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 {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  • Analysis
  • Disambig links
  • 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:



List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2009

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Following the successful promotion of the lists for 1959, 1991, and every year from 2000 to 2007 inclusive, and with 2008 having multiple supports, here's yet another one.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers

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

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

  • The title should be List of FIFA World Cup top goalscorers like List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers and most other lists
    • I personally dislike having "List of X" if just "X" works fine. I prefer tighter titles. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd think most lists could work with "X", but we really ought to go with consistency and WP:LISTNAME; I'd guess most the plural form sounds odd to most since so few articles do it that way.
  • Why does the table in the lead say >50, ≈100, etc? Shouldn't be too difficult to have an exact number.
    • There are exact numbers, but some sources imply there are say 55 footballers, other say 54. Since under 5 goals FIFA does not seem to have a good official record, it's not very clear which source is accurate. For that, and since those numbers tend to change quite a bit every world cup, I thought it's an overly detailed number to give versus how reliable it is. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fine then, though is List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers validate one of those sources, at least for the 4 goals?
  • "In total, 60 footballers came from UEFA (Europe), 26 from CONMEBOL (South America), and only 4 players came from elsewhere:" is not parallel.
Good catch
The second "came" should be removed to be fully parallel since it was left out in the second part.
  • "more goals at all the games played at the World Cup as Stábile" -> "thank Stabile"
  • "in 1970, and broke" no comma necessary.
  • "and 1970, and Jürgen", same, unless you put a comma before "with"
  • "A total of" is extraneous.
Agree, but I dislike starting sentences with numbers, seems weird to me. Any idea how not to start with a number and not use extraneous words? Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it sounds perfectly fine just to spell the number out but you could do "Across the 20 tournaments, 29 different footballers..." Note 6 also uses it midsentence, especially unnecessary with "overall" right afterward. Note 7 says "Seven different players", but I don't think seven of the same players is possible. Reywas92Talk 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Except for 2010, all the top goalscorers won the Golden Boot." 2010 is a year, not a goalscorer. Reywas92Talk 18:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Changed it. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Reywas92: Thanks for all the feedback. I fixed most of them and left some replies to the others; let me know what you think. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605

Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been working through the 17th century conclaves bringing them up to GA status, and have most of them done, so I've turned to working on the list of electors for them, and this is my first attempt at that. The March 1605 papal conclave was the first of two conclaves in 1605, which was the last Year of Three Popes popes before 1978: Clement VIII had recently died, and left a nearly full college. This list of electors includes several names that are very significant in the history of the Counter-Reformation, and was by far one of the most enjoyable conclaves to research and write about. I'm nominating this as a featured list because it is complete and I feel it either meets the criteria or is very close to doing so. I hope you all enjoy it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per my extensive pre-FLC commentary yesterday. Great work. Courcelles (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Lower-case "cardinal" for list section title.
  • If possible, you could instead list the cardinals within each rank/order by the date of their creation, rather than by alphabetical order, as representative of precedence. Unless, of course, that concept didn't exist in 1605 or is unimportant for the article.
    • I can try to go through Eubel and do this by date of creation. I think he does it alphabetical by consistory date instead of by precedence as is the current practice, but it will get a rough idea of rank within the college (i.e. to the date of creation and then alphabetical on that date.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • That could be most beneficial, although I'm unsure if some sources might also list cardinals for each consistory in some meaningful order.
        • Eubel is the standard reference work on this sort of thing for this era, so what he says is probably what other sourcing would have unless primary. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Red-linked cardinals could be interlanguage-linked to e.g. the Italian Wikipedia. For example, Antonio Maria Gallo (Galli?) to here. Also, some cardinals without articles are red-linked, while others don't have links at all.
    • I generally prefer red-links to inter-wiki links for a few reasons: first, it encourages creation of the articles on, second, the quality of articles from this era of Catholic history is pretty low, in my opinion (not that our articles are necessarily better...) if you think it's needed, I can do it, just wanted to explain my reasoning. Also, why some aren't linked: the ones that aren't linked are individuals were articles exist on a person of that name, but the person is not the cardinal in the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, a link to an extant article on another wiki is still more valuable than a red-link to readers. WP:FLCR section 5(a) also seems to require that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked", although I'm personally rather ambivalent about this issue, as far as linking goes, so I'm largely fine with either case. (Also, you could deal with the unlinked cardinals by linking to [[<name> (cardinal)]], for example).
  • The elected cardinal surely needs more than a footnote in the table to indicate that; a different table row colour could be in order, as for recent papal conclaves (e.g. 2013).
  • Again, if possible, you could perhaps include a column for the offices held by the cardinals in the table.
    • This would be more difficult: Eubel includes offices, but for the ones with non-resident sees it is often just the titular see or a listing of positions that don't necessarily confirm the dates held (so it would be unclear if the position was held at this time). I don't think the titulus would add much value to this particular list personally (the focus being on the conclave and it's demographics. Ironic, I know, given the other FLC we just interacted on :) ). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Very well, then. I do suppose it's probably not as useful here.
  • Footnotes [iii] and [v] are identical and should be combined.
  • Nationalities could be linked and flags added (although, considering the 17th century state of Europe, this could be slightly more difficult).
    • This one would be tough re: flags. The narrative sourcing refers to the electors in general by nationality, while Eubel refers to Italians by city (and there was no defined Italy back then as a single state). I made the choice to go with the geographic location/nationality since that is what all the narrative sourcing went with. A possibility here is to link to the nationality articles Italians, French people, Germans, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Just did this here as it was pretty easy to do. Let me know what you think. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
        • On second thought, nationality links probably seem slightly out of place here. The best solution now would probably be to keep them as they are, unlinked, unless they could be linked to contemporary countries (e.g. Kingdom of France or any of the Italian cities/states to which your source refers, such as the Grand Duchy of Tuscany or the Papal States).
          • Unlinked. The way Eubel handles Italians would make it difficult to link to contemporary states and meet WP:V. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That should be all that I can spot for now. Otherwise, a good article indeed. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ravenpuff: see above and let me know your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Some further replies and comments for the time being. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 08:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Kent

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves, and is in the same format as other FLs such as Suffolk and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Miike Snow discography

Nominator(s): Pancake (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the critera as it is complete and well-sourced. The lead was recently copy-edited. Pancake (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

List of games by Firaxis Games

Nominator(s): PresN 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Next up in my series of 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic), we have a developer that... doesn't intersect with any of the others. Firaxis Games has a different arc than the other companies I've made lists for: while they were started at basically nothing, Firaxis feels like it began in media res. Sid Meier, one of the founders, was not only already relatively famous (especially since Microprose put his name on the box cover in the games' titles), and co-founded it with the other big designer at their previous company, but they almost immediately launched into a spiritual extension of the Civilization series he was best known for. From there, it's... well. It's continued to grow over time, continued to make games (but not exclusively) in the Civilization series, never did anything too crazy, never moved away from straight game development. Even getting bought in 2006 didn't change much. So, narratively, not as exciting as some others. Professionally, well, Civilization is one of the biggest names in the industry, so they're doing alright. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Is there a reason not to include sale numbers in lists like these? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The near-impossibility for finding sales numbers for any game, much less games that came out prior to ~2010, much less all of them. Unlike movies, the games industry doesn't report sales publicly. --PresN 16:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Even for big-shots like Civ5/Civ6? Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey

Nominator(s): Jiten talk contribs 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by actor Matthew McConaughey, well known for his role in the movies Dazed and Confused (1993), A Time to Kill (1996), Bernie (2011), Killer Joe (2011), Magic Mike (2012), The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), Dallas Buyers Club (2013), Interstellar (2014) and the TV series True Detective. I tried to make the list as comprehensive as I could and used the List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio as a base for the format. This is my first good/featured content nomination so I hope I haven't messed anything up. Questions and suggestions are most welcome. Thank you for your time and efforts. Jiten talk contribs 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per my so-called comments on my talk. I have made several edits to the list i.e. copy-edits, formatting. I don't know if I am too involved to support it, but I think it meets the criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support after a read-through, this appears to meet the criteria. I added an "a" and a "the" in various places... Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK)

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

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

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

Comments from Freikorp

  • Some kind of coverage on people who have been listed multiple times (regardless of whether it's top 10 or top 100) would be interesting. However, it's not the kind of thing I would withhold support over.
  • "Subsequent winners included the Russian tennis player Anna Kournikova" - Is there any reason why Anna is mentioned in the lead? I mean, as opposed to all the other people who have won. I get mentioning the first and last winner, and I get mentioning Berry and Lopez since there's some commentary about their wins. Mentioning Anna for no apparent reason seems a bit selective to me.
  • "Lopez was the first to top it more than once" - Is she still the only person to have topped it more than once? This should be clarified to the reader.
  • Since Kimberly Stewart has her own Wikipedia article, I see no reason to introduce her as Rod Stewart's daughter in the lead
  • "former features editor" - just clarifying this is correct? I note it could be but thought it may have been a typo of "featured" also
  • 'FHM also occasionally published a "Most Eligible Bachelorettes"' - I wouldn't say they published it occasionally, i'd say they published it for two consecutive years.

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

Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography

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

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

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

Older nominations

List of 1992 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Albertville Olympics hold a special place in my memories, likely because they are the first Olympics I can actually remember watching. (A little clue to my age might be in there somewhere) This list has lots to cover, new sports, new nations, and the first medalist from the Southern Hemisphere. I've tried to pack it all in, and look forward to your comments. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - the only thing I have picked up so far is this sentence: "The newly independent republics of Croatia and Slovenia made their Olympic debuts, being newly independent from Yugoslavia". Can you find a way to re-word it so that you aren't saying "newly independent" twice in the same sentence? Also, and this is very minor, but the sentence does not currently have a full stop/period at the end -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, ChrisTheDude, both issues resolved. Courcelles (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

My other lists, although long in the nomination tooth, are fully supported with no outstanding issues. This one, about some guy called Ronaldo, may generate a bit more interest, or at least I hope so. All comments are welcome, and I will endeavour to fix any issues raised as soon as is humanly possible. Thanks to you all for your generous time and effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Scoring in a shoot-off is more relevant to a "Goals scored by..." list than saying "Following Portugal's win at UEFA Euro 2016, Ronaldo lifted the trophy as his team's captain". Also 3rd goalscorer worldwide is relevant. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'm sure you're right, but could you clarify what you would like to include, what sources you have, and what you'd like to remove? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
AFAICT Ronaldo is the 3rd among all-time goalscorers in international games. And, you have repeatedly rejected mentioning shoot-off "goals" in such lists, yet I see you talk in the introduction about how he won a championship as a captain in which he only scored once. Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
"Ronaldo has scored goals [...], hence becoming the first player to score [...], which also makes him second [...]." I can't believe you see nothing wrong with this sentence structure. Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Who said I can't see anything wrong with this sentence structure? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Slightly perverse as it may sound, kicking the ball into the net during a shoot-out is not considered to equate to scoring a goal, so there is no reason to mention it in a "list of goals" article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I never said equating it to a goal. It is still "scoring", and has more to do with a goal than lifting a trophy (mentioned in the intro) does to scoring a goal. Nergaal (talk)
No, we're not including penalty shootout goals here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
we're not including penalty shootout goals. Glad to see lifting cups have a place here though /s. Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you've missed the point, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You have tried so hard to ignore what I said that EVEN NOW the list does not state that Ronaldo IS the 3rd highest international goalscorer in history. That is definitely the type of achievement not relevant to THE list of international goals by him. And it's not like this intro doesn't already mention that Ronaldo is number 2 in continental qualifiers. That same refferece in use here lists like 5 goal-scoring records not listed in the obviously-subpar introduction. Meanwhile, there are STILL phrases like "he scored the only goal in a UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying match against Armenia, his 23rd in European Championship matches. This surpassed the record previously held by". Excellent phrasing, definitely featured-level prose /s. Nergaal (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm finding it difficult to follow your comment, it's like a negative-negative-negative-positive-negative-negative sentence. If you bullet point your list of concerns, and add sources to back up your claims which you would prefer to see included in the list, that's fine. If you just want to yell and be sarcastic, that's fine too, but you'll be ignored. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • My only comment is this bit: "Ronaldo has scored 30 goals in FIFA World Cup qualifiers, and 20 in UEFA Euro qualifiers, hence becoming the first player ever to score 50 goals in European qualifiers, which also makes him second in the list of all-time top scorers in European qualifiers, behind Poland's Robert Lewandowski" - people may be confused by the (seeming) fact that Ronaldo is the first player to hit 50 yet is only second on the all-time list, so it would be worth clarifying that he was the first to hit 50 but that Lewandowski has since overtaken him -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    Hi Chris, thanks. I've tried a re-word and sentence split to hopefully clarify this. Let me know what you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now (you missed a pipe out of the As Of template, I fixed that for you.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    Tsk, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I'm not a fan of football or soccer, but the list looks really good. Great work.--Lirim | T 09:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "the most goals among currently active players" Assume you mean international goals here?
  • "as one of the second-highest" As joint second highest goalscorer, perhaps?
  • "hence becoming the first player to score 50 goals in European qualifiers." Going to need a source for that.

Courcelles (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Best Male Athlete with a Disability ESPY Award

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's another list from the ESPY stable, the award that honors those male athletes with a disability who have excelled. I will endeavour to address the queries raised by those who care to review this list in a timely manner. Thanks in advance. MWright96 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Governors of Illinois

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure about this one; it feels like it's missing something but I can't put my finger on what. It has everything the other governor FLs have, it just seems bare, I guess because there's much fewer transitions that need footnotes/references, and despite being an old state, the rules have remained pretty steady. So since it seems to meet the criteria, here we go. Golbez (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The lead seems very bare, should be buffed up to 2-3 paragraphs.
    • But with what? It had more info on the office but I think that's extraneous for the list. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • How many governors resigned, and for what reasons... who was impeached? Anyone but Blagojevich? Anyone move on to higher office like Senator or President...? Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Need a key for the colours.
    • Not really, they're tied to the party, I was thinking of maybe moving the color bar to the party column to make that more obvious but I don't see a key being required. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the notes need sourcing.
    • I'll source the ones that need it and update when done. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Footnote F and L seems important enough to bring into the prose.
    • F already is, I'll look into L. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • the lead is the biggie, and I suppose why no one has reviewed this list yet, right now, I don't see this meeting the criteria without work. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Or there's not enough people who care. One would hope that if a reviewer saw a list that was deficient, they'd say so rather than just closing the tab and moving on. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Premier League winning players

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of players of Premier League who have received a medal for winning the title. The introduction includes a brief summary of what the Premier League is and its history, the requirements for receiving a medal, and statistics regarding the medals that have been awarded over the years. The list includes what I believe to be the key relevant information for a list of this nature. The entries are cited to the player profiles on the Premier League site, which hold a record as to which players have and have not received medals. The content in the nationality and club tables is taken from the Premier League references used in the main list.

I stumbled across this list only a few weeks ago when using it as a directory for adding the player profiles as a reference for Premier League honours in player biographies. I noticed a couple of players in the list who hadn't actually received medals, which I removed accordingly, before deciding to give the list a more thorough cleanup. This is what the list looked like before my recent updates, in which not a single entry was referenced. I believe the list has now been brought up to the standards set out at the FL criteria. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor comments by Lemonade51

  • Think would work better as a lead image. For a start he's actually holding the prize in question.
  • The only issue I have at first glance is medals. "484 medals awarded to 243 players", does this take into account that the 92–93 United side never actually got medals but mini trophies? Igors Stepanovs didn't receive anything at the Arsenal's 2001–02 trophy presentation because he didn't play the required number of games then. There is footage on YouTube, I'll try and dig it out. But then the PL website suggests he did. Maybe he got one later on. Think you've done the right thing in renaming the list to reflect this. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It does include the players from the first season who received the mini trophies. Do you think this needs clarifying? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing Stepanovs qualified through special dispensation. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "for back-up goalkeepers and outfield players who did not make the minimum number of appearances through injury." Does the injury clause apply to the goaltenders as well? Right now that is ambiguous whether both positions must have suffered injury to get a medal.

Otherwise this looks good. Courcelles (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My second dynamic list to be nominated following my successful nomination of List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. I think this is a very valuable source of information, and the traffic statistics would agree. Generally 5,000 hits a day, and known to peak above 100,000 on the days of certain predictions. I'm very keen to get feedback on whether this article currently meets the criteria, or what I need to do to get it there. All in all I'm very happy with how much this article has been improved since I first adopted it in 2011 after seeing how bad it was then [1]. Freikorp (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment Featured lists no longer begin with "this list..." nor make any references to the list as they are considered tautological. Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Reworded. Can't believe I overlooked that. Thanks for pointing it out. Freikorp (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Much better start, however I still caught "This list distinguishes..." which also needs similar rewording. Mattximus (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: I've addressed this as I'm not fussed about the issue either way, though I will mention that both my previous successful nominations contained something like what your mentioning now later in the lead. See List of people executed by lethal injection and List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, those should be fixed as well, I can probably get around to fixing those up in the future. Mattximus (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Argento Surfer
"though maintain the centuries" - I think this would read better as "while maintaining the centuries"
"the end would be cause be the Last Judgement" - This is off. Is it supposed to be caused by?
Would it be feasible to add a column for the year the prediction was made? I think the interval between the prediction and the event would be interesting, although I understand many of the ancient ones might be tough to narrow down.
"or at least completely scorching it, " - this seems informal. I suggest "either scorching or swallowing Earth"
"duotrigintillion" - until I followed the link provided, I was 78% certain this was a made up word. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comments Argento Surfer. I've made the three recommended copyedits. I'm not sure if you wanted me to change the 'duotrigintillion' issue or were just making a comment. I'd be happy to change it to Googol if you like. As for the column of predicted dates - this would certainly leave some fields blank as not all the dates of prediction are known (sources commenting on historical cases normally don't mention when the prediction was made) and some are complicated. As the lead states the majority of predictions are foreseen to occur within the lifetime of the person making them. I've made an effort to explain (directly or indirectly) in the prose when this is not the case. I.e "[Dixon] had also previously predicted the world would end on February 4, 1962". This lets the reader know that her 2020 prediction was most certainly not made in her lifetime. I might wait to see if anyone else thinks this is a good idea. Obviously it's going to take a lot of effort (and will leave many blank fields and approximations) and I'm not sure of how much interest it will be since the dates that are known will almost elusively be within a couple decades of the prediction's supposed occurence. Freikorp (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Duotrigintillion was just a comment. I'm not sure there's any easy way to express that number for everyone to understand easily.
I suspected the date of prediction would be tricky to add for many of them, and I'm satisfied with how it's noted in the description when non-standard. I support this nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Prose and Reference Comments from Ceranthor

  • "Predictions of apocalyptic events that would result in the extinction of humanity, a massive or total collapse of civilization, the destruction of the planet or even the entire universe, have been made since at least the beginning of the Common Era.[1]" - this is too long for a lead sentence. cut into two sentences
  • I tried cutting in two, but I preferred how it read when I just shortened it. Is it acceptable now? If not, I'll go back to cutting in two.
  • "Historically, it has been done for reasons such as diverting attention from actual crises like poverty and war, pushing political agendas, and promoting hatred of certain groups; antisemitism was a popular theme of apocalyptic predictions in medieval times.[5] " - while this last bit after the semicolon is important, it seems selective. Surely there were other marginalized groups associated with apocalyptic predictions besides Jews?
  • Oh most definitely. The source only mentioned the antisemitism though. I'll start looking for a source that another group was been marginalised or would you rather just remove this mention?
  • " making the uncertainty of our mortality more predictable, an innate human fascination with fear, comfort in seeing a form of order in the universe, personality traits of paranoia and powerlessness and a modern romanticism involved with end-times due to its portrayal in contemporary fiction.[4][6]" - too listy
  • Removed a couple of the reasons. Hopefully it reads better now.
  • "It is also argued that over the centuries" - passive voice
  • Gah. I've always been bad at this. I've reworded it, but let me know if I've just done the same thing again.
  • "In the UK in 2015, 23% of the general public believed the apocalypse was likely to occur in their lifetime, compared to 10% of experts from the Global Challenges Foundation." - again, why is just the UK's opinion mentioned here?
  • That was the only source I found that gave a quantitative measurement of the difference in opinions between the general public and scientists. But I don't think we need more than one country to make this specific kind of comparison anyway. Happy to flesh this last paragraph out a little more in general though if you think that's necessary.

More comments forthcoming. ceranthor 15:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Ref 56 - Schwartz 1995, p. 87., 64 - Brady, 1983 & pages182–183., 72 - Schwartz 1995, p. 101., 93 - Thompson 1999, p. 121., 108 - Alnor 1999, p. 145., 112 - Darling 2012, p. xiv., 155 - Alnor 1999, p. 121., 157 - Schwartz 1995, p. 96., and 166 - Alnor 1999, p. 98. don't actually point to the proper reference.
  • Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Support - I still dislike the inclusion of just the US and UK at the end of the lead section. Otherwise, this seems ready. ceranthor 00:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal

  • Scientific table is misleading. There won't be an explosion in year 500,000, but an event like that is likely to happen with a mean time of 500k yrs. Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Several of the scientific predictions fall into a similar category, predicting an event that is likely to happen within a time frame. I don't see a problem with including them. Are you suggesting we delete them all? I'm somewhat open to the idea, I'm just pointing out this issue isn't isolated. And just to clarify is this the only issue you see with the article? Would you support it otherwise? Freikorp (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
No, not delete them. Just find a way to list them without giving the impression to a casual reader that it will happen in the year 500,000 AD. Things like those predicted to happen in 2012 on the date of whatever are completely distinct from things that are predicted to happen based on the proton decay lifetime. Most people don't understand the difference, so don't let this list increase that confusion. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nergaal: I've reworded some of them; are you happy with the changes? Freikorp (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't think off the top of my head for a good solution, but try to see if someone prone to looking for end-of-the-world dates would open this article, what sort of phrasing would be needed so he won't think that in the year 500k scientist X said the world will end. Nergaal (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Basically, if there is something like "an asteroid of size >X will likely hit Earth in the next Y years", are there any probabilities given for this, any likely ranges? Nergaal (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It's giving the statistical probability of when it would be expected to occur. As in, within the next 500,000 years, statistically speaking, the Earth should be hit by an asteroid that is at least 1km in diameter. I don't see how we can make this any clearer to the reader than it already is, nor do I see the need for it to be made any clearer. Seems pretty straight forward to me. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Looks like a terrific piece of work. These are my comments.

  • The lead image needs alt text.
  • Also, I think its caption could do with being rewritten slightly – it seems odd to me that "The Last Judgment" doesn't link to either The Last Judgment (Memling) or Last Judgement. Perhaps something like "The Last Judgment by painter Hans Memling. In Christian belief, the Last Judgement is an apocalyptic event where God makes a final judgement of all people on Earth." would work.
  • A lot of dates are written in "yyyy mmm dd" and "yyyy mmm" formats. MOS:DATEFORMAT specifically discourages these formats.
  • Notes that are single, incomplete sentences (e.g. "Declared that the world.."; "Revised date from Stöffler..."; "Predicted that the Apocalypse..."; "Predicted the end of the world...") don't need terminating periods.
  • Some links may be WP:OVERLINKED. For example, I don't think you need to wikilink Harold Camping or William Miller so frequently. Millennialism is wikilinked 15 times.
  • Also per WP:OVERLINK, major geographical locations such as London don't need to be wikilinked.
  • "20,000 Londoners". Per MOS:NUMNOTES, rewrite this as "Twenty thousand Londoners".
  • That [who?] tag needs to be dealt with.
  • Citations needs to occur in ascending order, e.g. [120][94] -> [94][120]
  • Some online sources are missing access dates, e.g. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. There may be more.
  • Oh, that's deliberate. I've previously been told at FAC its redundant to have an access date and an archived version of a website. I was told the archived version defeats the purpose of knowing when the site was last accessed. Ever since I was told this I've stopped adding accessdates to websites that I've archived, but I never bothered to remove them from the references I already added. I've removed them now so that it's consistent.
  • Citation 81 and 91's dates are in dmy format.
  • Wikilinks that already appear in the main body of the article (i.e. Armageddon, End time and Second Coming) don't need to be repeated in the See Also section.
  • Speaking of the SA section, Apocalypse doesn't appear in the main body, but it certainly feels like it should. Perhaps "apocalyptic events" could link to it in the opening sentence?
  • WP:ISBN suggests using 13-digit ISBNs where available. For the Grosso and Snow books, these would be 978-0-8356-0734-6 and 978-0-275-98052-8 respectively.
  • Extra }s at the end of the Schwartz ref.
  • Spaced hyphens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ).
  • "A list of apocalyptic predictions". Just "Apocalyptic predictions" would be fine. Consider adding a bullet point as well.

Incidentally, my current open FLC is FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK). If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for your comments A Thousand Doors, it was extremely helpful. I'll be happy to review your nomination tomorrow after I finish addressing your last point. Freikorp (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've fixed all the issues now A Thousand Doors. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Turkish football champions

Nominator(s): Akocsg (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This valuable list contains information about the Turkish football championships which are not covered appropriately the way they should and provides useful information and data, especially about the former championships (before 1957). What makes this list article especially interesting and engaging is the fact that the Turkish Football Federation negates and ignores the era before 1957, even though both former championships were the official competitions of the very same federation!

Given their unique situation and the general quality of the article, I think that this article deserves to be a Featured List. I have tried my best to meet all the criteria and I believe that the article is in an appropriate state. It is a personal concern for me that this list gains FL status, and I will genuinely try my best to improve it even further if necessary. I offer my thanks to all who have the time to comment on the list, and I promise that I'll get to each comment as soon as I can. Kind regards, Akocsg (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Query - what is sourcing the top goalscorers? I can't see any references either against individual rows or against the column headings as you have done with the champions............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Done. Good point, I totally forgot about them. Thank you for reminding, they are in the article now. I didn't really understand what you mean by the individual rows and column headings though. Could you specify? If you mean the championship titles, there are sources such as RSSSF and the Turkish FA's own magazine (TamSaha), for instance. Akocsg (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
All I meant was that the goalscorers could have been sourced either individually against each row or (if there was one source that listed them all) against the column header (as you did with the champions). When I commented, neither was present. Now you have put a source against the column header so all is good......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Oh, now I see. Thanks. Akocsg (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Images need WP:ALT text.
  • Remove the Turkey flag from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.
  • Turkey is linked in the infobox and the opening sentence. WP:OVERLINK advises against linking major geographic locations.
  • "Englishmen brought the game with them while living in Thessaloniki.", what's the source for this?
  • Is there a reason the earlier seasons are not counted by the TFF?
  • The star rating system paragraph is unsourced or at least seems that way.
  • I would say to use the full name of the Rsssf in references, Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation, to keep consistency as all other organisations are done that way apart from the Rsssf.

Just a very quick read through, I may add more if I get the chance. Kosack (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kosack: All done I think. The images have a bit more text now, I don't know what else I could add. Removed the flag and internal link from the infobox. Provided a source for the part about the Englishmen (it was already there though, just at another spot). Provided a source for the star rating. The link to RSSSF uses the full name now. About the Turkish FA not counting the earler ones, well that's a very good question. Until today, no official answer or motive was given for this denial. Even though both former championships are their own official competitions. In the article about the Turkish Football Federation you can read more about that topic. Thank you for your input. Akocsg (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:ALT text is not the caption that is displayed with the image, it is an accessibility aid for people who may not view images in the same way as other users. It is added using |alt= within the markup of the image to add additional text that replaces the image when required. Kosack (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kosack: Done. Is there anything else you noticed? Akocsg (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Very good and informative article. I didn't notice anything else apart from the points addressed above. Baki.d (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Mesopotamian deities

Nominator(s): Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten this article from scratch over the course of the past month. I would have nominated it for "Good List" status, but there does not seem to be one, so my only option for advancing the article's status seems to be to go straight for featured. This is the first time I have ever nominated anything for "Featured" status, but I have, as of right now, single-handedly brought fourteen articles up to "Good Article" status on my own, and I have significantly assisted in promoting several others, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what I am doing.

This article obviously does not hope to cover every single Mesopotamian deity, but it does cover all the ones I could find entries for in reference works on the subject, as well as a few others. As you can see, all information is fastidiously cited to reliable sources. The only problems I imagine that it might face will be ones perhaps dealing with the image licensing, since, even though I am not aware of any issues in that regard, I have repeatedly found that whole process confusing, and perhaps also confusion over where the cities mentioned are located, since I doubt the modern reader is likely to know much about the geography of ancient Mesopotamia. I did try to find a map to put in the article, but I could not find one that shows all the cities and I do not think it will be that big of a deal, since all the names of the cities are wikilinked and I tried to give explanations of their locations where necessary. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support very interesting topic, very different list from the usual run-of-the-mill stuff that goes on here. It's well put together, and this kind of work should be encouraged by reviewers at FLC. Great work, and ping me up if you need some future feedback on similar subjects like to this one. Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Comments by bloodofox

Support. @Katolophyromai:, this is an impressive and challenging undertaking. My first impression: where are the attestations? But after reading above, I understand why the list is structured as it is. This list doesn't raise any red flags for me, and looks solid. I'll give it a more thorough lookover and get back to you if I see any issue. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

I can't find any immediate fault with the list contents. However...

  • You're throwing several reference template errors.
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I would be more than happy to fix the reference template errors, but, unfortunately, I cannot see them at all, nor do I know of any means of detecting them. Something similar to this happened months ago at Talk:Pythagoras/GA1, where an editor said there were "lots and lots" of reference errors, but I could not see anything, so the other editor ended up having to list all the sfns with the errors in them. I am guessing there is probably some tool somewhere for detecting them? --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't remember, I may have a script installed to warn me of these. In any case... all reference numbers as of this version, for sanity in bookkeeping. One is an easy fix. Ref 52 (McEvilly 2002) lacks a target; in the bibliography, McEvilley 2002 shows as unused. I'm not sure whether the author's name is correct with or without that extra e, but that's no problem otherwise. Ref 45 (Kramer 1983) lacks a target; I imagine that Kramer ref is intended to either point to Kramer 1963 or Wolkenstein & Kramer 1983, but you'll need to double-check which. The other errors are all references that do not have a corresponding bilbiography target at all: ref 24 (Falkenstein 1965), ref 129 (Richter 2004), and ref 239 (Dever 2003b). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I have now fixed all of the errors you have listed here. If you find any others, let me know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty dubious that the "Vv.Aa."-authored reference is at all referenced correctly. That's a journal publication, for one thing, and so the actual work cited should have a title, weirdness of the claimed author notwithstanding. I poked around a little bit but couldn't conclusively determine what this is supposed to be.
That citation happens to be one of a handful that were added by a particularly helpful IP user while I was in the midst of rewriting the list. I do not know what the source is exactly, since the title of the article is not given. I do know that "Vv.Aa." is an abbreviation for "various authors," though. The article is only cited once in the entire article, so it probably will not be too difficult to find a replacement for it, I imagine. I will see what else I can find. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the improperly-formatted and unidentifiable source, along with the tiny snippet of information that was cited to it. There seems to be extensive discussion of this subject in really old, outdated sources, such as J. Norman Lockyer's 1893 The Dawn of Astronomy, but I have not found a single newer source that even mentions it. The unidentifiable source that was previously cited there is from 1951. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You're allowed to use whatever citation format you so desire, but you have to be consistent. There's a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite}} templates in use here, and that's not okay.
Done. I have changed all the sources in the bibliography to say "citation." The ones that said "cite book" were a mistake. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not technically a requirement, but it should be. You have a mix of ISBN-10s and ISBN-13s, some of which are hyphenated properly, and some which are not. Hit up an ISBN converter (like this or this).
  • Web sources (like Brisch) probably need a retrieval date (the APA has dropped that requirement, but it's still best practice here).
I have added today's date, since none of the articles have changed since I last visited them as far as I can tell. I hate giving accessdates because, then, every time I reuse the same source I have to update the date. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For book-format sources, publisher locations are optional, but they're all-or-nothing. I didn't audit closely, but on quick review, Wright lacks one. I'm reaaaallly not fond of the location laundry-lists like in the George reference, but I can't find anything in the MOS expressly prohibiting it.
Fixed. I also managed to find a few others that were missing publisher locations. I believe I have now corrected all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

In any case, conditional support on the reference issues getting addressed before promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Actually, I hate to mention it, because it's an immense amount of work, but... images need WP:ALT text... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly. ALT text is different from a caption. It's intended as an accessibility aid (for screen readers), and is one of those things no one ever even hears about until they hit FAC/FLC, where suddenly it's an expectation. Where a caption tells you what the image is, ALT text is a brief snippet of text telling you what the image looks like. WP:ALT has some examples. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2008

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have successfully nominated the lists for 2000-2006 inclusive (as well, rather randomly, as 1959), and the list for 2007 now has multiple supports, so why the heck not? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I think you have the formula for these down pat. Courcelles (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Basically a copy of the 2007, etc. lists. Did some tweaks to the references, but also Source review passed. --PresN 18:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix videography

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Recently, I have expanded the referencing for the videography with 50% more inline citations and double the sources. I believe it faithfully represents the subject and meets the criteria. Looking forward to your reviews. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: In my opinion, this meets FL standards. (Wish I was alive to see him play in Monterey...I'm only a 40 minute drive from there.)Miss Sarita 17:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: I've added four gold and platinum certifications that I found while searching for a replacement source for BPI. They show more of the international popularity of Hendrix's DVDs, although some of his strongholds like Germany, Netherlands, Norway, etc., don't have any listings. These should be OK, but you might want to take a look. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Ojorojo: Thanks for letting me know. Just looked it over and everything still looks a-okay to me. :-) — Miss Sarita 21:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support – My only qualm with the list is the practice of putting the table references in non-numerical order. This occurs in numerous places in the ref column and strikes me as odd-looking, but that may just be personal preference so I don't want to come down too hard on the issue. The list otherwise looks solid to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Giants2008: It's an easy fix, so I made the changes. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Support – The changes look good and that was my only concern, so I'm switching to full support now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Support - tweaked a couple minor things. Also, Source Review passed. --PresN 15:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Song of the Year

Nominator(s): Brankestein (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that the Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Songs is an important recognition for Spanish-language hits in the United States. Brankestein (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support now that my comments have been resolved. – jona 17:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'd still like to see all the years' ceremonies redlinked, but that's not enough to withhold support for. Courcelles (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing a couple violations of MOS:ALLCAPS in the references.
  • Some references give the publisher by their name (I.e Billboard and Telemundo), while others give the base url (i.e and Try and keep it consistent.

That's all I found. Freikorp (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brankestein: The comments from Freikorp have been up for a while, and it's unclear if you addressed all of Courcelles comments beyond the final question. Are you still working on this list? --PresN 19:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not see those comments on my notifications. I have edited the article following the user's suggestions. Brankestein (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Happy to support this now. Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my FLC. Freikorp (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Is there a reason that " (Pop, Tropical/Salsa ..." pop, tropical and salsa are capitalised here and in the table?
  • Alejandro Fernandez has a diacritic missing.
  • " The current holders as of the 2018" you don't need both, stick with "as of 2018, the holder..."
  • "[6][7][8]" why aren't those in the Ref column?
  • Image captions which are fragments should not use a full stop.
  • Several song titles (e.g. "No Me Doy Por Vencido", "Livin' La Vida Loca") have capitalisation issues.
  • Tal Vez is piped to a redirect.
  • "Juan Magan " diacritic please.
  • Award ceremonies without articles should be linked, even though they'll be red.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

List of municipalities in New Mexico

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I am continuing my attempt at standardizing all list of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will be the 18th such nomination after 17 successful runs (such as: Montana, Alabama) and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities in New Mexico.

I have modeled this list off of recently promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from past reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. The lead made need some tightening up, but nothing that can't be done in the nomination process. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The population columns sort alphabetically rather than numerically; might be because some rows have dashes instead of numbers. Each article for those three places has a value for population, so something really should be included with a note.
  •  Done I couldn't make the dashes sort despite by best efforts (apparently the template sort dash does not work), so I've made it standard with the other lists with a note on each municipality that has a blank space.
  • You should be able to make the columns sortable by adding |sort=on to each use of the Change template – you'd then be able to put the en dashes back in (which, personally, I think look better than the blank cells). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd also love to see a map in the style this one that actually depicts cites and towns in these article, or at least one with major cities labeled. Surely there's something from a free government source that's better than the useless national state maps.
  • Me too! Please let me know if you find one. I managed to find one for most states but could not find one for New Mexico.
  • The forms of government should use a dash, not a hyphen. Reywas92Talk 02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)  Done

Thanks for the review Reywas92! All comments addressed. Mattximus (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Support; though here's a possible map to include that has cities: File:National atlas new mexico cropped.png. Reywas92Talk 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - couldn't really find anything else beyond the above. @Reywas92 and A Thousand Doors: you reviewed this nomination a while back; are you satisfied with the responses/prepared to support/oppose? --PresN 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Mayor‐Council system can be upgraded to a commission/manager municipality by vote if the population exceeds 3,000" Two problems, vote of the council or the population, and second, why are we calling this an "upgrade"? That's all I'm seeing. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "funding of fire protection and transit" What does transit mean? Is it USAmer for what is called public transport in the UK or maybe for road maintenance?
  • "office of manager with identical powers to the manager in a commission/manager municipality" There does not seem any point in saying powers are identical when you have not said what their powers are in a commission/manager municipality.
  • "A manager in both cases is not-elected and administers the hiring/firing of municipal employees" The hyphen is not grammatical. (I would put this explanation higher up before the identical powers comment.)
  • You might take the census figures for the city of Anthony as the city website says that it is the same as the municipality.
  • Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

List of ecclesiastical parishes in the Diocese of Bath and Wells

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This list was created as a bit of an experiment to examine how closely ecclesiastical parishes (EP) match civil parishes, and it may become the standard for a whole load of other UK lists on similar topics. It has gone through multiple iterations (mostly from User:Nilfanion and myself) about how it should be subdivided and what should be included. It is now comprehensive including all EPs in the Diocese of Bath and Wells supported by over 600 references. I feel it now meets the FL criteria but would welcome your comments about the organisation as well as any individual entries.— Rod talk 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

quick comment: "This is a list of... " is no longer appropriate for featured lists, as it is tautological. Mattximus (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - tweaked.— Rod talk 20:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Same goes for "When the civil parish is identical to the ecclesiastical parish, this is shown in the tables below in bold." Which should be a note for the table (or in a legend), not in the lead itself. I don't have time for a full review, but just want to say great work on the page so far! Mattximus (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Remove that if appropriate. A footnote on the lines of "identical to civil parish" should suffice for those cases where there is a 1:1 correspondence.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Could you do this to ensure it meets what you were trying to achieve with the list.— Rod talk 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "Each parish is administered by a parish priest who may be assisted in his pastoral duties by a curate or curates, who are also ordained but not the parish priest." This does not sound right. Maybe "also ordained but are not parish priests".
  • Done.— Rod talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • " A benefice or living in the Church of England describes any ecclesiastical parish or group of ecclesiastical parishes under a single stipendiary minister, as well as its related historical meaning." I would delete " as well as its related historical meaning" as unnecessary and confusing.
  • Done.— Rod talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "The term dates from the grant of benefices by bishops to clerks in holy orders as a reward for extraordinary services." I cannot see anything about extraordinary services in the source.
  • The source does say "on the ground of some extraordinary merit on the part of the grantee." which I think has been rephrased.— Rod talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This seems to me misleading. The article says that the term dates from the grants of land to soldiers in the Roman Empire, and was adopted by the church on the Continent in the sixth century for grants of land to clergy of extraordinary merit. Extraordinary merit is different from extraordinary services, and "clerks in holy orders" are not mentioned. The term may not have been used in sixth century Frankia. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have removed that sentence as it is explained at benefice which is wikilinked from that paragraph.— Rod talk 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The rest of the paragraph is unreferenced.
  • Ref added for civil parishes but I'm not sure the final sentence can be sourced.— Rod talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "The area covered includes the Chew Valley, and used less formally to cover other nearby areas" I do not understand this. Surely an area must be formally either in or out of a deanery area?
  • Changed to "and surrounding areas.— Rod talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What does "unparished" mean?
  • See comment & responses to TRM in capped section above - where User:Nilfanion said "::*Bath has parishes - there are several ecclesiastical parishes listed in the relevant section. It doesn't have civil parishes, and an appropriate wikilink to unparished area should suffice. That is the correct term, although it is somewhat confusing in this context...".— Rod talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Is information available on which parishes have alternative oversight?
  • I will go and look for this.— Rod talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Bishops of Ebbsfleet provides alternative oversight to this area, see [5]. Not sure how to format, but that fact is probably more interesting than most.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Bishop of Ebbsfleet is included (and I've added a reference for this) however I can not find a list of which parishes this applies to.— Rod talk 10:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Most of the undeveloped area is within the Bristol and Bath Green Belt." Does undeveloped mean rural? If so, I think it is a better word.
  • Some is rural farmland, but there centres of population, so I think it might depend on your definition of "rural" but have changed & linked to Rural area (see Rural area#United Kingdom for some definitions but I don't know if the area covered by the Chew Magna Deanery strictly meets this (even though I live in it).— Rod talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "The area is split between Bath and North East Somerset and Mendip." I would clarify that you are referring to local government areas.
  • Done
  • This is a first rate list, but I do not think that you should have so many names, especially of deans. It will be very difficult to ensure that the article is always kept up to date. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I am only aware of four names & then change very infrequently
  • I am not sure whether we are talking about the same thing regarding names. I find around 18 deans, each of whom you name, and with other officials you name about 24. There must surely be several changes each year with promotions, retirements etc?
  • I will remove the specific names at Deanery level as I try to add the location coords but will leave this at Archdeaconry level as these are more significant, fewer & don't change often.— Rod talk 10:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


I think this sort of list, since it covers public locations, should include address or map locations. Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks. This would not be simple as the parishes covers irregular areas of widely different sizes. We could give the grid refs for the churches (which are all available in the church articles) but these would not necessarily be a central point in the parish & would get complex where there is more than one church in the parish.— Rod talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There are many entries with no linked article. Considering the scope of this list, having some locator here would be quite convenient. Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Would you suggest that the grid ref/lat long of the church is given?16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have changed the first table (Deanery of Bath) to include the coords - could you look at this to see if it is what you mean before I do the rest? - with a long list like this it is a significant edit.— Rod talk 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Review by PresN
  • "The parish with its local parish church is the basic unit of the Church of England." - halfway through this paragraph, you change subjects entirely, and not as a short setup for discussing parishes within Bath and Wells. I think that it would flow better if the first half of this paragraph was a part of the 1st paragraph, and the rest with the 3rd, even if that makes the (new) second paragraph a bit long.
  • Done.— Rod talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Such a life freehold is now subject to certain constraints" - this sentence is odd, given that there's nothing else for the "now" to be set against, and since it doesn't say what the constraints are the sentence doesn't mean very much.
  • Removed.— Rod talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's odd that you call out that there are 12,600 parishes in the CofE, but don't say how many parishes are in Bath and Wells (I know it's in the infobox, but still).
  • Added.— Rod talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "The deadery covers villages in South Somerset and Taunton Deane" - deanery?
  • Well spotted - changed.— Rod talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Grid refs for the churches would be good, I think (perhaps with a note up at the top that its for the church(s), not the center of the area); area polygons for the parishes is far too heavy an ask even if it'd be more helpful.
  • I am going to work on adding grid refs over the next day or two. Nilfanion would be much better than me to comment on polygons & maps than I am.— Rod talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, can we get a small map of where in England this diocese is? Like the kind in Somerset, with "Somerset and small areas of Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire" shaded?
  • With regards to maps/polygons, the CofE has created online data which could easily be adapted. Unfortunately its licensing is too restrictive for us (and I have asked). That rules out individual maps for each parish. For small scale maps, the civil parishes could be used as an approximation and would capture the major deviations from the county boundary.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The tables do not meet WP:ACCESS requirements; specifically, they need colscopes and rowscopes. --PresN 18:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have changed the first table (Deanery of Bath) to include column & row scope - could you look at this to see if it is what you mean before I do the rest? - with a long list like this it is a significant edit.— Rod talk 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Almost, with rowspans you have to have a line break after the first column's cells. I've done this for you in that first table. --PresN 15:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice (and example). I've copied your lead with the next couple of deaneries and will work on doing these (along with coords) for the others over the next few days.— Rod talk 17:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

89th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2017 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I have followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 were written. Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

After so many FLs you guys still can't have intros that spell out the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have edited that and reconstructs the section. Looking forward for more suggestions. Nauriya (talk) 20:32, April 1, 2018 (UTC)
I think you guys can probably expand the highlights part of the infobox to mention the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, the lead section already detailed all of the Big Five and it would be repetitive to include in the infobox and they have never been included before. But its not about what previous FLCs have done it or not, the reason perhaps is that it will look overcrowded. I would like to take more comments on that, and if everybody supports this, will include. Nauriya (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Review by PresN

  • "In an event, unprecedented in the history of the Oscars, La La Land was incorrectly announced as the Best Picture but after a few minutes, the error was corrected and Moonlight was declared the winner." - the commas here are all over the place. Try "In an event unprecedented in the history of the Oscars, La La Land was incorrectly announced as the Best Picture, and a few minutes later the error was corrected and Moonlight was declared the winner."
Reviewed and  Done
  • "Following the win, Academy new rules barred" -> "Following the five-part documentary's win, new Academy rules barred"
Reviewed and  Done
  • I know it's been done for prior lists, but in the "Academy Honorary Awards" section, since the items are not full sentences they should not end in periods.
Reviewed and  Done
  • "They had to do the parachuting snack delivery thing three times?."" - double punctuation
Reviewed and  Done
  • A few instances of flipped quote-punctuation like '... Hollywood."' - the period only goes inside the quote if you're quoting a full sentence, otherwise it's '... Hollywood".'
Reviewed and  Done
  • The writing in the Critical reception and television ratings section, especially, is laborious- almost every single sentence is in the format "A from Outlet B said, "Full sentence quote that starts with a capital letter. Often multiple sentences." This really should be much shorter quotes and paraphrases, with less repetition in the sentence structure.
Reviewed and  Done
"Bewailed", "sniped", "graved", "perceived", "expressed"... the point was that the section used long quotes where paraphrases would do, and repetition sentence structure, not that it didn't have a wide enough range of verbs. Those problems are still there. Additionally, 'He also sniped saying, "Well one can't have everything."' adds nothing at all. --PresN 18:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I have tried to trimmed that was repetitive, but writing review for a particular newspaper/website - name of that outlet followed by its author has to be there and I am finding difficulty how to start it in a way that doesn't look repetitive. Nauriya (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC).
The name of the writer/outlet needs to be there, but that doesn't mean it needs to start every sentence, nor that they need to be directly quoted. For example:
"Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly complained that, "Kimmel (and/or the producers) didn't know when to stop and didn't know when to bail on stuff that wasn't working."[75] [...] Writing for The Oregonian's Kristi Turnquist lamented that, "his recurring visits got less entertaining as the evening dragged on." She felt that the recurring segments featuring actors waxing on about favorite films were "tedious and ill-advised."[77]" can be:
Critics complained about the repetition of jokes which did not land; Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly said that the show "didn't know when to stop and didn't know when to bail on stuff that wasn't working", and The Oregonian's Kristi Turnquist agreed and especially noted the repeated segments featuring actors discussing their favorite films at length to be "tedious and ill-advised".[75][77]
This is just an example, not a prescription, but it turns two sentences that basically say the same thing (with... a different complaint sandwiched in the middle) into one sentence that combines similar ideas and avoids repeating the same basic sentence format ("[critic/outlet] [verb], "Really long quote"). In fact, by shortening the amount of quoted material, it ends up being slightly shorter even with some new connecting phrases. Some playing with the sentence structure like that (combined with changing all the "perceived" stuff to just "said") will make it read a lot better. --PresN 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I really liked the way you suggested, and have kept it like that despite it wasn't a "prescription" but following this i have also changed the second half of the review as well. Nauriya talk 16:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • emdashes should not be spaced ("sensibility — the treacly"); use endashes or drop the spaces.
Have used endash, please check.
  • The references are forcing the colwidth to 20em; now that reflist automatically applies columns without being told, it's best to not specify colwidths unless you have a specific reason (it defaults to 30em); on my screen at least it makes the reflist a couple inches shorter and more readable
Reviewed and  Done
  • Not doing a source review right now, but skimming it I see some text errors ("the Guardian", ref 24), some uses of website url instead of website name as the work (, ref 25, instead of Los Angeles Times), and mixed use of date formats (yyyy-mm-dd and Month Day, Year and Day Month Year). You also stop linking works/publishers partway through and then pick it up again later.
 Done and reviewed all the references, unlinked newspaper/media outlets that were linked more than once and aligned the date formats, added thw missing authors.

--PresN 21:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Nauriya (talk) 6:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

List of Chancellors of Germany

Nominator(s): BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This has been a good and comprehensive list for a while. I have improved the lead and layout, made copyedits and added a number of references; now I believe it meets the criteria. BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Updated: I have made a change replacing each Chancellors's government coalition with their Vice Chancellors. Feel free to give feedback about which option is better. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments. I'm not familiar necessarily with Chancellors, but I've done a lot of work on U.S. governors so that informs some of how I see this:
    • Is having the date be smaller than the year a style used elsewhere?
    • Is the numbering of reichstags/elections official, or artificial based on just that "this was the 11th election" or what not? I would err away from putting a number there unless it's official (like how in the U.S. we refer to the "112th congress") I see that the Bundestags appear to be officially numbered, but are the Reichstags?
      • I'm not sure whether the numbering was contemporary or applied later by historians, but it is widely used. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair enough.
    • I don't understand why Cabinet has two columns in the Revolutionary Period table.
      • Changed to be more consistent with the other tables. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Should we get a translation of Ebert's position?
      • It's translated in the section lead (Chairman of the Council of the People's Deputies), highlighted it. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • What changed in 1919 that the position was renamed? from Reichsministerpräsident to Reichskanzler?
      • The Weimar Constitution formally (re)introduced the title Reichskanzler. Explained it in a footnote. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of the large inline notes about the person, rather than about the office, and the fact that they only appear after 1933. My feeling on these lists is they should be purely about: What is the office; how do you get into the office; who was in the office; and if it changed out-of-schedule, why. So I don't like Kiesinger's or Schröder's notes, it has nothing to do with any of those, and especially not Erhard's, but Scheel's makes sense because it's about a change in the office.
      • Removed these inline comments from the FRG table, and put Scheel's into a footnote. Edited the ones from the Nazi period to focus more on the office rather than general historical context. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Getting rid of the less relevant notes, and moving the necessary ones to footnotes, would also allow those tables to be sortable.
      • Done for FRG. The Nazi table is too small to benefit from sorting, I feel. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • That's fair; it's not like there was much to that period other than Hitler for 12 years, and then three weeks post-Hitler.
    • Some note about the period between 1945 and 1949 needs to be included - no mention of the fact that the office appears to not have existed for four years is made.
      • Addressed it in article lead. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks!
    • Why is the first election under Kohl "9 (....)" instead of, "9 (1980)"? Same for the others. I understand if you're saying it's the same, but why not just ... put the same? You're keeping the number, why not the year? (Getting rid of the notes and rowspanning the elections could help with this)
      • Fixed. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Now to some less important things that are probably peeves to me alone, and won't be counted against you:
      • I don't like the lifespan. It's extraneous info.
        • I don't have a strong opinion on that. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Instead of having 5 rows for Kohl's time in office, for example, you only need one. Put small dates in the cabinet cells, maybe? I dunno. Parliamentary systems are arcane to my American sensibilities.
        • I believe the reason is that the Chancellor is newly elected and sworn in for each term. Can be shifted to the cabinet cells if there's enough space. 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Nah, that explanation makes sense. Again, I'm generally unfamiliar with parliamentary systems.
      • Short vacancies in the Vice Chancellor office could probably be noted; for example, between von Bethmann-Hollweg and von Delbruck.
        • I don't think it's noteworthy if it's just a few days. In that particular case for example it wasn't intentionally left vacant, it just took a week for Bethman-Hollweg to succeed as Chancellor and form his own cabinet. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Fair enough.
  • --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Addressed some of your concerns. I'll deal with the rest later, specifically the ones about the Federal Republic table. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Golbez: Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them all. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support; I was going to say "i'm not a fan of the duration column" but then remembered - oh right, parliamentary. German elections aren't exactly on the strict four-year schedule we have in the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 2nd and 3rd table have cabinet and vice exchanged
    • I don't understand what you mean. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • nvm I got confused
  • intro does not mention GDR
    • It's not immediately relevant to the office of Chancellor, so I'd rather keep the lead from getting unnecessarily long. It's mentioned in the FRG section relevant to the time period. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think at the end there should be a stats table, with something like longest-serving
  • why start with Reichstag 13?
    • Good point, it doesn't fit. Took it out. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • You don't have to take it out. I would have preferred to have 1-12 plugged in (since they apparently did exist)
        • I did consider adding them, but I felt that it may unnecessarily clutter the table. The Chancellor wasn't responsible to parliament during that period so it's not immediately relevant to the office. BegbertBiggs (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Nergaal. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Nazi section is a bit weird. It lacks a note for the - when the Reichstag was suspended, and the two subnotes can probably used as a footnote to the table instead of being the only two rows in the entire list with a note added right there.
  • I might be wrong, but I think each section can/should have a short sentence explaining what changed from the previous section (i.e. constitution of X came into effect establishing Y). Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I had that in but I removed it again because I felt like it didn't fit. @Nergaal: See this version, if preferred I can add them back. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I think having a sentence saying why the government scheme change would be appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Brought back the brief paragraphs of historical context (in slightly modified form). BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I just realized that both List of Chancellors of Germany by time in office and List of Chancellors of the Federal Republic of Germany by time in office are likely wp:cforks of this list. There is no obvious reason why they would need to be in separate places as they add nothing other than being sortable. Nergaal (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: As someone who knows german politics very well, i can say that the list is complete and gives all the right information. The lead gives an great instruction to the topic and the following tables look good. They have a good width are not to packed with informations. Great work!--Lirim.Z (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • Haven't reviewed this in detail, but I did notice that the See also section came after the references. Normally it would appear before the refs, so you might want to consider moving it.
  • Also, the publishers of refs 15 and 16 are print publications, so the publishers should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "the longest-serving Chancellor to this date". "to this date" means nothing without knowing the date. I would delete - if Merkel hangs on long enough to overtake him it can easily be changed.
    • Took out the sentence because I agree it's not all that relevant.
  • "Under the 1919 Weimar Constitution the Chancellors were to be appointed by the President" Why "were to be? I suggest "Under the 1919 Weimar Constitution Chancellors were appointed by the directly elected President" (adding that the president is directly ellected).
    • Good point, changed.
  • A paragraph briefly summarizing the the powers of the Chancellor in different periods would be useful to the reader.
    • The lead is already a bit full, some more detail in the short paragraphs of each section may be possible. I'll look into it later again, if I remember.
  • You could move the last paragraph of the lead to a note as it is not of general interest, unlike the powers of the chancellor. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This extra paragraph might make room for moving up the Germany template, which is very inconveniently placed so that it is not possible to see the whole timeline.
    • Yeah, the template placement is awkward. I had it there because it didn't cause problems for me, but of course that's different on smaller screens. At the top of the page it would mess with the first section's table, so I have decided to move it to the See also section.
  • A good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of Scottish football

Nominator(s): ShugSty (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, with the assistance of several editors, it is now a concise and informative list of notable events in the history of Scottish football, and is fully and appropriately referenced. ShugSty (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


The most obvious thing that jumps out at me is that the list is in reverse chronological order. There is no way that a "timeline" should have the earliest events at the end. You wouldn't expect to see a timeline of the history of the universe which ended with the Big Bang........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep - that seems reasonable. Done! ShugSty (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
"This is a timeline of Scottish football which contains notable football-related events that have occurred both on and off the field from the mid 1800s up to the present time." - sentences like this in list leads have been deprecated for many years, remove it and bulk up the rest of the lead a bit. Also, there's not a single image in the article - surely there are some relevant ones that could be added....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Still waiting for the first part of the above to be addressed.
I've now made a start on this, with a bit of spiel about the football clubs. I'm a bit unsure about how best to progress as I can't find a similar article for pointers (or to rip off :) ). I'll continue to do as best as I can over then next few days though. (ShugSty 16/3/18)
I've now come up with some paragraphs for the lead ShugSty (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've also noticed that, while almost all the entries are written in the present tense, there are a handful such as "Motherwell captain Phil O'Donnell, 35, collapsed on the pitch" which are not - make sure all are consistent..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I've had a look through and made some amendments; hopefully I've now corrected all such instances of this. (ShugSty 16/3/18)
"The crowd of 122,714 that watched Rangers win over Celtic in the 1973 Scottish Cup Final is the last six-figure attendance at any match in Britain" - this is not true, the official attendance figure for the FA Cup final was 100,000 right up to 1985 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Having re-read the the source, it does actually says "100,000 +", so I'll rephrase accordingly. Thanks. ShugSty (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


  • A few questions:
    • 1907: "Celtic become the first Scottish club" to win the double. Had a non-Scottish club done it before then? If not, then do you need to specify "Scottish"? - Preston and Aston Villa both did the English "double" in the 1890s (ShugSty 9/3/18)
      • Okay, but this is a list of Scottish history, and it's referring to the Scottish double. No where else in the article is it specified anything in Scottish, I just don't think it's needed here. Nitpicky but that's what FL is for. :)
        • Yep, kind of see your point. Still felt there was a need to highlight it as a "Scottish" double, as opposed to the first ever anywhere, so I've rephrased to: "Celtic win both the league title and the Scottish Cup in the same season, becoming the first club to win the the double in Scotland" (ShugSty 10/3/18 - slightly tweaked from my first amendment the previous day)
    • Above also applies to 1947. Clubs in Northern Ireland and Egypt (!) appear to have done their domestic "treble" earlier. However, by you querying this, I came across an error - it was actually 1949 Rangers did the first treble, so I've now corrected the list to reflect this. (ShugSty 9/3/18)
    • 1931: Thomson's death. Yes, it's obviously relevant, but is that because it's the first death on the pitch? The only? Are there others? If there are, are they mentioned? If they aren't, why not? I feel like even the barest of explanation as to why that entry is there would help. This would help with the 2007 entry as well; are these the only two deaths to ever occur on the Scottish pitch? Can't say for certain if they're the only deaths in Scottish game, but they're certainly by far the most high profile (ShugSty 9/3/18)
    • 1978: What's particularly notable about the coaches switching teams? See also 1986's entry on Ferguson (the entry on Souness explains the relevance) Added info to all three entries (1978 x 2, 1986 x 1) to clarify (ShugSty 14/3/18)
    • This is an issue in 1989 (Johnston) Added info to clarify (ShugSty 9/3/18)
    • This is an issue in 1991 (Souness-Smith) Added info to clarify (ShugSty 14/3/18)
    • Otherwise, I see no major issues. --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I think I've addressed all the points you raised now. ShugSty (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry, never came back: Support. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


  • For a football list, it does absolutely not mention non-association football anywhere. Nergaal (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Why would it? There is only one sport that is referred to in the UK as "football", and that is the sport which the list covers...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


  • Apologies for forgetting to check back here. It's nearly there now, but I've found a few minor points:
    • The purple team from Edinburgh is inconsistently referred to as "Heart of Midlothian" and "Hearts". I would prefer that the former is used throughout
    • I found at least two events described completely in the past tense whereas everything else is in the present. There's also some (e.g. 1960, 1973, 1980) which mix the two
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I've changed all the references from "Hearts" to "Heart of Midlothian". Also had a re-run through, and (hopefully) now changed all the remaining past tense phrases to present tense. ShugSty (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 1883: The British Home Championship (also known as the Home International Championship) becomes an annual competition contested between the UK's four national teams, Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland.[32] The current ref does not say the tournament was established in 1883. First games were played in 1884. 1977 is the last time SCO won BHC. Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    The first BHC games were played in the 1883/84 season. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    Is there any actual source showing that there IS a 1883/84 season for BHC and not just a 1884 one? Just because modern tournaments are centered around winter, doesn't mean that 100 years ago, when even things like referees were being standardized, that was still the case. Nergaal (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    Given that the first game of the competition took place in January 1884, it's pretty obvious that the setting up of the championship would have taken place during 1883 (probably after a dozen or so meetings, committees, eyc). However none of the sources make any mention of that. I've now rejigged slightly, to tie in with the info that is provided in the sources. ShugSty (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I made a couple of minor tweaks but that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Review by PresN

Giving this some attention. As an aside, like TRM noted above, the use of bold comments instead of plain text+signatures, along with the floating horizontal lines instead of headings or regular indents makes this nomination really hard to read.

  • "progressed further with the setting up of the Scottish Football League" - that is an awkward phrasing to my ears, consider "progressed further with the founding of the Scottish Football League" Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Other clubs have enjoyed brief periods of success; Heart of Midlothian" - should be a colon, since what follows is an expansion on what "other clubs" meant, not just a related clause Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "for over the next 50 years the national side" - awkward; since you already started the sentence with "following", you can just say "for over 50 years the national side" Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "due to inferior goal difference" - link goal difference Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "and longest established club Queen's Park are formed" - the convention of clubs/nations being plural nouns keeps throwing me off, but in this case the subject of the sentence is "club", not "Queen's Park", so it should be "is formed" Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Real win 7–3 in one of the best known of European finals" - known, not know of Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "and regarded by many as one of the greatest matches of all time" - "by many" is a peacock phrase It's not perhaps the best phrase. To more closely match the source(s), I've rephrased slightly. However, if that's not acceptable I'm happy to take it out. ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Brechin also equalled the Scottish record" - past tense Changed to "equal" ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not doing a source review at this time, but you've got a "The Glasgiw Herald" in there, some unformatted ISBNs, and ref 19 is a self-published book. Also, "A Sporting Nation - BBC" is a combination of a work and published, and should be two fields (and you link it to BBC Sport the 3rd time it comes up, for some reason)
    • "Glasgiw" Sorted ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Ref 19 - Although a self-published book, the author worked for years as Head of Communications/Media for the SFA and is currently working for UEFA as a media officer. ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Unformatted ISBNs - Sorry, I don't understand. Can you clarify? Ok, now all fixed ShugSty (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • A Sporting Nation - Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The choices of what to include in this list seem pretty arbitrary at times- you have the first time each team wins a cup, sure, but then various other times a team won without explanation for why that one mattered as opposed to all the times you don't mention a winner (e.g. you call out the 1904 Scottish Cup, but not the 1905- I guess because of the hat trick?)
    • Arbitrayness - Yeah, I suppose you've got a point, but a "timeline" list is always going to be somewhat subjective ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Cup wins - Yes, it's the hat trick ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You also call out world/non-world record attendances/records... but it's not clear if those records still stand or not in all cases; maybe the non-world attendance ones do? Where a record has since been superseded, I've added a comment about it being a record "at the time", where I haven't put any such comment then the record still stands. ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In 1995 you call out Meadowbank Thistle moving/being renamed, which makes sense... but you didn't mention in 1974 that they had been founded- why do they suddenly become important enough to mention only after 21 years and a name change? Given that you don't call out pretty much any club founding, it feels like they get a mention only because otherwise 1995 would be empty. Whilst common in US sports (and maybe elsewhere) for clubs/ teams to up sticks and move to a different city/town, it is very unusual in British football. MK Dons in England are the only other example I can think of. ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not watchlisting, please ping. --PresN 18:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, my only remaining concern is the inclusion criteria arbitrariness/not, but as sports lists aren't my area I'm going to take that one on faith a bit, as I see other sports editors above without concerns. Support. --PresN 17:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment sorry to blow a hole here, but the lead is huge, five paras, and in contravention of WP:LEAD. We should have a couple of paras in the lead, and then probably a "History" section to encompass all the detail. No content really needs to change, just the structure. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review – I won't call these comments holes, but there are potholes that need fixing before this becomes an FL.

  • Ref 19 (Andy Mitchell) book is by CreateSpace, a self-publishing company. What makes this a reliable source? It seems like the two facts this supports should be supportable by better references than this anyway. Even if it was reliable (which I doubt), it would need page numbers. New sources used ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes European Cup History (refs 70, 82, and 88) reliable? Seriously??? ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm seriously asking the question. Is there some established company that publishes the site? Does it have authors who are published elsewhere? I didn't find any such evidence that would prove reliability when I looked at the page, but I'm not as familiar with soccer/football sites and might have missed something. Also, current ref 79 is to this site as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It's a fair question. It looks like a self-published website with no guide to its veracity or any kind of editorial control. Has it been used or referenced from other actual WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 67 is to Knoji, a community-sourced site. I highly doubt this one could be considered reliable for much. Source replaced ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Minor formatting comment, but IFAB in ref 14 should probably be spelled out. I assume it's short for International Football Association Board, but don't know for sure. Done ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The all caps in "TEN" in the title of ref 84 should be taken out. Done ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The publisher of ref 124 should also be more fully spelled out. It appears to be Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC? Done ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 137 could use a page number for the book. I'd tell you what it is, but Google Books unfortunately isn't offering me a free preview of this one. Google link works fine for me - maybe try a different browser ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It's probably from you being in the U.K. Sometimes Google Books will have different previews for people in different zones. This means that I can have access to a preview in the U.S. that you can't see and vice versa. That's likely what is happening here. All the more reason to provide page numbers for verifiability. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Spot-checks of refs 94, 101, 103, 114, and 155 show two issues. First, ref 101 and the article both use the phrase "unprecedented success". Since the article doesn't put that in quotation marks, I'm uncomfortable with it. Second, ref 103 doesn't say that the 1982 U18 win was Scotland's only major international title. It supports the claim that it was their first title in European competition, but nothing further than that.
    • link 101 (now 102) - "uncomfortable", but it's not a controversial/ contentious point nor particularly "peacocky" ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm concerned because the wording is seemingly copied from the source. I'd expect to see quotation marks in such a case. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • 1982 U18 win - added another source to confirm it as being Scotland's only major title ShugSty (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • On the positive side, no links show up as dead on the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

List of titular churches

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of the titular churches assigned to Roman Catholic cardinals, past and present. I have attempted to incorporate advice from my previous nomination (List of living cardinals) into this one to improve it greatly, now meeting the FLC criteria. While there are several redlinks in the article, all of them have been duly interlanguage-linked to the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article. Comments and suggestions welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as a non-involved reader I do not understand what is the list supposed to cover, since the current introduction does a terrible job of explaining. It is full of jargon not easily understandable to a non-expert, and as such does not pass wp:FL?. It is possible that this is a case of wp:fork since it is unclear to me how much of the subject can be understood outside of reading the entire titular church article. Nergaal (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nergaal: In the mutual interest of bringing this article up to FL status, what exactly are the main sections or parts that you would like elaborated in this article? Perhaps we may come to a consensus about how best to improve it, an outcome that does not sound too technical nor too repetitive of other articles. If I was a bit rash above, I apologise. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I have repeatedly tried to point out where the list falls short on the jargon aspect, and I tried to rewrite the intro from a 3rd-person perspective. Feel free to rewrite what I left behind into a form that is both technically accurate and digestible to a non-expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nergaal: I have now incorporated some improvements and clarifications into the article; hopefully you can find it more palatable. Further comments and suggestions welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Nergaal, has Ravenpuff satisfied your comments? Ravenpuff, I think it's a real shame that you haven't incorporated images of each of these churches in the article, seems like that would greatly enrich the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: That could be something that I could add, though I'm not sure by how much it would inflate an already expansive table. There's already a Commons link at the bottom of the page. Also, I'm fairly sure that some churches don't have pictures existing on Wikimedia, especially the demolished suppressed ones. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Meh, the introduction is far more readable to a non-expert right now than it was before. Still feels a bit clunky to read (probably because it's written as a ESL writer), but it is probably passable. I don't have any strong pro or against opinion for this FLC. I personally prefer some kind of stats and/or map, but that is outside of FL? requirements. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nergaal: There is a box to the right in the "Key to locations" section that can launch an interactive map to view or that can allow one to download the coordinates in the article. As for statistics, there is a paragraph in the lead on the current numbers. Are there any other statistics that you feel would be suitable for inclusion here? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Map is nice, but shows how difficult would be to get a meaningful pic of the map. Side-question: why are oldest titles only from 1983? Is there something preventing getting a title before an age? And why is Santa Maria in Cosmedin still vacant? Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"The patriarchates of Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinals are considered to be their titles" is unclear. How do they get to be cardinals, and the other 5 aren't? Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nergaal: To be honest, many Roman churches are titular churches anyway; there are probably too many of them to properly display on a static map of the city. 1. I presume that you're looking at the "Since" column for the 1983 figure; the column shows when the cardinal was appointed to that title (the "Established" column shows when the title was first used as a titular church). Since there are no living cardinal priests who were created cardinals before then, the column only shows dates from 1983. 2. I have no idea of why Santa Maria in Cosmedin is still vacant. It is still officially listed as a titular church, though. 3. Eastern patriarchs are created cardinals in the same process as any other bishop or archbishop: the Pope decides. Currently, only three patriarchs of two patriarchates enjoy the privileges of a cardinal. If/when others are created cardinals, they will be added to the table like any other cardinal. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I think 3) needs some kind of explanation in the list - unless I am missing it. Nergaal (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nergaal: The phrase in question is now reworded to make it clearer. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If some other reviewer is fine with the potential forking issue, and with the copyediting in the list, I would be fine supporting this - looks quite a lot better than a the start. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments, Nice list, but there are a few aspects that are not used in featured lists. For example " this list includes 230 titular churches," should be "there are 230 titular churches", and "The status of certain churches as basilicas are also indicated." is confusing, and I'm not sure what it means, and if it refers to information in the list it should be as a note or in the table itself. Also the Key to Locations section should be incorporated into the list or legend itself, instead of an explanatory section prior to the list itself. A good table does not require the reader to constantly refer to a previous section explaining the table. Is there a way to incorporate this information into the list itself? Either by making the abbreviations more clear or by adding a note instead? Mattximus (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: 1. Fixed "This list includes…" as suggested. 2. The statement on basilicas refers to the fact that certain entries in the table have "(basilica)" next to them; should it be replaced with something else to indicate this? 3. The "Key to locations" section is effectively a legend; it forms its own section because the list itself is split over multiple sections ("Suburbicarian dioceses" to "Suppressed deaconries"), to all of which the key applies. Adding {{Abbr}} tooltips to the tables could help, I suppose. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
That's better, and I can think of how to better incorporate the text of the "key" section into the list itself. Even though a lot of work has been put into this article, it still has more to go for an outsider. For example, what is "suppressed" mean? Is there a wikilink or a definition? Maybe some sections could use a one sentence description of what the table contains? There are also other instances of "in this table", "This section shows" which are all tautological and have been out of fashion for all featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: I have added a brief explanation of suppression in the lead and have removed tautologies as suggested. The descriptions of each table are also probably generally self-evident and don't require further explanation for clarification. How would you go about incorporating the key into the list sections, seamlessly? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This nomination appears to have stalled out, after 3 months with no supports, and unless there's some movement soon will be closed. @Mattximus: Have you seen Ravenpuff's question above? @Jmnbqb: you closed your comments some time back; are you willing to support? --PresN 17:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The list itself is technically sound. It just seems to use jargon from an ESL perspective, so if anybody is willing to copyedit that aspect it should be a fine FL. Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not willing to support as this time. Jmnbqb (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support important topic that you have covered adequately and have resolved my concerns about verifiability and scope. Having looked over this again this morning, I'm prepared to support. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Thanks for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • " Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinal bishops are not assigned titles of suburbicarian dioceses." You should say whether Eastern Catholic priests can be second and third order cardinals and whether they are appointed to titular churches.
  • "On occasion, a titular church may be held in commendam ("in trust") to a cardinal who has been transferred to a different one." This is not referenced and not covered in the linked article in commendam.
  • " and the seven suburbicarian dioceses, as well as the three Eastern Catholic patriarch cardinals" I would delete as ungrammatical and repeating what is said above, apart from the numbers, which could be added to the text above.
  • " All locations in this article are situated in the Italian region of Lazio; those outside the city of Rome incorporate abbreviations in the second table." You say in the lead that they are all in Rome.
  • The sub-divisions are confusing. Do they refer to how close the church is to the centre of Rome? If so, you need to explain. What does "incorporate abbreviations in the second table" mean? in the fourth table on Suburbicarian dioceses?
  • Some abbreviations such as M. XV and XV are not explained.
  • This could be a good FL, but it is still some way off, especially on the locations. I would suggest deleting all references to subdivisions unless you can make them clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: The subdivisions were added in response to an FLC comment above, that I should provide localities/coords for the entries in the article. I thus decided to include, for locations within the city of Rome (the municipality), the general name for the neighbourhood and its type of subdivision ("R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z.") and also the municipio ("M.") in which it is located, which spans all of those. They have been briefly outlined in the Key to locations section, the links in which users can use to find out more about the administrative system of Rome. In this article, however, they are only used for the purpose of locations.
  • The localities and coords are helpful, but the abbreviations for sub-division type and technical details such as the difference between Rome and Metropolitan City of Rome Capital are irrelevant to this article and mean nothing to English speaking readers. They are merely confusing and should be deleted. If you wish to add additional information, a separate column for the municipio together with the map in Administrative subdivision of Rome would be useful to visitors to Rome. However, this is only a suggestion as it would be a lot of work and is mostly covered in 'Map all coordinates'. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I think that some sort of differentiation is required to show that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are located outside of Rome; this could be done in the prose, while doing away with the "RM"/"RI" in the locations. Furthermore, the subdivision type can convey some information about its location within the city: "R." locations are in the city centre, followed by "Q." locations, etc. We could clarify this in the Key section above. An added benefit is that this identifies the locations as being situated in Rome. What do you think? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. I've included the phrase "Other Eastern Catholic cardinals are assigned titular churches, as standard." to clarify in this regard.
  2. Reference included.
  3. I've removed the phrase on patriarchates (something I forgot to remove earlier). The numbers seem to fit in with the statistics of that paragraph.
  4. In the second paragraph: "…suburbicarian diocese, in the vicinity of Rome". Some of the suburbicarians are located just outside the city boundaries but still within the same Italian region.
  5. As above, they are merely reflective of the local Roman administrative system that is used to locate churches. The suburbicarian dioceses table uses the abbreviations in the second table to indicate that they are outside of the city of Rome (see 4.). I suppose that I could explain the system used above, although such information would be merely supplementary in regards to the actual content of the article at hand.
  6. As above, these refer to a form of Roman administrative subdivision, explained and linked to in the Key to locations section, which are numbered using Roman numerals (I to XV).
Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office

Notified: Arctic.Gnome, WP:Canada

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

  • This nomination has received no attention at all, so I suggest it's closed as stale, some seven weeks later. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. The referencing is very poor. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA