I was frustrated with this problem as well. It's surprising how hard it was to find data on the area of a municipality. I clicked on the link you gave me, but it just links to shape files. Would you be able to point me to the area numbers? If so I will update the list and correct the densities as well.
  • Sorry, I should've been clearer – each municipality's entry in the Cédulas de información municipal (click on their names) gives their land area, citing INEGI's 2010 data. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding the source. It was way off of previous numbers, but searching around they are all over the place. I've updated all area figures and densities to the reference you suggested, it seems like the most legitimate of all options.  Done Mattximus (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The current arrangement of the gallery seems a little awkward as its title "Largest municipalities in Colima by population" might be perceived to apply to the table as well as the gallery. Maybe put the gallery under the table, or even arrange it vertically to the right? Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I used to agree with this, and this was how I organized the images when I first started making these lists. However after over a dozen featured lists, the unanimous advice was to place them in this gallery style format, and not to the right as I originally had it. Their reasoning was that placing images on the right of a table causes issues on screens with low resolution. So for accessibility and consistency reasons, they are formatted like this. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, but I don't see anything wrong with my other suggestion of placing the gallery underneath the table. It's a minor point though. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review, I'm waiting on a few points above before moving on to the remainder of the points. Thanks again for helping bring this article up to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Williams on screen and stage

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I had nominated this list over a year ago, but it had to be closed due to lack of comments. Now it's all new and updated, and hopefully gets more attention. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • These links should be fixed.
Hey, this doesn't show me any issues. Could you tell me which links need fixing? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The green ones that are redirects. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I've archived the refs. So that should be okay now. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Fullstop missing from the alt texts.
  • I'm a bit skeptical on the usage of the word 'portrayed' in the article, unless its about a real life character that she played.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time out to review this, Yashthepunisher. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Yash. I really appreciate it. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment from BeatlesLedTV
  • The film and stages tables' ref column are titled "Ref(s)" even though these 2 tables only have 1 ref per film. Simply title it "Ref." and leave the television one as is.

That's all I got. Very well-written. My comment is very minor I'll support it now. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BeatlesLedTV. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Tom Mix filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because Tom Mix was a major and influential star of the early days of American cinema. He warrants having an outstanding filmography. I strongly believe that what is offered here is of FL status. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Support – My comments have been resolved. I fully support the promotion to featured status. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

List of living cardinals

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF (talk) ~ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The above is a comprehensive list of living cardinals of the Catholic Church, including current statistical information. I feel that it merits the FL distinction, containing useful content and meeting the required criteria. Any and all input welcome. RAVENPVFF (talk) ~ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The merge proposal with College of Cardinals needs to be closed first; you should not nominate an article with any sort of tags. If this list is to be kept separate, the corresponding material must be removed from the article. While the list seems to fit in the main article fine and I prefer such consolidation, I vehemently oppose the current duplication of content if a separate page is preferred by the contributors. Otherwise why have it??? Furthermore, I would not want to promote a list that is primarily a transcluded template. Pick one page or the other to keep the source table and remove it and whatever other duplicated content from the other, which was suggested on the talk page. I will be glad to positively review this interesting topic when this issue is resolved. Reywas92Talk 07:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

While otherwise positive, I agree with the conclusion immediately above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Reywas92: The merge proposal has now been closed; the pertinent content is now present only in the nominated article (List of living cardinals). Further comments welcome. RAVENPVFF (talk) ~ 09:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments Did the pope really "create five cardinals", or did he appoint or elevate them?
  • That's actually standard Vatican terminology – see for example here.
  • Etchegaray has not been the longest serving since 1979, he's served since 1979.
  • Thus clarified.
  • A bit more background info in the lead or list intro would be nice, like what the difference between the three orders is.
  • There are already wikilinks on the three orders to the relevant sections in the article on cardinals, which users may read if they choose; should we be reiterating content here?
  • Yes, it can be a very short summary but FLs should be able to stand alone. Reywas92Talk 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: I've added some additional background information. That said, I don't think the article should be overly verbose; links and the list itself should be sufficient for clarification. RAVENPVFF (talk) ~ 09:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There need not be a separate Template:Living cardinals, just put the whole table in the list so an editor doesn't have to attempt to get to another page.
  • Fair point; done.
  • "Sorting the list by order will sort by precedence, including within each order." -> Is it not sorted by precedence by default? This should be made clear. Anyway, why shouldn't it be sorted by name? That seems a bit more logical to me for the topic but it doesn't have to be if the section explains why precedence is important.
  • Clarified, through the word ‘official’ (cardinals are ordered in this manner in the Church, e.g. in papal conclaves)
  • The name column should be to the left of the pope; as the primary topic of the list it should go first, as the consistory is a subsequent fact of the person. (I think it should be the first column if name is to be the default sort, otherwise second is best if order is the default)
  • I'm inclined to disagree. Even though the ‘Order’ column carries all the necessary data to sort by precedence, it only displays the actual order itself (CB/CP/CD). Sorting by precedence is actually represented visually in the table by both the ‘Order’ and ‘Consistory/Pope’ columns together – in effect, sorting firstly by ‘Order’ and secondly by ‘Consistory/Pope’.
  • A number of cardinals have an abbreviation by their name (SDB, CMF, OMM, etc). The purpose/meaning of these should be in the lead or table section intro.
  • Done (those denote religious orders/institutes).
  • Most importantly, the table needs citations! I know it comes from the external links at the bottom, but that needs to be explicit with ref tags and all.
  • Done as suggested. I've only included one of the sources, though – it's the ‘main’ and most useful one.
  • A few of those are also marked as self-published - they can still be used but without the tag and cited correctly. Catholic-hierarchy looks pretty amateurish, maybe leave it out. Reywas92Talk 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I left the tags, as not all of them are cited. I'm keeping Catholic-Hierarchy anyway; it seems to be rather useful in any case.
@Reywas92: Many thanks for your constructive remarks. RAVENPVFF (talk) ~ 04:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose at the moment; too many issues for me:

  • The lead is quite short for a list of this length, and includes bullet points. I would rather see it all in prose form with a greater summary of the information provided in the tables. Harrias talk 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All the tables need row scopes to meet MOS:DTT
  • A few terms, like "sui iuris" are presented with little to no explanation.
  • The See also section is bloated, and includes articles already linked to in the article, which is a bit of a no no.
  • The referencing needs accessdates.
  • What makes GCatholic.org, upon which most of this list relies a reliable source? Harrias talk 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Harrias: Responded to. Regarding GCatholic.org, even though it's self-published, it is a neutral and comprehensive source that documents the current state of the Church (see here). In addition, I've added a reference to an official Vatican webpage to the list. Further sources may be identified and added soon. Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF (talk) ~ 10:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Syd Barrett

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

My other FLC is already far in the process so I'm going to nominate this one. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and has the ability to become featured. If not, I'm open to any suggestions on how to improve it so it does meet the criteria to become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo
  • Lead
    • Somewhere in the beginning, it should be briefly noted that this is a list of his recordings as a solo artist and doesn't include PF songs.
    • Check for repetition – "English musician Syd Barrett recorded many songs during his short career as a musician." "One of the founding members of English rock band Pink Floyd, he was the dominant force of the band in their early years, ... and recording several unreleased songs with the band." "in 1969 to begin work on his first solo album," "Barrett began work on his second". "Work on The Madcap Laughs proved difficult, ... Produced by Pink Floyd members David Gilmour and Richard Wright,[5] the sessions proved difficult". "Barrett would record two solo albums, ...left the music business entirely". "Two years later, Barrett would sign a document ending his association with Pink Floyd and any financial interest in future recordings and left the music business entirely". (plus would and entirely don't add anything).
    • "Barrett was excluded from Pink Floyd in April 1968 and was subsequently replaced by guitarist David Gilmour." According to the PF article (and from what I remember reading), Gilmour was brought in before Barrett was left out.
    • Unneeded words – "the majority of the material found on their first album," (found doesn't add anything). "His first and only single" (if it was his only single, then it would be his first, last, etc.). "The Madcap Laughs and Barrett would be double-paired" (would and double don't add anything). "In 1988, Barrett himself approved the release of Opel," (himself doesn't add anything).
    • "alternate takes of songs from his solo albums, as well as Opel." The Crazy Diamond article seems to indicated that it includes all of TML, Barrett, and Opel, plus alt takes.
    • "The greatest hits album Wouldn't You Miss Me? followed suit," (his only single single never charted; compilation or collection is a better description).
    • "Vegetable Man" and "Scream Thy Last Scream" were previously going to be released on Opel, but was blocked by Pink Floyd." (the songs are already mentioned in the previous sentence; album details are unneeded).
    • Since this is a list of songs, there could be less emphasis on his albums. For example, "Barrett's highly sought-after song "Bob Dylan Blues" was issued on WYMM and the previously unreleased twenty-minute long instrumental "Rhamadan" is included as a bonus track on the AITSB CD."
    • Maybe add something about the style of his songs, contrast/similarity to PF songs, which are particularly noteworthy, etc.
Ojorojo (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed mostly everything. Also I can't get a picture of Barrett on the page because every picture of him Wikipedia has is under fair use. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Have you tried a google-type search for images in the public domain? Without his photo, I wonder if the other photos should be included. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I found some photos of him through google that are labeled for noncommercial reuse. The original photos were posted on flickr. Would I have to contact any of the users that posted them or just upload them here? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Image use policy includes "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." Flickr images usually note "may be subject to copyright". I doubt that most who uploaded the images know anything about the copyrights. Sydbarrett.com[1] has some photos marked "1968 Spring photoshoot, photographer unknown", but I don't know if they're OK to use. Maybe ask them.[2]Ojorojo (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright I'll ask them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Follow up. I got permission from them to use a photo whose photographer is unknown. I'm working on uploading it to Wikipedia and figuring out the copyright issue because I was told that they cannot claim copyright nor deny me permission to upload it as they specifically don't own it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC) You can't upload images with an unknown copyright so I'm going to work on obtaining a copyright use for image with the photographer known. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ojorojo I've been talking to the estate management office of Barrett and I received the ok to use an image of Barrett from 1967 however I'm not sure if I want to use it. All I was offered was pictures of Barrett when he was still with Pink Floyd and this page is about his solo songs. Also, I don't have all the information needed to upload it so I don't think I'm going to bother. Is a picture of him really needed for this page? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Update. The only image of Barrett I've found on Wikimedia that's not fair use is this one, although it's not an actual image, it's a drawing of him that's actually pretty accurate. Although I don't think it's good to use a drawing of someone for an official page like this. What do you think? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
You've done a good job exploring all the possibilities, but I don't think the drawing or a PF-era photo is optimal. Again, without a good image of him, including the other photos seems unnecessary (PF members & Joyce seems incongruous). It's not a deal breaker, but I'd like to see what others think. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The images don't seem to concern other editors, so your approach is OK. The article needs a source/ref review – I'll try to do it in the next few days. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo Thanks very much. Care to check out my new FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Structure & Style – No problems here. You have the formatting, etc., down from a previous FLC, although the period at the end of "Name of song, producer(s), ..." is not needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Stability – OK. This list has been largely untouched since 2012 and there are no comments on the talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comprehensive – Double checked with AllMusic and all his solo songs are included (the split of "Waving My Arms in the Air"/"I Never Lied to You" is noted). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • References
  • The info in the links to the album labels and notes all check out. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Pink Floyd HyperBase is a personal website. Crawfurd lists his sources, but seems to add some of his own commentary. He also includes some complete song lyrics, which may be a copyvio. Is he included as a source in any books about Barrett or otherwise seen as an authority? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Not that I've seen. I could find a link that possibly shows some of Barrett's unreleased songs. Update: I replaced that ref with a CoS ref that talks about unreleased songs being released on Early Years
Better. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sydbarrett.net appears to be user generated and Jones and other source info is not in the linked page. Is there a better link or source for this? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Basically this is a PDF of Malcolm Jones book The Making of The Madcap Laughs posted to sydbarrett.net. I can try to find the actual book with actual page numbers I just thought this would be easier as the whole thing is right there. It's also spoken in first person.
Maybe cite the book, but include the link in the URL field. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I found the actual book in one PDF and made a new ref to that. I wasn't able to find the ISBN number for it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Nice. That will do. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Awesome. So status on review? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The website appears as "Official Charts". Perhaps use |website=, instead of |publisher= and wikilink Official Charts. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The cite:web format for AllMusic should be consistent. One includes "Octopus - Syd Barrett : Listen, Appearances, Song Review", but something like "Syd Barrett: Octopus – Review" should be sufficient. Generally, en dashes should be used instead of hyphens. Also link the first appearance of the author's name (the other refs should also have authorlinks). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Ojorojo Fixed what you commented on. Notes are above. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Authors with WP articles should be linked: Thompson, Gilmore, Fricke, Chapman, Tolinski, Schaffner, et al. It adds to credibility. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Stranger page includes a link to "Rhamadan", which has been removed (probably copyvio). This ref doesn't look like it's needed and should be removed —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Removed. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Watkinson, Mike; Pete Anderson. Crazy Diamond: Syd Barrett & the Dawn of Pink Floyd." – This should also use cite:book, unless there is a reason not to. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Fixed BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "pinkfloyd-co" – "pinkfloyd.com" looks like the official website. Pinkfloyd-co.com & pinkfloyd.co.com appear to be fans sites. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Removed sentence entirely. Felt it was unneeded. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It meets the six FL criteria as discussed above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support FrB.TG (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

List of National Defence Academy alumni

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. I am nominating this for featured list. The list has recently passed an A-class review from Military history project. Before nominating the list I resolved all the outstading comments from previous FLC nomination as far as I could. Looking forward for suggestions on any improvements required to meet the FL criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • These links needs to be fixed.
  • "NDA is not only the officer training academy in India." I guess it should be "not the only.."
  • Fullstop missing from all the alt texts.
  • I'm not sure if "Thaindian News" is a RS.
  • Be consistent with Rediff's name. It is changing with every reference.
  • www.tribuneindia.com --> The Tribune
  • Times of India --> The Times of India
  • Economic Times--> The Economic Times
  • indiatoday.intoday.in --> India Today.
  • Ditto for Indian Express.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Hi Yash, thanks for the comments. I have added an archive url to the dead link. I've fixed the rest, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There are still some green links and one dead link, fullstops are missing from alt texts and the rediff issue is still unresolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: Thanks for the reply. I've fixed the red link (added an archive url), it should be fine now. Coming to the green links, I think the tool is picking something wrong, if the links are checked individually all of them work. Regarding the alt texts, as per the examples on WP:ALT, I see that very short phrases, something such as names, don't require a full stop. However, consistency is to be maintained. With regards to the rediff, I've maintained consistency over the mention, I has been mentioned as Rediff all through. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I have performed some minor edits. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

India women's national cricket team record by opponent

Nominator(s): Vensatry (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

My second list on women's cricket, this one is based on similar ones: South Africa women's national cricket team record by opponent and Pakistan national women's cricket team record by opponent. As always, look for constructive feedback. Vensatry (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you could please review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket/archive2, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Everything looks good to me. Happy to support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Fordham University alumni

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers FA list qualifications—it is broad, appropriately cited, and has a sufficient lede section. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number-one singles of 2001

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The list for the previous year now has two supports, so I figured I would bring this one here next......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by BeatlesLedTV
  • All I got is unsort the ref column. Other than that I got nothing else. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Spaced hyphens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ).
    • I may be being dumb, but I can't see any examples of that - could you point me in the right direction.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
      • You had "Jessica Andrews - Chart History" originally, but you've obviously removed that reference. You do now have a spaced em dash ( — ), which also needs to be a spaced en dash ( – ). Also, you repeat "during the year" twice in the same sentence. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

List of fruit bats

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to me to fit the FL criteria, and as the name states it lists all 200ish species of fruit bats (and some extra stuff). I've done something similar on list of parrots   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: It's a well-written article with appropriate citations. The layout is easily navigable and I like that you included pictures and range maps where possible. It seems pretty exhaustive of the fruit bats when compared with the species I included when I revised the section on the list of bats earlier this month. Minor detail—I think you should list the subfamily as Pteropodinae instead of Pteropodidae (it's listed once that way in the classification section and another time in the header of a section). Nicely done. Enwebb (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't review the tables of the article, though they looked pretty reasonable on the whole when I skimmed them (and I'd presume after the lengthy list of parrots FLC that you know what you're doing there), but the text needs a major overhaul. I rewrote the first paragraph for you, as I found it really hard to parse when I looked at it, but the rest of the lead continues on with little context as to what it's talking about (and is focused on bats as a whole, instead of how megabats fit into all bats), and the body text also zooms through a lot of details without any explanatory text pulling it together. It really needs a top-to-bottom overhaul.
I did a little copyediting, what else looks a bit off?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, just looked at the table, and those "list of subspecies" boxes are pretty slick. Just verified that turning off javascript just leaves them expanded, so that meets WP:ACCESS requirements too. This is exactly the kind of list that I wish we had more of at WP:FL, so I'll try to help get this one through- and faster than the interminable 4-month parrot list if I can! --PresN 01:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Lists like these are actually pretty easy to make (this took like a weekish, parrots a week). I might do seals next so be on the lookout   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The classification section and one of the table headers link to Macroglossini, which doesn't seem right.
I do not like the tables-within-a-table for the species that belong to a subegenus; I'm not sure if I've ever seen another article with that sort of formatting, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the list
Genus Rousettus has "List of subspecies" right under it, which I believe should be synonyms. Reywas92Talk 23:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the wikilink and the Rousettus thing, but the classifications follow MSW3 which subdivides those into subgenus, then genus, then species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to get rid of the subgenus, but it would be better to have mini-headers like you have with tribe and genus already. It seems quite odd to have the table format for all others species squeezed into a cell of a table for subgenus. Reywas92Talk 06:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal

  • "morphological" in lead is a dab link. That needs to be fixed.
  • "Andersen" is dab link. That needs to be fixed.
  • "Nyctimee" too.

The rest is awesome. It is an immaculate article, and very well written. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Strong support - A fantastic article for a featured list, and very well-written for a shiny star! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comments Several pages of "Order Chiroptera" are repeated in the References section – pages 314, 335 and 341 each appear five times, while page 324 appears six times. I'm guessing that this is because you've created a new citation each time you want to reference a page, rather than just reusing the citation that you've already created. This article would probably benefit from use of the Sfn template – I can talk you through how to use it, if you'd like. Also, Template:Main says that it should not be used in lead sections, as this article currently does. I'd propose removing that hatnote and replacing "Fruits bats" with "Fruit bats" in the opening sentence. You'd also have to remove Megabats from the See also section. Notes c and d need to end with periods. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Well in a list article there're generally gonna be refs in the lead. As for all the msw3 refs, that's gonna take a while to fix but I'll get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I mean where it says "Main articles: Megabat and List of bats" in the lead – per the documentation for that template, it "should not be used in lead sections". Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I changed it to {{Further|}} and unbolded and wikilinked "fruit bats"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Romanek videography

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A list on music videos, films and commercials directed by Mark Romanek, based on other featured lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments
  • "At the same ceremony, three other music videos by the director were also nominated," - if the nominations were not for him, I wouldn't mention it here.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • They are considered to be two of the most expensive music videos ever made - I would cut the consider part. They either are the most expensive music videos or not.
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • costing $7 million and $5 million respectively - comma before respectively.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The former work also gained 11 nominations - "Scream" not the former
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • gained 11 nominations at the 1995 MTV Video Music Awards - if any of those nominations were for the director himself, I would mention it.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I did not suggest removing this sentence. I suggested adding the nomination/s (if any) for Romanek himself at the ceremony. FrB.TG (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It was his only video nominated. I added a reference about his second MTV nomination. Damian Vo (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I would de-link comedy-drama as well as psychological thriller.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And also romantic drama.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Rowspans are generally discouraged in filmographies as they hinder accessibility.
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I see some inconsistencies in references which I will get to later.

Nice work. Sorry that this hasn't attracted any interest so far. I hope that you also consider reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Beyoncé videography/archive1. FrB.TG (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That's alright. Please take your time, there's no need to hurry. Damian Vo (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more:

  • I still see the usage of rowspan in the tables. They are frowned upon in filmographies as they hinder accessibility.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • References: CBS does not need italics.
Removed the italics. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 2: Billboard should be wiki-linked here.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 6: What makes this a high quality, reliable source?
I replaced it with an article from Forbes. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 7: Wiki-link pls.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 25: Same issue as above.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • From here you should be consistent, wiki-linking every publisher on its first instance. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. --FrB.TG (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Makes the notes column in first table unsortable.
  • Center the year column in the "Commercials" table.
  • Fix disambiguation link for Andrew Davis in the first table under "Filmography".

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I resolved everything you mention above. Damian Vo (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. My comments have been resolved. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so so much for your support. Damian Vo (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Serbia

Nominator(s): Tone 15:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Following some related FL examples, such as the List of World Heritage Sites in Slovenia, I believe this list meets all criteria. Some prose tweaks may be required but I expect this to be sorted during the nomination process. Tone 15:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned for the Croatia list, there's no need for a 'Shared with' column. The description of the graveyards already has the other countries in the description, and the frontiers of the Roman Empire could easily include it. Reywas92Talk 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Probably it's for the best if this part of discussion continues at Croatia list, the outcome should be of course applicable to both. --Tone 06:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment as I noted at the Croatia list, this can't be sorted chronologically. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

    • As a side note, the list has now been adjusted to follow the style of Slovenia and Croatia. --Tone 19:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Center the year columns.
  • Center the image columns, or at the the Start Ras image. Looks weird left aligned.

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    • Done! --Tone 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Associated Press NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Lizard (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the counterpart to the Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award list. I believe this list to be of equal quality. Lizard (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – Looks like another strong list in this burgeoning series. The only issue I can point out is that the players' first names don't need to be repeated in the lead. Otherwise, solid work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I wanted to point out that the sentence about James Harrison doesn't appear to have a cite. So that's two issues to look at. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Dealt with. Lizard (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – My couple minor issues have been fixed, and I'm confident this meets the standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

List of protected cruisers of Italy

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a list that caps this project, which documents the twenty protected cruisers built for Italy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of these ships saw action during the Italo-Turkish War of 1912, and some were active during World War I. I finished writing the list over a year ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at the beginning of the year. I finally have time to take on an FL review, so here we are. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges
  • "along with the subsequent Etna class, for which Giovanni Bausan provided the basis—represented the Regia Marina's brief experimentation with the Jeune École doctrine." You may want to define the Jeune École doctrine here; a footnote could be used if you think it would be hard to fit into the paragraph.
    • It's explained in the lead, and the sentences before that touch on it again.
  • " She participated in the conquest of Eritrea in 1887–1888 as the flagship of the Italian squadron during the campaign" What squadron was this?
    • Don't know if it had a specific name.
  • "where she sank or destroyed seven Ottoman gunboats, destroying Ottoman naval strength in the area." What definition are we using for "naval strength" here? Were those 7 gunboats all the ships in the area? Most of them? Or did it just force the Ottoman ships that remained to pull back or not operate?
    • That was more or less all they had in the Red Sea - the only major Ottoman unit in the area was the cruiser Peyk-i Şevket, but she had been interned in Suez.
  • "During World War I, she was assigned to the Second Fleet, based in Brindisi, but she did not see action." Is it known why this is?
    • She was 20 years old by that point, and the fact that both sides adopted the fleet in being strategy didn't help either.
  • That is all of my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Iazyges. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • All my questions have been answered, so Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
referencing

In §References, all sources are listed using cs1 templates. Except for four of them. Why is that? Shouldn't they all be one style?

On a whim, I clicked the oclc link from the first one:

Annual Report of the Navy Department. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1902. OCLC 2480810.

That link sends the reader to the associated WorldCat page where one finds a link to a google preview. The citation says 1902; WorldCat doesn't state a year; google preview shows a preview of the Report from 1921. Perhaps a better citation might be:

{{cite book |title=Annual Reports of the Navy Department for the Year 1902 |location=Washington, DC |publisher=Government Printing Office |date=1902 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=1up;seq=10 |page=4}}
Annual Reports of the Navy Department for the Year 1902. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1902. p. 4. 

I have not looked at the others that depend on WorldCat oclc identifiers but if this one is suspect, the perhaps others are as well.

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The {{cite journal}} template doesn't allow you to omit an article title, without generating an error (see for instance here), so I just produced the correct formatting manually. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I moved your post out of my post (it was a single post, not a series of separately signed posts).
{{cite journal}} has a specific meaning in cs1. From its documentation page (first sentence): "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for academic and scientific papers and journals." Annual Reports of the Navy Department is none of those. Rather, it is a report, or in this case, given its length, a book. As an 'annual' it is a 'periodical' because a new issue is/was published yearly but this does not make it a scientific or academic journal.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, though it's general practice to reply to points directly below them (see the section above, for instance). In any event, the Annual Reports are closer to a journal than a book (Worldcat, for example, classifies it as a ""Journal / Magazine / Newspaper"), and I don't know that {{cite book}} is appropriate for them. And certainly not for the Journal of the RUSI or Appleton's. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have written elsewhere that WorldCat is not a well curated site; it depends on individual librarians across the world to add stuff to it so, in a sense, WorldCat is as well curated as Wikipedia. I would suggest that the journal / magazine / newspaper classification at WorldCat for Annual Reports ... is a result of that low quality curation. The real benefit of WorldCat is the ability it provides readers to locate a physical copy of the source item – but only if we can provide an accurate oclc identifier. Beyond that, the WorldCat metadata are suspect. If we cannot exactly identify the source's ture oclc, and the evidence shows that in these cases we cannot, then we should not be including an oclc to represent the 'journal'; which, for Annual Reports.. is a designation I dispute. I If in a citation at en.wiki we include an oclc that isn't specific, we have not aided the reader's search for the source we used so we should not be providing an oclc or any other identifier that doesn't specifically match the source.
Journal of the Royal United Service Institution is certainly a journal so I would cite it:
{{cite journal |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=1up;seq=688 |title=Notices of Books |journal=Journal of the Royal United Service Institution |volume=XLVII |issue=303 |page=624 |date=May 1903}}
"Notices of Books". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. XLVII (303): 624. May 1903. 
Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia... is an encyclopedia supplement so:
{{cite encyclopedia |last=Huntington |first=Frank |title=Brazil |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/99/mode/1up |encyclopedia=Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1896 |volume=XXXVI |location=New York |publisher=D Appleton and Company |date=1897}}
Huntington, Frank (1897). "Brazil". Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1896. XXXVI. New York: D Appleton and Company. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The Worldcat link isn't for a specific volume, it's for the journal. As far as I'm aware, the expectation at FAC/FLC is that a reference should have one of the standardized identification numbers (whether that's an ISBN, an ISSN, an OCLC, etc). Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Is that documented anywhere? There are a lot of Annual Reports of the Navy Department – emphasis on 'Annual' – see this list. If an oclc identifier is required and so is provided in the citation, it should, in my opinion, be an identifier for the specific source stated in the rest of the citation; in this example case, that oclc number is OCLC 5164555. Providing an oclc that misidentifies the source fails to live up to the 'our best work' rubric.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Is what documented anywhere? The expectation OCLCs/ISBNs/etc. at FLC/FAC? Not that I'm aware of, but I've done 60+ of these, and that's the experience I've had. As for Worldcat, when you look at the entry for the Journal of the RUSI, you don't get OCLCs for individual editions, you just get the journal. Same with Appleton's. The OCLC for the Annual Report is to the generic Worldcat page, not to a specific edition. I have no idea how you got the preview link for the 1902 edition (I can't find it by simply searching for the title, even copying the title from that OCLC number), or why that's a separate OCLC number, but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the expectation. It seems to me that if editors haven't seen fit to codify such an explicit requirement then the requirement doesn't exist. ...but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site. My point exactly; and sufficient reason in my view to only include identifiers that aid readers in locating a copy of our sources.
For OCLC 5164555 find the 'Find in a library' link in the left panel at the Annual Reports url. Even though that particular oclc does link to a google books facsimile, WorldCat being what it is, I would not include an oclc in this source's citation.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Navy and Army Illustrated is listed in §References but not referred to from §Notes. Also, Cernuschi & O'Hara are listed in §Notes but do not have a matching citation in §References.

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Have replaced the references with the versions you put above, and added Cernuschi & O'Hara - good catch. This is the footnote for Navy and Army Illustrated. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
{{cite magazine |editor-last=Robinson |editor-first=Charles N. |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924069276362;view=2up;seq=532 |title=The Venezuela Blockade |magazine=Navy and Army Illustrated |date=10 January 1903 |volume=XV |issue=310}}
Robinson, Charles N., ed. (10 January 1903). "The Venezuela Blockade". Navy and Army Illustrated. Vol. XV no. 310. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Replaced (and I've gone through and copied those refs over to the individual articles as well). Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

{{cite magazine |last=Kunz |first=George Frederick |date=October 1909 |title=The Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PqUVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA317 |journal=The Popular Science Monthly |publisher=The Science Press |location=New York |volume=LXXV |issue=4 |pages=313–337}}
Kunz, George Frederick (October 1909). "The Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909". The Popular Science Monthly. Vol. LXXV no. 4. New York: The Science Press. pp. 313–337. 
{{cite book |last=May |first=W. A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Talbot |chapter=The Battle of Chemulpho |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iWmKygAACAAJ&pg=PA140 |location=London |publisher=The Westminster Press |date=1904}}
May, W. A. (1904). "The Battle of Chemulpho". The Commission of H.M.S. Talbot. London: The Westminster Press. 
{{cite book |last=Reeve |first=A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Perseus: East Indies. Including Persian Gulf and Somaliland, 1901–1904 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433008439873;view=2up;seq=10 |year=1904 |publisher=The Westminster Press |location=London}}
Reeve, A. (1904). The Commission of H.M.S. Perseus: East Indies. Including Persian Gulf and Somaliland, 1901–1904. London: The Westminster Press. 
Because specific page numbers belong in §Notes:
Annual Reports... url should change to: |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=2up;seq=6 and |page=4 should be removed
Huntington url should change to: |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/96/mode/2up
RUSI url should change to: |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=2up;seq=686 and |page=624 should change to |pages=623–625
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
All fixed, thanks Trappist. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support

  • Giovanni Bausan: Should the last mention of the ship's name in this section be italicized?
  • Campania class: "The last pair of protected cruisers built by the Italian Navy was intended for colonial service, and were based on experience from Calabria." In describing the pair of cruisers, we have "was" and "were" in this sentence, which mixes tenses. I would use "were" for both, but in any case they should be made consistent. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Good catches on both, thanks Giants. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the United States

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been a month since the last nom, which died with a whimper instead of objections. I want to try again, because I strongly believe in the quality of this article, with its 400+ citations and years of research, and am more than willing to implement any improvements that come up. And again I must give props to the others who helped with this, mainly User:Jeff in CA and User:XavierGreen. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - I can see you've worked really hard on this, it's an impressive list. If you could look at my nomination, I'd be grateful.  — Calvin999 08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I read through this last time but it's so long I unfortunately did not have time for a review. My main concern is actually with the length; even though it's a clear table with just three columns, it's unreadable for practical purposes. Perhaps there could be some sort of color-coding (a narrow column with color and sortable symbol?) to distinguish states joining [leaving] the union, changes in borders between states, territorial gains and losses, and overseas claims, etc. While you've done an incredible job making it more comprehensive from what it used to be, the list is no longer accessible to a casual user who is not dedicated enough to sift through so many minor changes. The sections by decade were also nice, especially to get through the 64 changes of the 1860s :). Reywas92Talk 23:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I could still split it like before, or add anchors... as for color coding, I don't think that would really work because many entries would have multiple categories. (A quick example that comes to mind: March 2, 1861. On this day, a state seceded and also joined the CSA; two new territories were created ; one territory grew; and one territory shrank.) And sorting on that kind of abstracts a change from its history. Remove it from its context and it means much less. --Golbez (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • How does this look: [3] I found decades to be too imbalanced, with some being 20 pages and some being 2. But I figured out these few major grouping that could work? What do you think? --Golbez (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I think that works fairly well, but if anyone else has ideas of how to make this not seems so long, do consider them. In the meantime I found no issues in my read-throughs, support with some sort of sectioning. Reywas92Talk 03:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you! And just to be clear, that was just an idea, I immediately reverted it, but I'm definitely open to discussion on this front. Decades, phases, something that might work. Just because I, very familiar with it, can get around it doesn't mean others can. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
            • @Reywas92: I've put them back, I'm much keener to the idea now. What do you think of them? --Golbez (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks great, Support Reywas92Talk 23:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 313 has gone dead since this FLC began. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comments! All are fixed except the last. I removed the links, they didn't seem ultimately necessary. As for ref 313... maybe the numbers have changed, but it and all the refs surrounding it look ok? --Golbez (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I must have gotten the number wrong. Sorry about that. It appears to be number 333, as I type this. Also, reference 388 is also dead, and the September 24, 1928 entry also has an external link in the text. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
      • 333 works for me? In incog mode as well. Maybe it was temporarily down? As for 388: Fixed. And 1928: Link removed. --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
        • If that's the case, then all you have to do is remove the dead link tag from that reference, and from 388. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Done. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments by PresN
  • As per MOS:TQ, punctuation should not be inside of direct quotes unless you're quoting a full sentence that includes that punctuation (I've made this edit for you).
    • Thanks!
  • March 4, 1791 - the dispute map gains some red bits, but the text does not explain; it appears the last "dispute" map was May 12, 1784, which did not highlight those areas in red as the entire country was new/green. Some sort of reminder/note in 1791 would be helpful to mark that they're not new disputes.
    • I'm not sure what you mean; 1784 did note the areas that ... hm. Yeah, actually, they should be red, not green, because their status didn't change - they're still claimed by Great Britain. Lemme fix that.... and, fixed.
  • June 1, 1796 - Reads odd to not start as "The" Southwest Territory
    • Fixed.
  • February 22, 1821 - "The land exchanged in this fashion should not truly count as territory gained or lost" - the "should" is poor tone; replace with "does" or "did"
    • Removed that sentence.
  • September 9, 1850 - This is the only place where I noticed it, but citations should be in number order (not [176][3], as here).
    • All out-of-order citations fixed.
  • March 1, 1862 - the image here has quite different borders with the CSA than the image above it, which is because this whole span you mark different areas as disputed between the internal and external maps; it's unclear (to me) why the US map only marks the CSA states as red, and not the territories/states that the CSA itself claims in the other maps
    • The internal map marks the states red that have withdrawn or been expelled from the congress; the dispute map marks all regions claimed by a foreign country, so while Missouri was never expelled, it was claimed by the CSA. The internal maps are from the "POV" of the US, so they always have the maximal interpretation; the dispute maps show where that interpretation conflicts with others' interpretations.
  • July 18, 1927 - remove external link
    • Fixed.
  • September 24, 1928 - remove external link
    • Fixed.

Looks good in general! --PresN 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --PresN 13:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Steps

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 09:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... this is a comprehensive list of all of Steps songs. Same vein as many of my previous song list nominations. As they were most active between 1997-2001, it's been difficult to source some info but I've tried my best to make do with the relatively little there is compared to 2012-2017. I believe it a smart, presentable, clean cut list worthy of being featured.  — Calvin999 09:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The songs "A House is Not a Home" and "A Love to Last" should sort under, respectively, "House" and "Love". This needs to be corrected. Jimknut (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I wondered that, but I thought perhaps it was only for 'the'. I've amended it now Jimknut.  — Calvin999 09:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments from Golbez:
    • I would sort the B-sides in album titles by what they're the B-side of, rather than all sorting under "B". So "B-side to "Chain Reaction"" would sort next to Chain Reaction. Likewise, "Single release only" should just sort at the top or bottom of the list, rather than with "S".
    • Refs don't need to be sortable.
    • Otherwise, I think it looks good. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you.  — Calvin999 16:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Golbez, the acoustic version of Scared of the Dark is included on their forthcoming deluxe edition edition of their most recent album, should I include it as a song from the re-issue as opposed to 'Single release only' which is was in April as a standalone download to the non-acoustic single? I think it would look tidier.  — Calvin999 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • We should take this to the article talk page. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Hopefully my support helps it become featured. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.  — Calvin999 11:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Cardiff City F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have rebuilt the page from scratch to convert the original article into a league only record inline with the standard layout for club result pages and I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Kosack (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on style and comprehensiveness. Minor quibbles:

  • "They achieved their highest ever position during the 1923–24 season, finishing in second place of the First Division, losing the league title on goal average to Huddersfield Town," could be tightened. Not a big fan of the -ing repetition.
  • You need to add 'Category:English football club league records by opponent' at the bottom
  • The reliability of Soccerbase is questionable. Some users have reported missing data, myself included. Best add another site in case.
  • Ref 1 needs date.
  • Could add alt text for image. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lemonade51: Thanks for the review, I've made all of the changes above bar one. I'm probably opening the age old can of worms but Cardiff are a Welsh team playing in the English leagues not an English team as the category seems to suggest. Kosack (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
'Category:Association football league records by opponent' would suffice. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Added. Kosack (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias talk
  • "..but lost the league title on goal average.." – Explain, either with a note or a wikilink what "goal average" is.
  • "..in the first tier.." – "top tier" might work better; first tier is ambiguous, and could apply equally to the highest, or lowest, tier.
  • "..against Stockport County.[5] they met.." – Full stop, but not capital letter.
  • What makes 11vs11.com a reliable source?
  • What makes Football Club History Database a reliable source?
  • Not that I'm overly fussed, but the MK Dons reference doesn't cover the stated fact that they "renounced all claims to Wimbledon's history in 2007".

Overall, a good piece of work, with just minor quibbles really. Harrias talk 16:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the grammatical mistakes and added an extra reference for the Wimbledon note. As for the two refs, 11vs11 is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians and, although I'm unaware of any publisher other than the author, the Football Club History Database is widely considered a reliable source at WP:FOOTBALL and has been used in other featured lists such as List of York City F.C. players and has a template setup to include its use on Wikipedia at Template:Fchd. Kosack (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Ben Affleck

Nominator(s): Artoasis (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a rather exhaustive list of awards and nominations received by Ben Affleck. I have included all the notable accolades supported by reliable sources, and I think it meets all of the FL criteria. Thank you for taking the time to review it. Artoasis (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Question Unclear as to why this isn't just a single list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Sorry for the late reply. I somehow missed this on my watchlist. I think it's more or less the standard format for Featured lists of awards received by actors and/or filmmakers, such as List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams and List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence. And for better navigation, the awards are put into several categories according to List of film awards. Artoasis (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

Nominator(s): — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a fantastic and interesting list and one of the best on the Wiki. I believe that it meets all the criteria for a featured list, and the content of the article generally only changes in response to additional launches (as expected). — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


Okay, I think the accessibility concerns are all taken care of now- capping them. I did have one last unrelated thought- It's a little odd having the title as "Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy", especially as there were only 5 Falcon 1 launches. I get why- the Falcon Heavy was originally the Falcon 9 Heavy, but have you considered merging them all together into one "List of SpaceX Falcon launches"? If you don't want to go that route, I think that it would be helpful to mention in the lead where you have "The Falcon Heavy is derived from the Falcon 9." that it used to be named the Falcon 9 Heavy. --PresN 20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We had multiple discussions about which rockets to include. F1+F9+FH together, all three separate, or the way it is now? We concluded that the current way is the most reasonable. F1 is a completely different rocket, while F9 and FH share most of their hardware. I don't know if mentioning historic names helps in the article. --mfb (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
We have discussed adding the falcon 1 and concluded that it wasn't appropriate. I will try to work into the lede that the falcon heavy is essentially a falcon 9 with two extra falcon 9 first stages as extra side boosters. As a pertinent example, the upcoming falcon heavy flight scheduled in a couple months uses two previously flown falcon 9 first stages as side boosters. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 13:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@PresN, I have modified the bit on the Falcon Heavy in the lede to make it clear to readers that the Falcon Heavy central rocket core is just a strengthened Falcon 9 (using similar wording to that used in the Falcon Heavy lede). This should address this issue satisfactorily without needing historical names. As an additional note, we have decided against making a sortable table for the list of launches (see talk page). The use of small text in the table has been culled slightly so far, and is still being discussed for the landing column. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 23:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. Also, note that, uh, everything that is covered by note B needs to get sourced or dropped. --PresN 01:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Sourced or removed if no source could be found. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 11:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@PresN We also decided on a change to the formatting of the 'Landing outcome' column which still uses small text, but makes the use of the small text more appropriate and less 'random'. So that is done as well. Never mind, still some discussion to be had. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 12:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@PresN We are now pretty much done with the 'landing outcome' column as well, though the consensus on what style to pick took a while only minor changes from the current version are likely (or none at all). Is there anything else that is a concern? — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 09:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems like all the of the issues raised have been resolved. Is there anything else that needs addressing or can we move forward with this one? — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 23:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Insertcleverphrasehere: FLCs require substantive reviews ending in supports from multiple editors before they can be promoted, I'm afraid (and a source review). Since I've been pretty involved in this one, I'll give it a full review soon. --PresN 01:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry about that. I haven't been through this process before. Just not seen much happening for a while and was wondering. Thanks for your help. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 09:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@PresN and RexxS: The article has been stable for a while. Any chance for you to move the review forward or pass the buck to other volunteers? — JFG talk 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG I wasn't aware that I was holding up the review. I thought that I was simply answering a question asked. If you want to know whether I think all accessibilty concerns have been met, I believe they have to the best of one's ability. I mean, it's never going to be perfect, but Insertcleverphrasehere has done a lot to improve the accessibility, and I certainly wouldn't suggest it should not be promoted on that score. Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we are waiting on other reviewers to step forward. FLC is a bit backlogged at the moment, and although this article is in the 'older nominations' section, it is not even close to the bottom yet. The WIKI cup is on at the moment, so I suspect that might have something to do with the increased backlog. I also suspect that most reviewers are a bit reluctant to do a full source review on this article, as I am pretty sure that this one is one of the longer articles at FLC at the moment. It will come, but I suspect we will have to wait till it falls to the bottom of the list. Thats ok, there's no WP:DEADLINE. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 21:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure RexxS, I didn't mean we were waiting on you, no worries. Thanks for your help in sorting out the accessibility issues. — JFG talk 21:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments epic piece of work... some quick notes before a proper review.

  • We don't start featured lists with "This is a list of..."
  • I would move the image up to the start of the article.
  • Consider collapsing the TOC down to just level one headings, All that whitespace is distracting.
  • "and there have been a total of 41 launches" needs time-framing, i.e. As of September 2017...
  • "39 missions were ..." don't start sentences with a number.
  • occurred on June 4, 2010 and" took place, and comma after 2010.
  • Lots of short, sometimes single-sentence paragraphs, looks untidy.
  • Convert units consistently throughout (e.g. you have "9 meters" without a conversion).
  • "October 7, 2012 at 8:35 PM EST. " comma after 2012 and see MOS:TIME for format of the time.
  • "within 4 days after" within four days of
  • "the 8th time" eighth.
  • Use full years, not '12, '13 etc.
  • "cubesat" should be "CubeSat".
  • Why empty cells for some of the "payload mass" entries?
  • Not convinced those flag icons are of use, particularly without the name of the country.
  • Inline referencing appears to be very sporadic, e.g. why are "September 21, 2014, 05:52[53]" and "2,216 kg (4,885 lb)[85]" singled out for inline refs whereas those same entries aren't cited in the lines above ?
  • Be consistent with date formats in the references.

More once we're making progress on this lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Some initial replies:
  • I rephrased the first sentence.
  • Moving the image up would create even more whitespace. We could add another image there, however. Added another image now. --mfb (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the direct navigation to individual years is very useful, especially with the current (and increasing) length of the table.
  • Added time (with date as the launch rate exceeds 1/month).
  • 39: Rephrased.
  • Used "took place". It is a separate sentence now.
  • I don't see a nice way to reduce the number of short paragraphs without merging separate topics or adding less important information (to make the paragraph longer), but let's see what others say.
  • Converted 9 m, 780 km and 6457 kg, I hope I got all. A few missions split up the payload into separate pieces in the text, adding conversions for every piece would make the description very cluttered.
  • Added comma after 2012 and converted the time to 24 hour time, consistent with the rest of the article.
  • 4->four done
  • 8th->eighth done
  • Full years: Fits for now, changed.
  • cubesat->CubeSat done.
  • The first two missions were demonstration missions, they didn't have a payload in the conventional sense (apart from a few kilograms of secondary satellites). For Dragon missions we quote the payload in the Dragon capsule, but these missions tested the capsule. Found a reference for the payload of the third mission and added it.
  • Flags: I'll leave that to others.
  • References: The references differ in their coverage, so different launches have different combinations of references. If a reference covers the whole table entry we don't repeat it in every column.
  • Found 7 deviating date formats and changed them to "Month day, yyyy".
--mfb (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Do you have further suggestions for improvements? --mfb (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Flags

No consensus to keep flags; they have been removed — JFG talk 05:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Re flags: Hover or click shows the country name. I would have thought that sufficient, but others may think differently. crandles (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
There's no hover on a tablet or phone, and clicking away from an article merely to get a name is just what we don't want readers to have to do. Add to that, our articles are not infrequently printed out and paper doesn't allow hover or click, which is why we shouldn't rely on links to explain acronyms or icons. Our best work ought to be cognisant of all of the different audiences. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Flags are usually well-understood without country names. If a reader is curious about an obscure country flag, they would click or tap. Flags were inserted in this table to highlight the geographic diversity of SpaceX customers, an unusual feature in the space industry. Adding explicit country names would look overly redundant. — JFG talk 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't support adding the country names, as this puts undue emphasis on a relatively trivial feature. The flags are not essential, but they are nice to have. The fact that they have poor accessibility via page readers and mobile users is not really an issue, as they are not essential for the understanding of the content of the page. As it is they are low enough impact to justify their inclusion as a nice looking but non-essential feature. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's the reasoning that is used to justify every example of a failure to meet WCAG 1.1. There's no excuse for failing to provide information to any group who can't access the info, when that information could be presented as text. The country names could easily be accessible to everybody, and highlighting the geographic diversity of SpaceX customers could be achieved for all users quite simply. Not doing that because icons look prettier than text is not a sustainable argument. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't think we will have consensus to include country names as text, due to the undue emphasis on a trivial detail (we would probably need a separate column, or it would be awkwardly tacked into the existing customer column). The flags only marginally got consensus to be included in the first place, and that was only because they were low-impact visually. For page readers, I suppose I could edit in a note that will read out the country name without displaying anything else visually (a hidden comment). If this is a failable criteria due to mobile alone, then I suggest removing the flags altogether instead. This seems a little nonsensical though, as surely a minor benefit to most users is better than nothing for anybody. IAR anybody? — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Further discussion on flags here: Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Suggestion:_flags. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm very sympathetic to the problems of generating consensus to improve accessibility, which is why I rarely push the issue, and I don't blame you. If it's any help, there's no need to add any hidden text; the flag icons already have alt text set to the country name, so that screen readers hear the name. Unusually, the disadvantaged group in this case is those who print out articles, who get less information than blind visitors. (Honestly though, did you recognise the flag of Thailand or Luxembourg? Imagine that printed out in black and white!). Anyway, TRM's point is valid: I'm not convinced either, but I don't think it's a big deal as long as you're aware of what the effect actually is, and you've done your best. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It was Lux that did it for me, I thought "Oooh, Holland are involved..." OOPS. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Wait until somebody squints over  Monaco,  Singapore,  Indonesia and  Poland. Face-smile.svg Seriously, it's good that screen readers are taken care of, and who prints the 'pedia anyway? I agree with Clever Phrase that offering "a minor benefit to most users is better than nothing for anybody." — JFG talk 22:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with "a minor benefit to most users is better than nothing for anybody" as well. Someone who prints the page doesn't have all the Wikilinks either, and the page stops updating if you print it. --mfb (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not all of the launches are made by national entities. In my view, the national flags of nation-state governments should only be used to represent government customers. They should not reflect the "Customer" or the many payloads who are launched by private companies. Private companies are not creatures of the nation-state they reside in, except in a few countries.

Now if we did not try to munge the entire row into some sort of national flag symbol, the flag icon might make sense if we had a column for "Country that issued the launch license", as that would always be a nation state. But using the national flag of a country for some private payload doesn't really make sense; we ought to reserve flags for government payloads, and not use them for private payloads.

Or just get rid of the flag icons completely, and not put them on any payloads. Cheers. N2e (talk)

Depends what you think is the purpose of the flag. If you think the flag represents national sovereign ownership then it appears wrong to use for a private company. However, if you think it is there to represent geographical distribution of customers then it makes sense to use flag with private company. Is this possible misinterpretation of meaning an issue? I suggest no: if you see Japanese flag with JSat Group or something similar to indicate a private company/group then it is fairly immediately obvious the flag does not represent national sovereign ownership and is just a geographical distribution indicator.

Most people will recognise a few flags but not all of them. Where people don't recognise a flag but immediately next to it the customer says Thaicom or BulgariaSat or Turkmenistan NSA then there is little need to look up the flag. I think this reduces the problem and I agree that some use to some people is better than nothing for anyone. crandles (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG says to use the flags only to represent the country or nation. So they work if the payload is a government payload of the country. They simply should not be used to represent private payloads 'cause they happen to have been assembled in some particular country. The list isn't ready to be a Featured list with the overuse, and inappropriate use, of these flag symbols. N2e (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Many people disagree with an absolutist interpretation of MOS:FLAG. Spaceflight articles routinely use flags to represent the customer of satellites, see 2017 in spaceflight and friends. I understand your personal objection, but I disagree that flags should only apply to satellites launched by nation-states. — JFG talk 14:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed I have removed the flags. There was not a strong consensus for inclusion at the start, and there is vocal opposition to the idea of flags alone without written country names, as well as opposition to flags for non-governmental entities. Does appear to be in violation of WP:MOSFLAG ("Accompany flags with country names", and MOSFLAG also says "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." There seems to be consensus that flags with country names as well is undue for a trivial aspect and not what we want. With no way to reconcile these issues, the best option seems to be to remove the flags. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems there are no objections to my removal of the flags. As this discussion seems complete, I am capping it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Reading the discussion above again, I see that most people agree that listing flags is a net positive for most readers, even those using assistive technology. The only opposing argument comes from N2e who contends that flags should only represent national entities. While I understand this position, there are plenty of pages which use flags as a designation of origin, irrespective of government. I would ask N2e if he is amenable to accepting the same logic here as on the 2017 in spaceflight chronicles. And I'm un-hatting the discussion for readability. Will ping all participants on the talk page for a quick survey. — JFG talk 07:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Further review

@PresN and The Rambling Man: Looks like all of the issues you pointed out have been resolved. What do we need to do to move forward with the review and hopefully reach Featured List status soon? — JFG talk 05:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

For this to reach FL, we'll need to see some reviewers supporting the list's promotion. There's been a good amount of reviewing so far, but no support. We can't simply assume that reviewers who do not declare their support meant to; in this case, it's likely that PresN and TRM were seeking to leave themselves the option of closing the FLC when the time comes (they'd have a conflict if they supported). You may neutrally ask regular FLC reviewers for input if you really want to get things moving; just don't ask anyone to support your list, as that would cross the line into full-on canvassing. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Actual review by PresN
  • The lead is a bit choppy. I'd move the second sentence ("The versions of the rocket are...") to the start of the last paragraph, and then combine the remainder of the 1st paragraph with the 2nd paragraph. Also, start that moved sentence as "The rockets in the Falcon 9 family are..." instead.
  • "The rocket experienced "a little bit of roll at liftoff" as Ken Bowersox from SpaceX put it." -> "Ken Bowersox, Vice President of SpaceX, described the launch as having "a little bit of roll at liftoff"."
  • Additionally, you should describe what "roll" is in this context, as you mention it several times in this paragraph
  • "a single Dragon C2+ mission,[14] on condition that all Demo 2 milestones" - on the condition
  • It might be helpful if you mention what launch # the "notable" missions are; you mention the 1st and 2nd, but stop afterward.
  • There's some spots in the launch table that are missing citations, namely:
  • end of launch 23
  • end of launch 25
  • end of launch 26 (also, every time you link the flight 26 article you mis-capitalize the F in flight)
  • I like the "(more details above)" in launch 19; that should be present on the other "special" launches
  • "when firm planning dates are in place, and reliably sourced" - reliably sourced is an internal WP thing, and should not be in prose- move it to a hidden comment if the point is to deter randos from adding details without a source
  • "(every two months)" - I get what you mean by these tags, but I don't think there's much reason to call this out when you already list the launch months anyway
  • There's a "[needs update]" tag in April 2018
  • "Q2, 2018", etc. - no comma on the quarters, you treat them like you do months
  • Not doing a source review yet, but take a glance through yourself; off-hand I noticed that ref 167 is missing the publication date, 170 has the url spacelaunchreport.com as the work, rather than the actual site name (Space Launch Report), and 171 italicized NASA as a work instead of a publisher That was just a 10 second skim of a chunk in the middle; there's likely many more inconsistencies (especially with 300+ references!)

This list is pretty sharp, lets try to not let it linger any longer... --PresN 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.
  • implemented the first two points as suggested.
  • added a sentence and a link about roll
  • added "the"
  • added the flight numbers to all notable missions
  • took care of the citations for the mentioned flights. Capital F seems to be preferred for "Flight xx", I used that everywhere for displayed text now.
  • Added "more details above" to more flights. I left out the flights mentioned in "First landings on drone ship" and "First launch and landing of a reused first stage" as these sections are about the boosters not about the primary missions, and "loss of Amos 6" because the linked main article is the better reference here. If someone prefers having these links, feel free to add them.
  • removed "and reliably sourced"
  • Every two months means launch delays will shift everything, but as we keep the list updated anyway... removed it.
  • [needs update]: The in-flight abort test schedule is a bit awkward. Originally the first uncrewed orbital test was planned for February and the abort test (with the same capsule) for two months later - April. Now the orbital test moved to April, therefore the abort test will move as well - but there is no source quoting an actual month, and "probably around June" doesn't fit well in any quarter either. I changed the date to 2018 and sorted it under June as most likely launch order.
  • removed commas from quarters.
  • Fixed the three references you mentioned for now, with 319 321 that will need more work. Reference 170 had the parameter "website", used "work" now.
tl;dr: Implemented all, apart from the source review and maybe some "more details above" no action items left. --mfb (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Support - lets get you an actual support here instead of just comments. Source review is typically the last thing done before a nomination is promoted, so I'll hold off until we get a couple more supports. --PresN 15:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
If it's worth anything, I'm happy to add my support, as the nominator has met all of the concerns I raised about accessibility and MOS:FLAG. I agree that a source review would be helpful – an immediate glance at ref #2, for example, shows that it's giving the publisher as "Space.com" (which is the website name), whereas I think the publisher is probably Purch. I won't quibble if I'm wrong about that, but I think |website=Space.com would still be better. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting the nomination! The references use a mixture of work=, publisher= and sometimes others (and sometimes none of them). I don't know what is preferable, I left that as it is for now and hope that someone else looks into this. Meanwhile I took care of dates: consistent format of Month dd, yyyy, checked sources without accessdate and added it (Twitter and Youtube sometimes don't have it but their links should be extremely stable), added date where applicable. --mfb (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Provisional support – One of the comments was still outstanding, but I decided to clean that bit up myself to move the process along. I didn't look at the sources much, but the rest of the list appears in fine shape to me. Assuming PresN signs off on the sourcing, this can be considered a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok that is weird, I had definitely drafted a fix for the abbreviation at one point, I must have failed to save it for some reason. Thanks for resolving that. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (TC) 21:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I worked quite hard to get this one to where it needs to be in terms of style, content, and comprehensiveness. The goal was to get it comparable to List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks, which I believe is the only FL of the kind. The statistics are relatively stable on there except for those of active quarterbacks, which change once a week during football season. Beyond that it is very stable. Sportsguy17 (TC) 21:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Doing...
  • @The Rambling Man: I am having an issue figuring out how to reconfigure the big table with all the statistics so that it is accessible. Any ideas on how to work it? I'm none too familiar with tables and how to make them accessible. Thanks, Sportsguy17 (TC) 02:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've done the col scopes, and one row, you can do the rest. Don't forget to do ACCESS on all tables, including the key. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias talk
  • For those not familiar with American football, the lead is a bit confusing; it says they play in the American Football Conference, but then it says that they joined the National Football League. It isn't mentioned that the AFC is part of the NFL.
  • The bit in brackets about Foxboro Stadium being demolished and turned into a parking lot is completely unnecessary for this list.
  • What exactly is a starting quarterback? I can't see that the article ever tells me?
    • Sorry, I've just seen that this is in a note. Given how important it is to the article, I think this needs to be made clear in the main body of the article.
  • "the team finished with an 11–5 record" – this notation needs explanation, it isn't common in Europe.
  • Use the accessible {{dagger}} to create dagger rather than †. Harrias talk 21:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Explain what the numbers in brackets mean in the Postseason table.
  • Jargon: what are Passing touchdowns, Interceptions thrown, Quarterback rating, Rushes, Rushing touchdowns?
  • Screen-readers don't always inform the user of italics and bold text, so if you are using these to show something (such as active players in a table, it needs another accessible label.
  • The accessdate for Tom Brady's stats is March 8, 2015, but presumably they have been updated more recently than that? Harrias talk 21:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Director note – The nominator hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, and there is a stack of unresolved comments by TRM and Harrias. If we don't see some activity soon, this FLC will need to be archived as unsuccessful (preferably by a delegate since I supported the list before the more recent comments) Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the wait, I will get to it as soon as I can, I'm a bit bogged down IRL at the moment. Sportsguy17 (TC) 01:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of National Parks of Canada

Notified: Canada WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are a lot of unsourced things, broken references, old lead style (This is a list of) and awful tables (lack of MOS:ACCESS in colored cells. A column to upload images, is that necessary, what the hell is that?). This article can no loger be a featured list. Yilku1 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The photo upload links seem to have been added as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2017, but I agree they're very out of place in an encyclopedia list and I've removed them. I also replaced (rescued) one ref which seems to have been partly deleted or maybe cut-and-paste overwritten, I'm not sure but it's fixed. I also agree that the use of colour and shading to convey information is a failure of MOS:ACCESS and I'll think about ways the designated sites could be indicated differently. Otherwise I don't think there are any problems here that make the list unsalvageable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I updated the table. Now is a modern onw.
There is really necessary the Notes section? I don't see how they fit in the article and not the the parks respective articles.
All the References are dead or do not support what they are supposed to reference, even with the archived versions, what is the source for the areas for example?. --Yilku1 (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Tulsa, Oklahoma

Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Architecture

I am not actually nominating this list for removal but instead for a reassessment, and I hope this nomination ends with a "Keep" consensus. Since its promotion to a featured status, this page had changed substantially and was in a sorry state. I updated it, removed unsourced statements, introduced a clickable skyline image, and changed its structure per my standardization efforts. I'm looking for comments on those changes, and I hope the list's featured status will be affirmed. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not bad in its current state actually. The only problem I have is that there seems to be a mix of units in the lead, the first cut off is 200 feet, but the second cut off is 150m. Is there a reason those numbers were selected? Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
200 ft was chosen arbitrarily, 150 m is the height commonly featured in building statistics on CTBUH's Skyscraper Center (see Tulsa's page for example). Sandvich18 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm this page does need a bit of work. I clicked on the very first link, and it says there are 23 high rises, but the sentence in the text says 25.... Mattximus (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Some high-rises appear only in one database. Three buildings listed in the article can't be found on CTBUH's site. The number in the text should actually be 26 as one building is missing. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a problem, since you quote a number, but that number is not found in any of the sources provided. For better or for worse, wikipedia policy is to conduct no original research, and just report what we find in sources. So I guess we need to find a better source for this number. Mattximus (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It's impossible to do source the number of buildings in the lead in any "List of tallest buildings in ..." article without leaving some buildings out of the list. I believe this insignificant level of original research is appropriate and can only benefit the reader. Sandvich18 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Director note – This has been here for a couple of months now and activity seems to have stalled. The editor who was working on the article hasn't edited in over a month, and the sentence with the OR is still in the first sentence. Does anybody else have any thoughts to help move this along? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=811488811"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA