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

Toolbox
  • 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:

Contents

Nominations

List of international rugby union tries by Brian O'Driscoll

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Following hot on the heels of Bryan Habana's list, this is all about BOD, no, sorry, BO'D. Legend of Irish and Lions rugby, basically a try machine and hopefully this list is worthy of his achievements. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The last paragraph states that he has scored two hat-tricks, against France and Scotland, but in the table there is also a hat-trick listed against Japan in 2000 (tries 7, 8 and 9)? The source for the Japan match only credits him with two tries however.
    Kosack great spot, and I omitted his try against France in 2001 as a result, so that's now fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In the key, should the * symbol have the try after denotes? Seems to be inconsistent with the other key items denotes that the match, denotes the try etc. Kosack (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Republic of Ireland national football team hat-tricks

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have brought the page up to the same standard as the recently promoted Welsh hat-tricks list to meet the FL criteria. Kosack (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

List of titular churches in Rome

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)

List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland

Nominator(s): BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because two editors have encouraged me to do so[1][2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I'll cap my comments but I would like to see other editors comments first, mainly TRM's. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The sections "Current ministers" and "Living former ministers" are both only one line and only contain a summary of the "Name" and "Left office" columns. This successfully establishes the relevance of including that information in the list, but that summary is the purpose the WP:LEAD. It is my view, that those sections should be merged into the lead. maclean (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Show-Me Basketball

Nominator(s): Jmnbqb (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I went out on a limb and tried something new with this list. There's other similar Mr. Basketball lists, but I expanded this one to include more substantive notes and information than the others. Jmnbqb (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Theory of a Deadman discography

Nominator(s): Miss Sarita Talk to me 01:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this discography that I completely revised, expanded, and neatened up. It's an extensive discography, spanning over 15 years of the band's career, and is heavily referenced and organized. I am hoping it meets FL criteria and if not, I am more than willing to put in the time and work in order to meet FL requirements per reviewer suggestions. Not positive if a peer review is required prior to FL nomination. If it is, my apologies; I will delete this nomination and submit it for peer review. Thank you in advance! Miss Sarita Talk to me 01:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment the most obvious thing that jumps out at me is.....where are the 14 promotional singles? If they are going to be mentioned in the lead and included in the infobox then they should actually appear in the list somewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that! I removed the "Promotional singles" section because we were unable to find a reliable ref and apparently, I forgot to remove all other mention of it (I was clearly overexcited about nominating the article). I have edited the lead and the infobox to omit any references to the deleted section. Miss Sarita Talk to me 21:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This looks very promising. Couple questions/points:
    • "...and twenty-four music videos." Is a lyric video considered independent of traditional videos?
      • I feel like a lyric video should be considered independent of traditional videos, but that is only my opinion. All five lyric videos were released via the band's official YouTube account and three of them ("Lowlife", "Bitch Came Back", and "Hurricane") were supplemental to the official traditional music videos. Please give me your thoughts on this. The count of twenty-four is only of the traditional videos. Should I add the five lyric videos to this count? I don't mind either way. — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not an expert on discographies, but having just quickly scanned the discography article, I offer this suggestion: considering discographies are the "study and cataloging of published sound recordings", perhaps the videos part of the intro sentence should be re-framed in terms of the sound recordings—like "...thirty-five singles of which twenty-four have been made into music videos" (should solve the problem of multiple videos being released for single songs.) maclean (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Agreed. Done. — Miss Sarita 11:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Provide a summary sentence or two about the non-North America peak chart positions.
      • Done. I've added one sentence to the last paragraph in the lead. Do you think this is enough? — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Same with Sales, are you able to say in the intro what their best-selling album has been?
      • It's hard for me to say which is considered the "best-selling" as I was unable to find any sales data for most of the albums. Do you think the "Sales" column in the table should be removed? — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I think album sales is just as good a measure of a album as its popularity (e.g. charts) or reception (e.g. awards/ratings) but sales data is only available via Nielsen SoundScan which isn't publicly available so its reporting is sporadic. Certification (i.e. units shipped) should be a good proxy though. So...meh...I don't mind if it is included or removed but if it is going to be included it should be also matched with a summary establishing its relevance in the intro. maclean (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Done. I removed the "Sales" column. I think that certifications and chart rankings together can delineate what would be considered their best-selling/most popular album. I'm obsessed with consistency anyway, so two albums having sales numbers while the other four don't drove me a little crazy. — Miss Sarita 11:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure it is wrong, but the terms and wikilinks in "Hallelujah" (Leonard Cohen cover) don't look right. Isn't this a Theory of a Deadman cover of Hallelujah, not a Leonard Cohen cover? maclean (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's a cover of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". I agree that it should be changed. How should it be worded/linked? Do we even mention the original music artist or should the wikilink of the song title suffice? I will apply any changes to "Shape of My Heart" and "Cold Water" as well. — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Done. I removed the prose and links from the cover songs. I don't know what I was originally thinking. — Miss Sarita 11:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Maclean25: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I have only made one change to the page, but just wanted to receive feedback from you regarding my responses (seen above). Please let me know. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Maclean25: Hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if you feel further changes need to be made. Thank you for your feedback! — Miss Sarita 11:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. I think the cover songs should include a qualifier, something like "(cover version)" beside it, maybe linked to Cover version...or even "(cover)". Where do I find the reference for those non-album singles? maclean (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Maclean25: Honestly, I looked at a couple of Featured List discographies that had cover songs listed (Christina Aguilera for the song "Lady Marmalade" and Thirty Seconds to Mars for "Stay") and they were both simply linked to the original song with no additional qualifiers. I have done the same with the TOAD discography, but I am more than happy to add something else in if you feel the need to do so. Let me know and thank you for your time on this. — Miss Sarita 18:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

List of accolades received by My Name Is Khan

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2010 Indian Hindi drama film, My Name Is Khan starring Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my thirteenth attempt at an accolades FLC, and my second for a Bollywood awards list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

  • Comment - "Rizwan Khan (Khan), a NRI suffering from Asperger syndrome who is married to a single mother, Mandira" - if she's married, then by definition she isn't single............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
If so, ChrisTheDude, then how do I rephrase the sentence? How do I say that he has married a woman who has a son from her previous marriage/relationship?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I would pretty much just say what you have put above: "Rizwan Khan (Khan), a NRI suffering from Asperger syndrome whose wife, Mandira, has a child from a previous relationship"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. As suggested, ChrisTheDude.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kailash

  • Sameer dies as a result of a racist attack by school bullies - It happens in the US, right? Perhaps you may want to link to Racism in the United States.
  • Rizwan takes her literally - Not like she was saying an idiom, was she? Or maybe an adynaton? Either way, you may want to replace "literally" with "seriously".

Just these two. I hope there is someone who has enough time to conduct a source review. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Kailash29792, I have resolved the first but I believe "literally" would be more appropriate as she does tell him to tell the president that his name is Rizwan Khan and he's not a terrorist and questions him if he can do it. Although she said that out of grief for her son's death, Rizwan takes her words literally as it is and tries to implement it by meeting the president.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Not on the basis of COI, but because I find this good enough for FL. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Vedant

I'll take a look later today. VedantTalk 04:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  • "a NRI suffering" - maybe you could spell out non-resident Indian as it'll be self-explanatory and the reader would not have to go to a separate page.
  • The latter half of the first paragraph is a little monotonous with the overuse of was/were sentences. Maybe you could mix it up.
  • Shouldn't the article use INRConvert?
  • "went on to win for including" - four?
  • "with Johar alone winning for Best Director (Bachchan)." - the "alone" isn't required.

The rest looks good. VedantTalk 16:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Numerounovedant, I have hopefully resolved all your comments. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I can support this for promotion. Fine work Ssven2. VedantTalk 15:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Numerounovedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to me. Most things I can think of are covered above. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 02:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

London station group

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

After the behemoth that was Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations, it was time for another "mega-project" and this time it's London termini. As it's another good topic, we're going to need another featured list to tie everything together, and that's why this is here. London is full of terminal stations, and there are more of them than you might realise. Some are big, like Waterloo, some are not-quite-so-big like Marylebone, and some like Old Street just invite people to scream "what is this doing on this list?" Still, there's a well-defined set with a finite amount of entries, so it makes sense to create an appropriate list around it, add some general history of London terminal stations as a whole, and see if it meets the FL criteria. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mattximus

Comments Just a few quick ones:
  • Why is the list repeated twice? Once in group members and repeated again in the table? I think only once is sufficient.
    It was like that when I first got to the article, so I've got no strong opinions, except the list includes the four former entries while the table doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Well I would remove the repeated ones, and keep the former stations under it's current heading. No need to list all stations twice right beside each other. Mattximus (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Some notes begin with capitals, others do not. Need to be consistent.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • What do the categories mean? Should there be a note beside it saying what A means, what C means? Or am I missing this somewhere?
    Categories are defined in United Kingdom railway station categories (and the individual entries should be verifiable in the "stations made easy" National Rail Enquiries pages, unless I've screwed things up) - there is a link to the article in the column header, but it might not be obvious. We could summarise that in a footnote if it would help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    To quote the 2009 doc "Better Rail Stations", part A, section 2.1 "The stations were classified into six categories (A – F) at rail privatisation in 1996 on the basis of passenger footfall and annual income." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep a note to that effect would be advisable. Even with specifics as to what the six categories actually mean. Otherwise it's quite mysterious.

Mattximus (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Okay, I've merged the sections, fleshing out the former terminals to give them a list too, and dropped the footnote in - hopefully that should sort things out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: I've addressed the above issues - have your concerns been resolved? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from DavidCane

Comments first few from DavidCane:
  • Background section:
    • A link to Royal Commission would be useful here to indicate what the Commissioners of Railway Termini were.
It strikes me that in the long-term, we could probably write an article about the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Railway Termini, which is its proper name as documented in sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • A mention of Charles Pearson's proposal for an Central Railway Terminus might also be worth including as that was one of the reasons for the Royal Commission. This might go in a note.
I've dropped it in to the main body - as Pearson was a key player in improving public transport in London, he should at least go there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Suggest some rephrasing for the following:
      • "The effective path of the London Inner Ring Road (except running closer to the Thames between Borough High Street and Vauxhall Bridge) was chosen as a central area through which no trains north of the Thames were allowed to enter..." This reads as if the London Inner Ring Road was a thing in the 1840s when the Commission made its decision. As a designation it dates from proposals in the County of London Plan from the 1940s. The actual area of the Commission's ban was bounded by London Bridge, Borough High Street, Blackman Street, Borough Street, Lambeth Road, Vauxhall Road, Vauxhall Bridge, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Place, Park Lane, Edgware Road, New Road, City Road, Finsbury Square, and Bishopsgate (a citation for this can be found in "Metropolitan Railway Termini". The Times (19277). 1 July 1846. p. 6. - there is a linked source for this in ref 7 of Metropolitan Railway.)
I've reworded this, and used a source that just summarises the "highlights" of the Royal Commission's recommendations after discussion with Pearson, so that should sort all that out. If you think the full list should be used, then we can look at that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
      • "...no trains north of the Thames were allowed to enter...". This suggests that no construction north of the Thames was allowed within this area, though Cannon Street and Charing Cross are both north and within the area proposed by the Commission's recommendation (Victoria is just outside).
See above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "The only main railway line built across Central London was the London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR) line connecting Blackfriars to Farringdon..." You could add a note mentioning that the North Western and Charing Cross Railway was also approved in 1864 as a tunnelled line between Euston, St Pancras and Charing Cross stations, though it was never built.
I personally think this is a little too off-topic, plus isn't this just a scheme later revived by Charles Tyson Yerkes and is now what we call the Northern line? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't see why not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "By this time, around 776 acres (314 ha) of land in Central London was owned by railway companies, more than the Corporation of London." I think the area of land used might be more easily understood if expressed in square miles and square kilometres rather than hectares, for example "around 776 acres (1.22 square miles, 3.14 square kilometres)". Do we know what is the definition of "Central London" used by Ball and Sutherland? Do we know what the area of that is? It might be useful to say what the railway land was as a fraction or percentage of the total.
I'm ambivalent about what gets converted from what to what, does the {{convert}} template support it, though? Ball and Sunderland says, verbatim, "In 1900, 776 acres of central land was owned by railway in London - so that they ruled over more metropolitan land than the Corporation of London". I've got another source that supplies the percentage, it's not a great source but it should be sufficient for verifying numbers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "The Circle Line was first planned in 1846 and built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries..." The "Inner Circle" was completed on 6 October 1884, so the early 20th century is not applicable here.
Given we've already talked about the Circle Line in the previous paragraph, I don't think this amount of detail is necessary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "As an alternative to the tube, buses have connected the various terminals and inter-termini links became briefly popular in the 1920s and 1930s". What are "inter-termini links"? Are they buses?
Yes - the source goes into more depth - I've popped in some more details Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
DavidCane (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@DavidCane: I've addressed the above issues - have your concerns been resolved? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

Comments from Epicgenius:

  • I'm from New York, so I can't pretend to know what's going on here. However, I was wondering if a map could be added to this article. It would be really helpful to have a location map on this list for foreigners like me. (Just to clarify, this is optional, but can be made really quickly using the coordinates already in the article.)
I must have missed something, because I can't figure a way of doing that without copy and pasting all the co-ordinates into the template, instead of having them in-place so the OSM / KML links work. Or is that the "really quickly" option? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is what I meant. That's a really simple option, though the template documentation provides for more options. epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So from what I am reading, you can buy a London Terminals ticket to go from any station in the suburbs to a station in the London station group, provided that there's a direct route from the suburban station to the London "terminal" station. Is that correct? I think you can change the lead to say that.
    Not just the suburbs, from anywhere around the country, plus you can apparently do slightly bonkers things like get a train from Chelmsford to "London Terminals", get off at Stratford, potter about East London on the tube with an Oyster Card, and get back on again at Stratford for another stop down to Liverpool Street. Confused - you will be! I've added a sentence explaining how the ticket works. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, that would be confusing for us Yankees. Especially for the Yankees Face-smile.svg.
    Thanks for clarifying this, I still had one question - what's a "reasonable route"? Would this mean if I started at Ealing Broadway, I couldn't go to Victoria? I think the "reasonable route" phrase should be clarified further, to note that the trip would not be considered reasonable if you have to transfer 10 times (or something like that) to get there. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    There is a rather thick volume called something like the National Routeing Guide, it describes what may be considered to be a reasonable route. Starting at Ealing Broadway, the only valid London terminal would be Paddington. But starting further out at Reading, valid termini would be Paddington and Waterloo; you might make a case for travelling to Victoria by changing at Clapham Junction. Starting even further out, valid termini from Oxford would be the same as Reading plus Marylebone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    All right. I suppose we should include a mention of this guide if possible. Not to be nitpicky or anything, but one person's reasonable route might be another person's never-in-a-lifetime path. Of course, if the "reasonable routes" are the routes that a person with common sense would take (i.e. not going in the reverse direction to go to another terminal), it should be phrased in that way instead. epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    I personally think we should only add it if a third-party source talks about it any more than "any reasonable route". Maybe that's something that Hassocks can deal with, as mentioned below. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    All right, I'll wait until he adds the sources. I'll look it over afterward. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Following the initial building boom, stations needed to be expanded and widened, which happened throughout the century - I find this sentence in particular awkward, because the middle phrase is stating the obvious. How about something like "Following the initial building boom, stations were expanded and widened throughout the century due to increased demand"?
I've changed this to "Throughout the 19th century, stations were expanded and upgraded to fit demand" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • several times in the case of London Bridge - I also found this awkward. I feel like it would be better if the sentence said, "...and London Bridge was rebuilt several times".
Gone with something similar Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 300 acres (120 ha) of land around Battersea and New Cross was - "was" should be "were" since we're talking about the acres.
I don't think that's right - the "was" is referring to "land" which is singular. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It's tricky, I know. Let me put it another way: if I said "Around 300 pounds of weapons was destroyed", that would be incorrect because I was referring to pounds, not weapons. I can verify by simplifying this sentence to "Around 300 pounds ... was destroyed", which is obviously incorrect. So in that same pattern, you can simplify to "Around 300 acres (120 ha) ... was taken up by railway lines and interchanges", which doesn't fit. "Were", however, would work with this type of sentence, no matter if you're talking about land, weapons, or something else.
The sentence would also be grammatically correct if you said, "a 300-acre (120 ha) area around Battersea and New Cross was". In this case, "was" refers to "area", which is singular. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I've reworded this entire sentence, which neatly side-steps the issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In "Former stations", what's deslited? Did you mean "delisted"?
Yup, that was done in the revamp for earlier comments - must have been tired Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, this seems like a great list. epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Another question: Why was Kensington Olympia delisted? Could this be included in the article as well? epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
National services were introduced to Olympia in 1986, meaning it could be used to interchange with the tube network, as could changing at Clapham Junction. These gradually ran down again, meaning the station was no longer an obvious "London Terminals" depot. I don't have a source that explains that as the reason, and I can only go on what was in cited in the article for a long time as a reference to the relevant National Fares Manual, which is at least verifiable if somebody can dig out a copy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Comments - at last this has gravitated up to the top of my to do list!

  • Fair few dabs here:
    • In the caption "Liverpool Street" and "Waterloo"
    • Definition section - "Waterloo" and "Blackfriars"
    • Background - "Farringdon" (twice, so unlink second anyway) and "Liverpool Street"
This appears to be a problem with Template:Stnlnk - {{rws|Liverpool Street}} should resolve to Liverpool Street railway station, but doesn't. The dab tool doesn't spot them, because of the templates. I'll have to do this by long hand :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
What with that and the linking to redirects, I'd do the lot by longhand if it was me. More trouble than they're worth. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Onel5969 has got to them. What a nice man :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries... I don't know if it's been mentioned, but not only stnlnk, but also rws has the same issue. Onel5969 TT me 13:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the dabs have gone, replaced by redirects. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh &*^&*$$£%^$%^%^ .... should be now fixed - this is because there is no consistent title for the station articles, so trying to get a template to do them all is impossible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "any reasonable National Rail" is "reasonable" clear, should it be in quotes, is it in the terms and conditions for instance?
This is being addressed by Hassocks' work below Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't relink London Bridge but you do with other stations in the Background section.
I ran the duplicate links checker over the article again - can you take another look? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "as of 2016" inflated rates, why not 2018?
Because that's the output from Template:inflation-year - if you use Template:inflation, to cite its output to any year other than that specified is factually incorrect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "The 1864 Joint committee#United Kingdom|Joint Committee]]" broken...
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "would do the same" not keen, maybe just "would follow"?
Good idea Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thameslink is piped to a redirect back to ... Thameslink.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • May well need a key to explain:
    • "London services" means
I think instead of "London services" this should be "area served" or "area of Britain served" - how does that grab you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Green and red arrows indicating changes in passengers from 2016 to 2017
You think? The same arrows are used in the railway station infoboxes themselves, and I don't think anyone's complained Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Category
Category is covered in a footnote Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Platform - Terminal column doesn't sort correctly.
This appears to be because the presence of <ref> tags means that the table thinks it's alphanumeric instead of numeric and sorts accordingly - how do you fix that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Open datea and End date columns don't sort correctly.
As above, except now mistaking date for alphanumeric Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Broad Street is piped to a redirect a couple of times.
Only because somebody unilaterally moved the article without discussion (and the subsequent RM I filed returned as "no consensus"). Fixed, anyway Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 35 ("Luxury flats instead of birdsong: can regeneration ever be the right thing?") needs author.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 38 ("Part A: Consistent Standards" (PDF)" ) needs page number/range.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 39 ("Network RUS Stations (PDF)") needs page number/range.
While looking for this one, I noticed not all the categories were verifiable in the source given, so I've hunted down replacements and put those in place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 60 ("Part D: Annexes") needs page number/range.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 62 "Jackson 1984 pp. 213,215." needs a space after the comma.
I can't change that, it's a cosmetic edit! Nah, just kidding - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 68 "Jackson pp. 95-97." needs en-dash.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 76 no need to relink ATOC, or if you insist, link it at ref 6 as well.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed the above issues - though some of them need further discussion, particularly how to get non-alphanumeric sorting working on a column that has inline citations in it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I've resolved the sorting issue, because as usual, I'm spectacularly good at this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I got the numeric ones working on the main list Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oddly, we both did exactly the same edit at approximately the same time. I added all those nts templates just to find that you'd just done it. Bravo! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So are we done? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know yet. I haven't had a chance to properly re-review, just picked up a couple of your queries. I'll get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hassocks5489

Comment: Ritchie333, The Rambling Man, Epicgenius: over the next few days I can deal with sourcing and, if necessary, improving the ticketing side of this article (including the Kensington Olympia anomaly, definition of reasonable/permitted routes and so on), as this is one of my specialisms and I have various sources. I don't want to overload the article with too much intricate detail, though, so I might draft something and put it here for consideration. Separately, I created and uploaded the non-free image File:APTIS Tickets x6 - Variations on LONDON.jpg many years ago; it was my first and only attempt at writing a non-free rationale, so I don't know if it needs improving or even whether it is appropriate to retain the image in the article ... one for the image specialists to comment on, I suppose. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: That would be excellent. As you can probably guess, I originally intended to simply create List of London terminal stations and run with that; then somebody pointed out what exactly qualifies as a "London terminal", then I discovered this article via this and this and thought, "well if we've got a reliably sourced definition of a London terminal, then we should use that". I think it would be extremely helpful to tidy up the loose ends regarding how Olympia ended up on the list, and what a "reasonable route" is. Why isn't Stratford on the list? I think the FUR is sufficient; to be honest it's right on the limit of a "threshold of originality", being the old BR logo and a bunch of text. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Great; I'll start drafting something when I get home tonight, time permitting. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, so as not to overload the main WP:FLC page with notes and references, I've posted a suggested revision of the "Definition" paragraph at the following user subpage: User:Hassocks5489/Images. The wording is a rough first draft, so please suggest/make improvements. I've tried to cover all points discussed above without going into too much unnecessary detail, and have tried to find suitable references for everything. Some points:

  • Moorgate was a funny one because in the 1983–86 era it was half-in, half-out of the group (!): it counted as a London station only from the Northern City Line direction, not from the Widened Lines. When it was put back in the group in 1988, it was available via both routes ... but the intermediate Thameslink stations of Farringdon and Barbican were not (and never have been) included. And that's a whole other story.
  • I know why Kensington Olympia was removed in 1994, but I can't find suitable sourcing and it's too technical for this article anyway.
  • Again, there are reasons why "LONDON BR" was changed to "LONDON BRIT RAIL" on tickets, and why "LONDON" did not appear immediately after privatisation, but unless there is general agreement to include discussion of these obscure technical points I won't introduce them.
  • I have hard copies or scans of all the offline sources mentioned, in case anybody would like any source checking, wording confirmation etc.

Hope that helps. Ping me with any questions. @Ritchie333:, @The Rambling Man:, @Epicgenius: Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look a little later. epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, my comments regarding the addition:
Maybe note A can be integrated into the prose itself? The note is disconnected from the rest of the article, since the note names nine stations without any prelude.
Kensington Olympia was removed from May 1994 is missing a few words, so this would be "Kensington Olympia was removed from the list in May 1994". Along these lines, a short explanation might be nice.
Ref 13 "General Notes" has a cite error. Since we're aiming for Featured List, this is an issue that needs to be fixed. I think you can work around it by placing the "Unpaginated" note outside the template. epicgenius (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Hassocks5489: Pinging. epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Baja California

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a very small list, but complete. I used my previous nominations, Municipalities of Colima and Municipalities of Aguascalientes, as templates for this one, keeping similar format and sourcing. I believe it meets featured list requirements but I am very open to any suggestions for improvement. This list is part of a greater goal of creating a featured quality list for all municipalities, adding to my previous 17 promoted lists of municipalities all using similar formatting, making them look more consistent and encyclopedic. Thanks again for helping me on this project. Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Everything else looks good to me. Check out my comment above about the image. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Does not comply with WP:LEAD. This is an article about municipalities but the first two sentences are solely about the state. The second paragraph should explain what a "municipal seat" is (e.g. explain why it is in this list of municipalities) and the "responsible for providing all the public services" is contradicted two sentences down which lists some of the public services the state is responsible for. Regarding the third paragraph, why split the population and area information between this and the first paragraph? Just have one paragraph that introduces and explains the relevance of this to the municipalities (e.g. why this is included in the list's scope). Also, "incorporation date" is included in the list but its relevance is not explained in the intro. And should probably either go with either sq. or 2 (I'm not sure, but I though mixing them was against some MOS somewhere). maclean (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mattximus, do you intend to address Maclean25's comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked another user who has helped me improve the leads before and they will be assisting again, however they are on vacation at the moment but should return before this nom is closed. Some comments are not quite correct, for some reason the custom is to put km squared and square miles, not "miles squared". Mattximus (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Best Fighter ESPY Award

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This list concerns the ESPY Award for those who partake in boxing and mixed martial arts competitions. This is one of many ESPY Awards that were introduced in the 2000s and is the official replacement for the Best Boxer ESPY Award. Your comments, suggestions and support are most welcomed and I will endeavour to address them in a timely manner. MWright96 (talk)

  • Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This list includes columns identifying nationality, weight class and sanctioning body or league. The intro says the award is given "irrespective of nationality, gender, weight class, or sanctioning body or league". So, if the Nominating Committee is specifically and directly saying those factors are irrelevant, they probably shouldn't be listed here as relevant factors. If the award is truly given to the person "adjudged to be the best in a given calendar year" wouldn't something like their win-loss record or # contests, or titles held be more relevant? maclean (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Maclean25: Personally I am not convinced that such a proposal of replacing the mentioned factors with a win-loss record would enhance the list's value. MWright96 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Maclean25: Update: the section of text you questioned has now been removed as I was unable to locate any explicit evidence to support that statement. MWright96 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I still don't follow why nationality is given such weight. The winners and nominees are all listed by nationality (it looks like they are representing their country) and there is a "Winners by nationality" summary table in a separate section. With respect to receiving this award, why is their nationality more relevant than their achievements of that given year? maclean (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1959

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

With the lists of US country number one songs from 2000-2006 inclusive having either been promoted or gained multiple supports, I bet you thought 2007 was coming next didn't you? Well instead I thought I would throw you a curveball and bring to FLC some classics from the 1950s. Trivia note: Faron Young, listed herein, was the first singer I ever saw in concert. I got dragged along when my parents went to see him at the Winter Gardens in Margate when I was about 5....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the text and the format is consistent with the other articles, but IMHO I just don't see this as surpassing criterion 3b. It's 11 songs with not a lot of supplementary information beyond rewording some contents into prose. Why can't these articles be done as decades like the FLs List of Billboard Hot Rap Songs number-one songs of the 2010s, List of NME number-one singles of the 1960s, and several others? It's very easy to merge the tables, and then there could be a more substantive lead. I know a number of the Billboard lists have articles for every year already, but for this reason I respectfully oppose. Reywas92Talk 22:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, guess there isn't much I can do to address the above other than to point out that there are already 30 FLs for number one songs/albums by year, far more than there are by decade..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – All good for me. Looking forward to all your future lists. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Didier Drogba

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Zlatan just made it to the bronze star, so this list, what I went and did all on my own, follows in the Swede's large footsteps... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Alright I see it. Another great list. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, although it might be worth changing "Nineteen of his goals were scored in his home stadium of Stade Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Abidjan" to "Nineteen of his goals were scored in his hometown stadium of Stade Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Abidjan", as the former version could be read as suggesting that it is the home stadium of the team he plays for..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Latin Grammy Trustees Award

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

With my FLC for Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame gaining enough supports, I am now nominating this article for FL. Continuing on with my FLC for Latin music, this list is different in that the accolade is for the behind the scenes guys (producers, engineers, etc.). This FLC is based on the Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award which I got FL two years ago. I look forward to your comments. Erick (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good to me. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Ross Taylor

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Sahara4u (Talk) 14:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Just tidied this one up, re-verified the lead, made the table and images accessible. Most of the hard work was done by Sahara4u who has been away from Wikipedia for a bit, but I've co-nominated them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good to me. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment SupportWord order needs a fix in "making three against centuries them." That's the only issue I found. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Giants2008 done, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Support - another great job! JennyOz (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

Martin Garrix discography

Nominator(s): — Zawl 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the required criteria. — Zawl 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved issues
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • We don't start featured lists with "this is a list". Just begin with "Martin Garrix is a Dutch music producer and DJ who has released..." YesY
  • I only count 1 ref in the lead. Needs much more – not for every sentence but for things that can be challenged YesY
  • Image needs alt text YesY
  • "Arguably one of his most-successful" remove arguably YesY
  • Link Billboard 200 YesY
  • Link Dance/Electronic Albums YesY
  • Link countries you mention in lead YesY
  • Make sure your ref dates are consistent. Some are Day Month, Year; others are YYYY-MM-DD; others are Month Day, Year YesY
  • Ref 29, 50, & 52 have no access date YesY
  • There are many dead links that should be fixed or replaced YesY
  • Ref 51 & 60 has no website YesY
  • Ref 41: what is it an "archived copy" of? Also no website YesY
  • General note: All refs need websites & access dates YesY
  • I don't know if YouTube is considered a reliable source. I would check with other editors on that. YesY
  • Made this edit for you per MOS:DASH Face-wink.svg Thanks
  • Write and link the name of the websites instead of having '.com' in almost every one YesY
  • All these green links need to be fixed YesY

Oppose – Honestly there are many things that need to be fixed. While the tables and all that look good, many refs, the lead, among others could use improvement. For now I have to oppose. If you take care of my comments I'll retract it. I think it would also help to look at other featured list discographies for help on the lead. Best, BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: I've resolved the issues. — Zawl 13:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll revoke my oppose but couple more comments:
  • Garrix's name doesn't need to be bolded
  • Link E3 2016 to Electronic Entertainment Expo 2016
  • Still a couple blue links
  • List out what Garrix has released after the first sentence, such as x singles, x extended plays, etc. That's usually the standard for discography pages; be sure to link each type of media
I think that's it for me. But I would like to see what other editors have to say for this. Good work on this. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 DoneZawl 08:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (2000–09)

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC) & Vivvt (talk · contribs)

This list is inline with the other Padma Bhushan FLs of every decade. As usual, hope to receive constructive criticism for improvement. Cheers! Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good to me. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment - You can't use File:Sharan Rani.jpg in this article, there isn't (and won't be) a suitable fair use rationale for its inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Resolved comments শুভ দোলযাত্রা — FR 09:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments
  • Fix external links
  • Be consistent in providing access dates. Some PDF's have access dates some have not.
  • Please provide alt text
  • Please resolve TRM's comment above and remove the greenish glow in File:Saroj Ghose - Kolkata 2014-02-13 8915.JPG
  • Try to find a better picture of B. K. S. Iyengar.

Once you have resolved the above feel free to count me among the supporters — FR 10:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Force Radical Thanks for your comments, I have hopefully resolved them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Short notes since time is short, identify who is BKSI in the black and white image. External links not fixed and Saroj photograph not fixed or replaced(Try changing the hue of the photograph on basic phone photoeditor/use filters on Photoshop) [If you absolutely cannot then I will be willing to forgo it] — FR 15:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Force Radical I don't see any problem with the external links now, the official site opens properly. The other site had some issue which I could't fix, so I decided to remove it. Sorry I didn't read the Saroj bit but, is it really necessary? Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
There are some more problems which I found on a more detailed look:
  • none of the conferments of Padma Bhushan during 1990–99-1990-99 in 2000-09 ? also conferments sounds off ? May be a better phrase should be used
Fixed.
  • In 2003, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's pracharak (volunteer) Dattopant Thengadi refused to accept the award "until revered Dr. Hegdewar (RSS founder) and Shri Guruji (RSS ideologue Golwalkar) are not offered the Bharat Ratna".-the abbreviation RSS is not introduced before being used. Best to get rid of the word pracharak and stick to the word volunteer.
Done
  • As far as images go - I personally overlook them but it would certainly be good if you could tweak or replace the images of Veerendra Heggade and Saroj Ghosh(the Veerendra Heggade picture has a pink glow where)
  • mha.nic.in is down for me, the dispenser tool also says that they failed to establish a connection. To be on the safe side just add their archives in the refs

I won't oppose based on the pictures but then it would certainly be better if you could change them.

Working on the Images and the mha link. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Fixed the dead links. Will work on the images soon. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Vivvt how are we getting on here? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Force Radical and The Rambling Man: I am done with the changes. Please review. Apologies for the delay as I was busy in the real life. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe everything looks good, although I haven't promoted such a list in the past. The website will be updated with a new number one song every week (until 2020), but I don't think that's a problem. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Erick

Resolved comments from magiciandude
  • "French singer Imany's song "Don't Be So Shy" spent 12 weeks at number one in 2016, marking the longest spell at the top of the charts in a tie with English recording artist Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" (2017). " I would just say that "Don't Be So Shy" and "Shape of You" by Ed Sheeran tie for the longest running number-one song of the 2010s with 12 weeks to make it more simple.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The first registered number one of the decade was "Ai Se Eu Te Pego" (2012) by Michel Teló, while Cuban-American performer Camila Cabello and American rapper Young Thug's "Havana" is the current number one in January 2018." I would split this into two sentences and move "Ai Se Eu Te Pego" being the first single just after the sentence about 80 number-one songs in the country. Then for the current number-one song, I would put "as of [insert week here] [song name by artists(s)] is the current number-one song in Romania"
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done I adjusted some things according to the page you recommended me to look at, but we can't get a that big lead section. There aren't enough sources/coverage for this chart and its history. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's all I got. Would you care to comment on my FLC for Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame? Erick (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Thank you for your comments! Of course I will look over your FLC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Great job! Erick (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk)
  • All of the images require ALT text.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For the captions of the images of the singers, I would the year in which the image was taken to the (pictured) parts.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not see the need for two Ed Sheeran images.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For caption of the Kiss FM logo image, remove the period at the end as it is not a complete sentence.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the tables are sortable, I think that all of the artists and songs in the tables need to be linked as they can go out of order if a person sorts them in different ways.
 Done I only did what you said to a table. If an artist/a song was linked in a prior table, it isn't linked in the next one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments! I did all your suggestions... Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

  • Support – Yep looks all good to me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999

I am going to Oppose, for the time being, based on the criteria. For 1) I don't think the prose is of 'professional' standard (yet). 2) That the lead covers all of the scope of the list. 4) That it is easy navigated. 5a) Does not have visual appeal. I do agree that it is 3) Comprehensive (but needs more sourcing) 5b) Has suitable media 6) Stable.  — Calvin999 10:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Thank you for your first comments! While I will still try to amend the issue concerning the sources, I solved your other comments and expanded the lead. I know it is by far not perfect, but I this that's an acceptable beginning to work with. I would like to get it to a better level with your help. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
You've expanded the lead but you haven't sourced the additions, in addition to what needed backing up from third party sources before expanding, so it's amplified my concern about sourcing which is a big issue and unless it's addressed I can't remove my oppose. I'm sorry. It concerns me that this has garnered three supports when such glaring issues remain in relation of sourcing and verification and clearly does not meet the criteria.  — Calvin999 18:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Calvin999: I will work on the issue later this week, as I've found some helpful links. Please don't close the FLC or such... Thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't close it, I'm not an FAC delegate. A delegate looks at the candidacy and decides whether to reject or promote based on what reviewers have said.  — Calvin999 15:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Calvin999: Hi there again! After some research, I found out that a Romanian website (Un site de muzică) which seems to be reliable reported about selected editions of the Airplay 100 beginning with October 2016, as well as provided information on the chart's compilation that can be used to back up that from KissFM.ro. The pre-2016 number-ones can't be cited with magazine articles (etc...) because they don't exist on the internet. However, after even more research, I discovered an iTunes page where each podcast of the Airplay 100 was (and still is) published to listen to for free. Is this ok to back up the weekly chart podcasts published on KissFM.ro? This is all I can do with finding new sources; the Airplay 100 is not a that mediatized subject like Billboard charts & co. Also, I don't think that the facts in the lead must be referenced there, as they are in the article's body by the KissFM.ro page, iTunes page and the Un site de muzică pages. What do you think? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Calvin999, Any news on this? What do you think of the article now? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Calvin999 any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced it's of the professional standard that we are looking for in the Featured process.  — Calvin999 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Calvin999, this comment cannot really be addressed. Can you list your specific concerns please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the prose is well-written still in terms of sentence structure and grammar. The references are still essentially just chart sources, there isn't any third party. Some entries in the table has citations, some don't. The tables still aren't formatted or structured to the standard I think they should be, and are missing essential elements such as a Skip to Year box.  — Calvin999 10:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Calvin999: Hi! Can you give me some examples for sentences you think are still not well-written? Someone has copy-edited the article and I have also implemented the comments of User:A Thousand Doors. Regarding the references, this is everything I can do (we do have some third-party sources right now). What do you mean by Skip to Year box? Also, what are other "essential elements"? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Comments from A Thousand Doors

Oppose I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Calvin that this article isn't at FL standard just yet.

  • My main issue is the lead. Only two sentences out of 10 are cited, which suggests that there might be WP:OR issues. Are there anymore reliable, third-party sources that discuss this chart during the 2010s? What sort of things do they say?
The sources presented in this article are – sadly – the only ones to find about the chart online. While on one hand I understand your concerns about original research, on the other hand the lead only contains only information cited in the article's body, although not directly cited by a source but rather by me listening to the podcasts and figuring out things (e.g. who was the artist with the most no.1s in the history...). Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
A lack of third-party sources is a serious issue, not just with regards the FL criteria, but the verifiability and notability guidelines too. With the exception of Un site de muzică, all the sources in this article come from either Kiss FM (who broadcast the chart) or Media Forest (who compile it). Having references from so few third-party sources can open up questions about bias and neutrality. I've had a look myself for more sources and have also come up empty-handed, so I don't think this is a problem with your researching skills. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but I'm afraid that I still don't believe that it meets the FL criteria in its current state. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I got you. This is really a problem surrounding this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Finding more references might also beef up the lead, which, by my estimation, is rather brief. It's covering six years of chart history, but it's only 314 word long, and more than half of it is dedicated to listing the songs that spent extended periods of time at number one. Is there anything else that you can say? For example, how does Media Forest compile the chart? Is every radio station in Romania sampled, or just some of them? Is music streaming also included? Are there any quotes from artists who have topped the chart? How is the chart viewed within the industry? Are there any record labels that perform better than others?
This is the only information I can include in the lead, really. We can maybe do some things here and there, but there is not enough coverage of the chart online to write about the things you've mentioned. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This echoes my point above about lack of coverage. With so few independent sources writing about the chart, the lead almost feels to me like it's being padded by just listing which songs spent extended periods of time at number one, and that just doesn't make for an engaging read. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I got you... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Artists need to sort under their surname. I can talk you through how to do this, if you'd like.
Is there a special setting or such? Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a setting per se, but Template:Sortname is usually pretty useful for sorting by surname. So you'd have, for example. {{Sortname|Michel|Teló}}, {{Sortname|Elena|Gheorghe}} and {{Sortname|Pharrell|Williams}}. Not so sure that this template supports interlanguage links, now that I think about it... In those instances, you might have to use Template:Sort and do something like {{Sort|Velea, Alex|{{Interlanguage link|Alex Velea|ro}}}} instead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done. I didn't apply this in cases like "Carla's Dreams", "What's Up" and "Grasu XXL", where the second part is not really a surname. Btw, the template supported interlanguage links. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Similarly, "The Greatest" needs to sort under G.
Same as above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd use "{{Sortname|The|Greatest|The Greatest (Sia song)}}" for this.
  • "the news No.1" -> "the new No.1"
I can't find this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It's in the first bullet point in citation 19. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for noticing! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@A Thousand Doors: Hi there again! I understand your points above and I also implemented what was to be implemented. I have also answered to your additional comments. Best regards and thank you for your opinion... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@A Thousand Doors: I have done your other comments. Is there anything else that needs to be revised? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Regine Velasquez

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on this list beginning of January 2018 on the songs recorded by Filipino singer Regine Velasquez, listing down notable songs/singles that span her 31-year career. It has undergone a GOCE copy-edit for the lead section. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Everything looks good to me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
BeatlesLedTV, Thank you --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "Filipino singer Regine Velasquez has recorded material for seventeen studio albums, nine soundtrack albums and five extended plays (EP), and has collaborated with other artists on duets and featured songs on their respective albums." - seems like it could be split into two sentences
  • "including "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" by Aerosmith, "The Long and Winding Road" by the Beatles, "I'll Never Love This Way Again" by Dionne Warwick, and "Music and Me" by Michael Jackson.[15] " - you haven't been using the serial comma elsewhere, so don't use it here

Otherwise, prose looks good to me. ceranthor 15:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceranthor, thanks for your comments. The above have been addressed. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I feel comfortable supporting this, then. ceranthor 14:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Ceranthor, much appreciate your support. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Support
  • "The lead single "Fly" was released—the only original song on the record" - suggest moving "the only original song on the record" between Fly and was.
  • Done
  • "A cover album, it contained covers of international singles" - cover ... cover.
  • Fixed.
  • "The album has since been certified twelve-times" - not sure hyphen is needed here.
  • Removed
  • "She worked with producer Tats Faustino, who wrote "Dadalhin", and collaborated with singer Janno Gibbs, who wrote the ballad "Sa Aking Pag-iisa"." - who wrote ... who wrote. Repetitive.
  • Fixed
  • "In addition to her studio work, Velasquez has recorded songs for her films' soundtracks" - what do you mean "her films"? Has she starred in them? If so, that should be clarified since there is nothing here talking about her film work.
  • Clarified and reworded.

Nothing major to detract me from supporting. FrB.TG (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

FrB.TG, thank you for your comments. I have addressed them as mentioned above. Much appreciate your support. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

List of box office records set by Deadpool (film)

Nominator(s): adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Deadpool is the highest grossing R-rated film of all time, breaking numerous box office records upon its release. This is a comprehensive, easily followed list of these records, which I believe meets all the FL criteria. No concerns with the article were expressed during a peer review, but any suggestions for improvement are most welcome here. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think we need a community discussion about this kind of article. I'm seeing stuff like "Biggest opening day for an M18-rated film in Singapore ($205 thousand)[19]" and thinking, TRIVIA! So right now, it's oppose but I'd like to see who else comments on this and how. Right now, most of the significant box office records would be covered in a paragraph in the main article. I currently see no reason for this spinoff to exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The one TRM cited isn't the one that caught my eye, it was this one; "Biggest opening day for a 15-rated Fox film in the United Kingdom ($3.4 million)" So the triple intersection of country, rating, and studio to make a "record". I don't see this as an FL, or even an article that needs to exist at all. Trim down significantly and merge back into the main article on the film. Courcelles (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you guys defining as trivia? This is a pretty compact list, and it is all deemed noteworthy by pretty reliable sources. It also does not seem any less notable or trivial than the sorts of things that WP:SALAT recommend as appropriate lists, just maybe something that you do not find so interesting. For instance, under "Lists of subtaxa" it notes that in an article on organisms it would be appropriate to note a couple of examples, but if there are a few to list then a full and complete separate list should be written. Similarly, I don't think it is appropriate to be dealing with lots of box office records at the film article, so I started putting together this list, and I therefore did what I could to make it full and complete. Personally, being able to see a short list of all the box office records that a box office-noteworthy film set is far more interesting than a list of subtaxa, and helps contribute to a thorough topic on this film. If there was consensus to not have separate lists for box office records then I would understand, but there is not, so I think it is a bit unfair to say it is not FL quality because of a community consensus that does not yet exist. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing trivial intersections which create pseudo-records which aren't really notable at all. I have also said that I'd like more community input. What other FLs are there for box office records? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe there are none, as there are not many lists like this. However, I don't believe that effects the quality of this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that, I just wondered if there were any box office record lists and if any of them had been made into FLs. Regardless, my !vote stands, there's simply too much trivia in here for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
My vote stands as well. "Biggest opening weekend for a Fox film in Hong Kong" is is an example of non-notable trivia. Also, I don't even know what "Biggest opening weekend for the X-Men film series in Germany " has to do with this film. Is it really an X-men series film? Regardless, the key points can be summarized in a paragraph in either the main page or as an abridged list in the accolade list. There is no reason to have this additional page. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Missouri University of Science and Technology alumni

Nominator(s): Jmnbqb (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

My first list nominated has support and issues have been addressed, so I'm putting this list in the pipeline. I have added all alumni from Category:Missouri University of Science and Technology alumni and have done research to add a few more to the category/list. Information is lacking for early alumni, but I've done my best to add correct information. Jmnbqb (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I consider it comprehensive enough for a dynamic list to be promoted, people will always be adding more, so more care will be needed to maintain the star than in most lists. Courcelles (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Alright I understand. I'll offer my support. Great job to both of you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Official Classical Singles Chart

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Official Classical Singles Chart was a short-lived record chart in the United Kingdom. I believe that this article fully summarises the history of the chart and its number ones, and I welcome any feedback. Thanks! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Query - not necessarily a deal breaker, but is there anything which says what would be considered a "single" for the purposes of this chart, in terms of track length (would a movement from a symphony which was 15 minutes or more long be eligible)? How about genre (how was a single categorised as "classical"?)? I personally wouldn't classify the Military Wives track as classical, but clearly somebody did :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've found some chart eligibility rules that I think answer your questions. I've summarised them in a couple of notes at the bottom. Thanks, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I know that you've closed these comments, but I'd really like to discuss the year headers further. It's been a week, and there's been no further discussion either here or on the MOS:DTT talk page. I only really removed them because I was concerned that there might be accessibility issues, but, having reread MOS:DTT, I no longer think that that's the case. I would much rather fix them than remove them entirely, as, in my opinion, they serve a useful purpose to our readers. They sort correctly by No. and by date, and they move out of the way when sorted by anything else – this seems perfectly logical and intuitive to me, so I'm not sure how they can be said to be sorting improperly. I welcome your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Fine, I think it looks dreadfully clumsy when not sorted chronologically but clearly others may think differently. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 2004

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The list for 2000 has already been promoted to FL and the lists for 2001, 2002 and 2003 all have multiple supports, so here's the next in the sequence...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • First pic needs alt text
  • "in 2004 was the seven achieved by" → "in 2004 was seven, achieved by"
  • Unsort ref col
  • Artists should be sorted by last name per WP:Sorting. Currently they're sorted by first name

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " having been at the top since the issue of Billboard dated December 20, 2003." Ref? Courcelles (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Tau Kappa Epsilon brothers

Nominator(s): Jmnbqb (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because (yes it meets the criteria), but more so this list contains information of interest to multiple communities and would provide viewers with information on notable people with Greek life involvement, specifically Tau Kappa Epsilon, which is rarely communicated to audiences. I have researched and added as many applicable, secondary references as possible, and I have incorporated all of the suggestions from the peer review such as expanding the lead, standardizing the capitalization, and ensuring all entries have a reference. I would deeply appreciate consideration for this article becoming a featured list (which would be my first!) Jmnbqb (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – All good for me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Stupid question time, what is the "Grand Chapter"? Those listed for it don't have a school listed...? Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Nah not a stupid question. It's essentially the chapter of TKE Headquarters, so there's no associated school. Most of the Grand Chapter brothers were initiated at various TKE Conclaves, which are international biennial meetings of the Fraternity. Jmnbqb (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we add a footnote explaining that? Courcelles (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Footnote is added. Jmnbqb (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nominator(s): Tone 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This list follows the pattern of FLs for sites in Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia, I believe all the issues (style, formatting, table contents, etc.) that were raised during the previous nominations of those three lists were addressed here as well. At the same time, nominating List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro with the same rationale. Tone 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: rather unconventionally, this is on hold until its sister nomination, for List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro, has all its issues ironed out. Please head there first and once we have a decent consensus, this can be released back into the review wilderness, hopefully with a confirmation from Tone that they've addressed all common issues discovered in the other review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro

Nominator(s): Tone 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This list follows the pattern of FLs for sites in Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia, I believe all the issues (style, formatting, table contents, etc.) that were raised during the previous nominations of those three lists were addressed here as well. At the same time, nominating List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the same rationale. Tone 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment The newer standard for featured list suggests you do not use terms like "In the following table" or "In the table below", as it's redundant. In fact the whole line "the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." can go since you already put cultural or natural in brackets in the table itself. No need to repeat. Also You can only nominate 1 list at a time, I see you have 2 open right now. Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point, I can remove that line. As for two lists ... I checked again, you are right. This must have skipped my eye since I previously had two open nominations and so did other editors and noone pointed this out. I should pay better attention next time :) --Tone 21:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It's usually okay to have multiple nominations, but when nominating two at once with similar subject matter and therefore possible similar problems, it's better to wait for one to get close to promoting consensus, at least that's what I've been doing with the Laureus lists. I suggest I close one for the moment, which would you prefer? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess I should freeze one then - is there a way to do it without bot recording a failed nom (as it was a technical freeze, not a failed nom in fact)? Let's freeze the Bosnia one as the discussion is taking place here. My reasoning is that I already got three lists on similar topic passed so there should be little issues that have not been sorted out in the previous noms already. --Tone 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • why can't I click on 2 of the 4 places in the map? Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • They do not have dedicated articles. I could either link them to the municipality articles, which do not even mention the monuments, or to the general article, which again does not say anything in particular about the two specific sites. --Tone 07:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • " Montenegro declared independence in 2006 and succeeded the convention on 3 June 2006." This does not sound right. "acceded to" the convention?
  • "As of 2017, there are four sites in Montenegro inscribed on the list" The word "inscribed" seems to be superfluous. Is inscription different from listing? If it has a technical meaning this should be explained; otherwise I suggest not using it.
  • I think it would be helpful to point out that two sites were listed before Montenegro existed.
  • "limestone massive" massif?
  • "It was founded in the 15th century and saw a major urban development in the 19th century." It should be "major urban", deleting the word "a", unless you mean one specific development.
  • A column for the coordinates of each site would add to the list's value.
  • A good list. Just a few quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Capitalize "Gora" in Biogradska Gora. Other than that it's all good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV:, @Dudley Miles:: Done, please check. It is always great to have a native speaker doing the proofreading. As for coordinates, I am currently using the format without them. While it is easy to add coordinates for some places, say Kotor, other cases are tricky. For example, there are three Stećci sites and in Bosnia, there are 20. This is why they are shown on the map instead. --Tone 20:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The coordinates of a central point are in the UNESCO documentation - e.g. at [9] for Stecci. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly - this is one central point for over 20 sites scattered around the region - therefore not particularly useful, IMO. For example, these coordinates point to a location in Bosnia. --Tone 07:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I do not agree on coordinates but it is not a dealbreaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - The introduction needs some work. Half of the first paragraph (well...one of two sentences) is about the political history of Montenegro. Shouldn't this introduction focus on the subject of the article which is World Heritage Sites? Each paragraph should deal with one theme. The first sentence of the first two paragraphs seem related...and it looks like you are going for a history theme in that second paragraph but that first and last sentence is out of place. The last paragraph needs to get to the point and to say 'there are currently no endangered sites', one of them was endangered, now its not...and the relevance of what that means. Also, can you provide a rationale for the Location column in the intro? The lead mentions that first site is in the Bay of Kotor area but is silent on the rest...which leads me to think 'where is the column's relevance?' It appears that column is identifying location as a municipality in two rows and a general geographic area in the two. Shouldn't this be consistent, like all municipalities? Of course, then I would just ask 'what do municipalities have to do with World Heritage Sites...but then I guess it is just as arbitrary as regions of Montenegro. Is that what that location map showing: municipalities? I kind of have the question about the UNESCO data column (the Tentative list labels the column "UNESCO criteria"): shouldn't the intro introduce the relevance of those numbers and numerals? Also, why so little in the intro about the Tentative list (only half a sentence) when the rest of the article is pretty much giving it equal weight to the main list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclean25 (talkcontribs)

  • @Maclean25: I made some changes to the intro in line with your comments. To me, the structure makes sense and is in line with other FLs on the topic - what are the WHS and when the country in question joined the convention, then some discussion about the sites themselves, and the last paragraph if there are/were any particular things going on, such as listing/delisting the sites as endangered. I would not go further in the details what listing as endangered site means in this article, we have a dedicated one which is linked...
  • I see your point regarding the location column. I was trying to be as concise as reasonable - for places like Cetinje which is a city, one can be more specific than the municipality itself, while the Bay of Kotor covers a larger area with several municipalities, so I went with the broader region. Could list the municipalities as well, what do you suggest?
  • As for the UNESCO data/criteria - following the previous pattern here. WHS have serial numbers which are listed here. For tentative sites, we just list the criteria. In earlier iterations, the year of inscription was listed here as well but was later moved to a separate column for easier sorting purposes. --Tone 13:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Regarding your question, the only relevant location criteria the intro makes is that they are all in Montenegro. If you want to list the sites by municipalities or regions (or some other geographical subdivision of Montenegro) then it should be justified in the intro. The lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. maclean (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Maclean25: Done, as suggested. --Tone 11:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Maclean25 could you check to see if your concerns have been addressed please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
          • My concerns have not been addressed. These are the edits that were made. An FLC delegate has corrected me that FLs do not need to meet MOS:LEAD or MOS:BEGIN, so that part can be struck from my concerns above, but it is still my view that this lead section is not adequately summarizing the body with appropriate weight (e.g. explaining the relevance or significance of the "location" and "UNESCO data" columns and the little relative weight given to the tentative list) and the writing should be improved (e.g. not sticking off-topic sentences into a paragraph about something else), as I noted above. maclean (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Maclean25 Sorry, but I fail to see what exactly bothers you. Why would I have to write in the intro why the location is relevant? I added a notice in each section that the location refers to the municipality. The cultural/natural sites are mentioned in the intro. The tentative list never receives much focus in the intro as it is only a list of sites that may be considered in future. How would you change it? --Tone 18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Associated Press NFL Most Valuable Player Award

Nominator(s): Lizard (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Another list of AP NFL awards. This one isn't as straightforward for various reasons, but I believe I've done the best I can and the list meets FL criteria. Lizard (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(Note: This nomination was not transcluded onto WP:FLC until January 24) --PresN 20:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Made a further tweak to the article myself to finish off my batch of comments. Overall, this looks like a strong list, and I'm sure TRM's couple of comments will be handled in due course. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

List of HolbyBlue episodes

Nominator(s): ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating List of HolbyBlue episodes for featured list because I feel that after many months of hard work on improving this article, it is now ready to be considered for promotion to Featured List. I began working on this article back in July, having not seen any of the episodes, but despite this having a good understanding of the show. I watched and researched all of the episodes from both series and constructed elaborate summaries from there. I believe that the prose is professional. Although it took me a long time to write a lead that I was satisfied with, I feel that it covers all the necessary aspects of the show, summarises HolbyBlue neatly, and is suitable in length. This article is not the target of any recent edit wars. This is my first FLC and I look forward to it hopefully succeeding after many hard months of work on it. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The show was also nominated for six awards during its run." Unless you have a source that specifically says six, I'd consider axing this sentence. That'll all I've got. Courcelles (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't the easiest type of list to do, good work. Courcelles (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Chris Cornell

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

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

Thanks for your work on this list. I made a suggestion on the list's talk page re: the Notes column, which has mostly empty cells. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see you nominated it! A couple comments:

  • The writer column should be unsorted as there are multiple writers for many songs.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think having "Credited" in the artist and writer columns is unnecessary because to me that suggests there were uncredited writers as well.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • For songs that are B-sides only, I think the release boxes should be more evident. In the lists I'm working on currently, I use for example: (box below) Then for A-sides, I just say "non-album single" solely.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Non-album single
B-side to "Song title"
  • Add a content box, where you can click the letter and it goes to songs that start with that letter.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Add a heading (or caption) to the table.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Andre666 Sorry it's taken me a while to address this one. Fixed dashes for you to be en dashes per MOS:DASH. There's also a ref error for ref 33 that should be fixed. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are numerous problems with this list. In addition to those listed above, the table does not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT) and has sorting problems. The list criteria is not specified, but apparently includes all the recordings Cornell appears on. It includes those with Soundgarden and Audioslave, which arguably deserve their own lists of songs. WP practice is to include only songs recorded in the artist's name (see List of songs recorded by Syd Barrett, List of songs recorded by George Harrison, etc.), since it is often unclear what the extent of their contribution to group recordings is. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Andre666 this nomination has seemingly been untouched for three weeks, are you intending to address Ojorojo's concerns or do you want it to be withdrawn? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I had completely forgotten about this. I will make the suggested edits this week, leave it with me :) Andre666 (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Andre666 I think we'll have to close this down unless some activity is demonstrated in the next day or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Sorry, I have made most of these changes but did not update this page. I have now added done notes, is there anything else that needs to be looked at? Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Quite possibly, I imagine people were holding off to see whether or not you were going to address the concerns raised in late-November, so hopefully now we'll see some more reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't see any issues personally..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Several problems remain:
  • Nowhere in the lead is the list criteria given, although the Soundgarden, Audioslave, and TOTD songs have been removed.
  • "A" and "The" don't sort properly under "Release".
  • It would be helpful to more readily see (maybe color instead of parenthetical info) which songs are Cornell releases vs guest appearances with other artists (the Harrison song list doesn't include guest appearances).
  • It appears that users can edit MusicBrainz and therefore it is not a reliable source.
  • Template:Cite web#Publisher includes "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)"; AllMusic, etc. citations should use |website= or |work=.
  • The images seem to compete visually with the table columns and may take up more width than necessary (how does this look on portable devices?). Some image FURs show "copyrighted" and may only be justified for articles more closely tied to the artist.
Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Andre666 are you going to address these issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I will work on this later this week as per the notes above. Andre666 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Andre666 are you going to address these issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry again, I have made some of the changes and will make the rest later. I'll let you know when done. Andre666 (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys, sorry for the long delay. I think I've fixed everything now:
  • The list criteria is given in the lead section.  Done
  • "A" and "The" sort correctly under the release column.  Done
  • I have added a colour for featured tracks. Let me know if it doesn't work, though.  Done
  • I have replaced all MusicBrainz references.  Done
  • I have changed publisher parameters to website or magazine where appropriate.  Done
  • I'm not sure what to do about the images. Would it help if I just made the thumbnails smaller (150px)? Not done
Let me know if there is anything else of concern, or if anything is now messed up! Andre666 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers

Notified: Strike Eagle, Vibhijain, WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject Indian Premier League

At some point, I saw a post somewhere indicating that this list had become outdated and no longer met the FL criteria. I don't remember who wrote this comment or where it was made, but it appears that they were right as the main table has apparently not been updated since 2017. In addition, the uncapped players table (newly added since the FLC) has also been left without an update for several years. There are other issues that may need looking at, such as whether updates are needed in the lead and whether the opening sentence would work better as a hatnote, but the table content is the main concern here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Remove unless significantly improved. Per the nominator, it's 5 years out of date and has an unsourced unneeded uncapped players table. Would need significant work to rereach the FL level right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove as noted, the last real update to the two main tables was in 2013. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=827249518"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA