Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Contents

Nominations

Beyoncé videography

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This is my first FL nomination in four months. It's the listings of Beyoncé's visual work. Many thanks to anyone and everyone for participating in this FLC. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Jimknut
  • Sorting of titles needs to be fixed on several of the tables. Titles beginning with "A", "An", or "The" should sort under the second word in the title. Jimknut (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Done where tables are sortable - many thanks. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've put a lot of work into this list, bringing it to where it is now, and believe it meets the criteria for it to become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "approximately 107 songs" - seems an oddly precise figure to be linked to the word "approximately"
  • "Beginning in late 1968 under the name "The Yardbirds"" - I would be tempted to change this to something like "Beginning in late 1968 as an incarnation of the band The Yardbirds"
  • "Plant would receive writing credits in later editions of the album" => "Plant would receive writing credits on later editions of the album"
  • "selling over one million copies and helped cement the group's popularity" => "selling over one million copies and helping to cement the group's popularity"
  • "released a year later in October 1970," => sentence currently ends with a comma
  • "some of the band's most well-known songs" => "some of the band's best-known songs"
  • "continued the band's array of critical and commercial success" => "continued the band's run of critical and commercial success"
  • "The first wave of albums, Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin II, and Led Zeppelin III, were released on 2 June 2014" => "The first wave of albums, Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin II, and Led Zeppelin III, was released on 2 June 2014" (the subject of the sentence is "wave", which is singular). The same applies to subsequent sentences.
  • In the key, "box set" does not need a capital B
  • "Name of song, Writer(s), Original release, and year of release." - no need for capital on writer or original, and should not have a full stop at the end as it is not a complete sentence.
  • "Ian Stewart (center) of The Rolling Stones" (in photo caption) - UK subject so UK spelling should be used as per WP:TIES
More to come when I have some more time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help I've fixed everything you commented on. However, in terms of the Yardbirds sentence, every source I find say the group was not an "incarnation" of the Yardbirds; after the Yardbirds disbanded, Jimmy Page wanted to create another group – what would eventually become Led Zeppelin. However, he kept their name as "The Yardbirds" and "The New Yardbirds" to gain footing in the industry as the Yardbirds were well-known at that time. Before they released their first album, they changed their name officially. So going back to your comment, I think it should be kept the way it is, "under the name "The Yardbirds"" just because that how I find it described in sources. But other than that, I've fixed everything. Feel free to comment on anything else. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You still need to fix the spelling of "centre" in the Ian Stewart photo caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. Must have missed it by accident. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I have to say I don't like the wording of the notes relating to the bonus tracks on the re-issued albums. The "and so...." bit doesn't really read right. I would change each note to read simply "Bonus track on re-issue of [x]". And change the "Here is the track listing......" link to a proper reference -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment from Jimknut
  • References: Numbers 1, 50, 54, 58, 60, and 62 are not references at all, but footnotes displaying extra information. These need to be moved into a "Notes" section and have their own references. Jimknut (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I'll get that done as soon as possible. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Fixed most of them. I made all of them into notes and not references but am still searching for references for a couple of them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Serie A Coach of the Year

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled on this when browsing for potential FLCs, and it had about two lines of prose and a few refs, and a table. So I expanded it out considerably, and hope that it now matches the community's expectations of what a featured list should be like. As ever I will cover all comments here as soon as practicable. Yes, I have a nom and a co-nom running, but the former has two supports and the latter one, and neither are anything like this one, so there should be no read-across problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • "The award is part of the Gran Galà del Calcio (former Oscar del Calcio) awards event" - not very clear. Are these two different names for the same event? Two different events? When did the name change? Also, this isn't mentioned in the body of the article
  • "Only two non-Italians have won the award, Sven-Göran Eriksson became the first in 2000, while José Mourinho was the first foreign coach ever to win the award twice." - first comma should probably be a semi-colon, or even a sentence break. Mourinho bit does not need the word "ever"
  • "yet lost Champions League Final to "perennial German underdogs"" => "but lost the....."
  • Internazionale in the tables but Inter in the History section?
  • In the "By nationality" section, the Special One's name is spelt incorrectly

Think that's it......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude all address I hope, thanks for your interest and comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I still think you need to mention the awards ceremony in the main body of the article as well as the lead............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure. The "main body" is the history of the winners. There's not much more to add beyond the lead. It would look odd to suddenly start talking about the awards ceremony there, don't you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I tried crowbarring it in, what thinketh you? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me, happy to support now. I was just going on the rule/policy/guideline that nothing should be in the lead that isn't also in the body...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Looks good with all the expansion. (I am also a regular editor of the page). Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Serbia

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

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

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

List of Romanian Top 100 number ones of the 2000s

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fully satisfies the criteria. The article has been a mess before, but now it's on a much better level. I would greatly appreciate comments. Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - regretfully there's just too much missing info -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Associated Press NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award

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

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

Vera Farmiga on screen and stage

Nominator(s): RedLiquorice (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the necessary criteria as a comprehensive list of Vera Farmiga's film, television and stage credits, in the same vein as other filmographies that have been given featured list status. RedLiquorice (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Slightlymad

  • I made a non-controversial move of the article's title to "Vera Farmiga on screen and stage" since Farmiga has had theatre credits in Broadway. Further, I don't see any coverage of her theatre appearances in the lede. You know the deal.
  • Please fill in those blanks with reliable, high-quality sources.
  • User-generated sites like IMDb (refs. 5, 18) and TV.com (refs. 59, 61) are generally not accepted as reliable sources per WP:UGC and WP:IMDBREF. Please change.
  • Photo is great, but is missing an alt text.
  • There are a decent amount of dead refs or refs that redirect to different links for you to fix.
  • What makes ref. 33 a reliable, high-quality source?
  • Add the |publisher = parameter inline but be vigilant in avoiding overlinking.
  • WL to Understudy
Fixed all. Thanks. RedLiquorice (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See above. SLIGHTLYmad 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. RedLiquorice (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good, support. SLIGHTLYmad 04:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment from Jimknut
  • Sorting needs to be fixed. Title that begin with "A", "An", or "The" should sort under the second word in the title. Names should sort under last name. Jimknut (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

1924 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 11:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I present the medal table from the first Winter Olympics. The table is modelled off similar such lists from other games. Harrias talk 11:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Drive By Comment: I would add something about Anders Haugen's bronze medal not being awarded until 50 years later due to a scoring error in the lede as well. See his obituary from the NY Times as one potential source. Ravendrop 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ravendrop, I have incorporated that information now. Harrias talk 13:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - Overall, a very well-written list. I have a couple of minor comments to make:

  • In the first paragraph when it says "were a winter multi-sport event...", shouldn't it be "was a winter multi-sport event" because the article is talking about a singular event (the 1924 Winter Olympics)? Correct if me I'm wrong.
  • Change the last sentence of the second paragraph to "After Haug died in 1934, his daughter presented Haugen, aged 83, with his medal". It just flows better in my opinion because on first read, I got a bit lost.

Again, this is a really good list and definitely deserving of FL status. The points above are very minor, but I believe it would make the list even better. Also, if you wouldn't mind looking at one of my two FLCs (List of Metra stations and List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks), that would be much appreciated. Cheers, Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Croatia

Nominator(s): Tone 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Following the successful nomination of List of World Heritage Sites in Slovenia, I am nominating the Croatian list for featured list as well. The criteria as follows:

  • 1 and 2 should be fine. Some language tweaks may be required but I expect them to be pointed out during the nomination.
  • 3 - it is complete and cannot be presented as a part of another article, at least not in this shape.
  • 4 - tables work and are sortable.
  • 5 - all images are on Commons, I could not find anything useful for two of the tentative sites so I am leaving those blank.
  • 6 - it is stable. Changes are expected when status of nominations change or more sites are added but that is about it.
Tone 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the list looks great. Not a thorough review yet, but I do want to comment that I strongly recommend consistency. I am disappointed by the variation that already exists in FLs like List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, List of World Heritage Sites in Africa, and List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar: This list is closer to the latter table format, which is most common and I prefer. For one, other country lists do not have a 'Shared with' column. Because a minority of sites are shared, that info is better included in the description - it already is for the graveyards and Venetian works, so it's redundant! References also do not have to be a separate column - putting it at the end of the description, even if also sourcing the Data column, is acceptable and preferred because it reduces space used and clutter. Reywas92Talk 01:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I see your point. Initially, the Shared with column was introduced to Slovenia's list (which has several shared sites) after a FL discussion, the details were first listed as "comments". I am fine with following the example of Spain and merging them to the description column, also the references, if a consensus arises (I will wait for more comments before the changes). Community column is probably rather country-specific, while I am not a big fan of the Period column, which may sometimes be hard to asses and can thus be confusing - for some building that has been used for a long time and had modifications, for example. And non-applicable for natural sites. Africa's list has coordinates but those may be tricky for large sites or for sites that have several different locations, so I'd leave those out as well. The rest, I believe, is more or less consistent. Spain's list does not have a table for tentative sites, but there are many many tentative sites there ;) --Tone 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was just giving those as examples of the unfortunate lack of consistency in prior articles, not that they should be followed in particular - that's correct on Community, though some customization is fine. I don't like the Period column either! There are already coordinates built into the clickable map, it'd be smart to use those in the location column; size and sites are not major issues honestly, just so they're available. It's the unnecessary Shared column I'm concerned about at all though. Reywas92Talk 06:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I know, I am already looking forward whether it is possible to reasonably make all those articles more unified ;) On the other thought, in future, there will be more and more shared sites, as this is something UNESCO is aiming for instead of "a single church"-type sites (read somewhere, don't ask me for the source). But for the time being, I am fine with merging the columns. --Tone 16:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Robot Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I discovered it in a good state thanks to the great work of Holiday56 a few years back, and suggested we co-nom because it's an interesting list and a niche topic. It's been brought up to current standards (that didn't take much) and looks good to go as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

List of protected cruisers of Italy

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

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

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

List of 3D Realms games

Nominator(s): PresN 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

3D Realms started as Apogee Software, a garage publisher of computer games, in 1987, and was buoyed up by the success of first id Software's Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons (1990) and then Wolfenstein 3D (1992) into the lead shareware publisher of the time. Its own Duke Nukem 3D (1996) catapulted it into a major developer/publisher right as it changed its name, and from there it... pretty much collapsed. All of their development work went into two projects; Prey got spun off to another company 5 years later, and Duke Nukem Forever became the canonical definition of vaporware until the whole department ran out of money in 2009. Their publishing wing, on the other hand, wandered into various fruitless ventures, until the company was nothing but a rights-holder selling licenses to make Duke Nukem spinoff games. Last year it got bought for a pittance to be the publishing counterpart to minor developer Interceptor Entertainment... who then shut down. 3D Realms is still alive, and claims to be working as a developer/publisher on a new game... but it's quite likely that this list charts, in tabular form, the entire 20-year rise and fall of 3D Realms. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - (If you could look at mine, I'd be grateful)  — Calvin999 08:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

List of India women Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): Vensatry (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Back to FLC after a hiatus. This one is based upon the existing FLs. Look forward to comments and suggestions Vensatry (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias talk
  • First paragraph: "As of August 2017, India has played 73 WT20Is...", second paragraph: "As of 2017, India has played a total of 54 matches..." – No need for the repetition, particularly as they give different figures! Get rid of one of these, and make sure whichever you keep has the right figure.
  • In the table, I would flip the header rows so that 'Batting', 'Bowling' and 'Fielding' are above the other headings. Historically, we had to do it this way for the sorting to work, but it would look better with those on the top row.
  • Make the dashes in the Bowling average and Economy columns sort the other way around - the bowling average of 8.00 should appear at the top, not after a load of dashes. Similarly with the economy of 2.66.
  • Referencing all looks good, and checks on the prosaic sources show no copyvio or close para-phrasing. All the link are live.
  • All images appear to be free with appropriate licenses, and have alt text.

Nice work; not much to work on here. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1920–39)/archive3? Harrias talk 11:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thanks for the comments. Hopefully, I've fixed all. Quite a task for a women-hating editor. :) Btw, I haven't forgotten your list - give me a day or two. Vensatry (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, nice work. Can be a pain keeping these up to date though! Harrias talk 13:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Vensatry, please find my comments below:
  • Lead:
  • and is played under the rules of Twenty20 cricket fix link to Twenty20
  • As of September 2017 add {{As of}}
  • It was among the semifinalists of the 2009 change "it" to "the team" or "India"
  • when it was bowled out for 62 runs again, change "it"
  • Images
  • Jhulan Goswami has been the leading wicket-taker India in the format. "in the format" is used in two captions in a row. Change to WT20Is.
  • Key
  • Table:
  • Row 9 – fix sort for Nooshin Al Khadeer
  • It already sorts by the last name. Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Rows 1 and 3 – fix sort of highest score Goswami's 37* came of 26 balls [1] while Chopra's came off 52 [2]
  • Rows 24 and 34 – fix sort of highest score Nagarajan's 15 came of 14 balls [3] while Bisht's came off 15 [4]
  • Rows 13, 4 and 43 – fix sort of highest scores
  • Please check the highest score sort for the 3's, 2's and 1's as well
  • Rows 16 and 19 – fix sort for 50's Raut's 4 came from fewer innings.
  • Please check the sort for the remaining 50's
  • Sorting by wickets needs to be fixed as well, secondary sort by matches
  • Sorting by BBI needs to be fixed as well, secondary sort by overs bowled
  • Secondary sort can be done only based on a statistic that's available in the table. Overs pertain to individual matches. Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorting by catches needs to be fixed as well, secondary sort by matches played
  • Stumpings – should those players who have never kept wicket have dashes rather than zeros?
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ianblair23: Thanks for the comments. As for secondary sort, the feature is already built in. All that you have to do is, first sort by matches (or whichever column(s) is/are applicable) and then by the intended column. Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Harrias and Ianblair23: Any update yet? Vensatry (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

Territorial evolution of the United States

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

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

  • Support - I can see you've worked really hard on this, it's an impressive list. If you could look at my nomination, I'd be grateful.  — Calvin999 08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I read through this last time but it's so long I unfortunately did not have time for a review. My main concern is actually with the length; even though it's a clear table with just three columns, it's unreadable for practical purposes. Perhaps there could be some sort of color-coding (a narrow column with color and sortable symbol?) to distinguish states joining [leaving] the union, changes in borders between states, territorial gains and losses, and overseas claims, etc. While you've done an incredible job making it more comprehensive from what it used to be, the list is no longer accessible to a casual user who is not dedicated enough to sift through so many minor changes. The sections by decade were also nice, especially to get through the 64 changes of the 1860s :). Reywas92Talk 23:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I could still split it like before, or add anchors... as for color coding, I don't think that would really work because many entries would have multiple categories. (A quick example that comes to mind: March 2, 1861. On this day, a state seceded and also joined the CSA; two new territories were created ; one territory grew; and one territory shrank.) And sorting on that kind of abstracts a change from its history. Remove it from its context and it means much less. --Golbez (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • How does this look: [5] I found decades to be too imbalanced, with some being 20 pages and some being 2. But I figured out these few major grouping that could work? What do you think? --Golbez (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I think that works fairly well, but if anyone else has ideas of how to make this not seems so long, do consider them. In the meantime I found no issues in my read-throughs, support with some sort of sectioning. Reywas92Talk 03:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you! And just to be clear, that was just an idea, I immediately reverted it, but I'm definitely open to discussion on this front. Decades, phases, something that might work. Just because I, very familiar with it, can get around it doesn't mean others can. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Steps

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

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

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

Val Barker Trophy

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This one was a little out of my comfort zone, and while it's been declared as of "high" importance to the Olympics project, surprisingly little information is available about it. Everything I could reasonably gather is in the list. Let me know how you feel about it, with thanks in advance for time spent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Some random thoughts: seems slightly premature to say that two trophies have been presented at every Olympics since 2016, when there's only been the 2016 Olympics; a mention of when women's boxing was introduced into the Olympics might not go amiss in this context (to show that there was a gap between its introduction and the second trophy being awarded); any redirect or piped link possibilities for the redlinked 1972 to 1984 Olympics e.g. Boxing at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Heavyweight (+ 81 kg)?; should Gold Silver Bronze sort in that order, rather than alphabetical? Nothing immediately jumps out otherwise. BencherliteTalk 20:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed - I would say something like "In 2016, two Val Barker Trophies were presented for the first time......" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Done. Also, done medal sorting. As for redlinks, no problem with them at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I also agree about the piping, the redlinks to nonexistent stats pages is ugly and unnecessary. Not convinced the content and subject warrent Featured List status. The level of information is minimal.PRehse (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      Do you have any more information you can provide? Featured lists aren't prevented because there's not much information available on a topic. I'd be delighted to see you provide more "information". Also, redlinks are perfectly permissible per WP:REDLINK, just because someone hasn't written the topic on specific boxing weights at specific Olympic Games yet, it shouldn't stop us from linking to them. Also, please use an edit summary when making drastic content changes to an article, it helps the rest of us understand why you've made such edtis. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Supoort – Another great job TRM, keep 'em coming! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Just one from me: in the Claressa Shields photo caption, "the" should probably be placed before "trophy". Everything else looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    Giants2008 done, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1920–39)

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 12:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Third time's the charm? Hopefully, I've got a bit more time at the moment, and I can give this the go it deserves this time around. I've looked over the previous nominations, and tidied up what I think needs doing. Pinging @Ianblair23, Vensatry, and NapHit: who all reviewed before. Harrias talk 12:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – meets the standards. 06:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

  • having previously only played Australia → shouldn't there be "against" before "Australia"?
  • some of the country's best batsmen → I think it's more encycolpedic to say "major batsmen" here
    • I think "major batsmen" is a less well-defined term that isn't commonly used in cricket, so it would be likely to cause confusion. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • they won 8 matches and lost 3 → ...eight matches...lost three (numbers are not above ten)
    • These are comparable figures to the figures against Australia, and so by WP:NUMNOTES should be represented in the same format. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • while they won by 10 wickets → ...ten
  • Everything else seems kinda flawless (I think there were lots of improvements from the last 2 nominations)
@Harrias: Here are my comments. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Thanks for the review – I've addressed some of the points, but don't completely agree with a couple. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Support from me too. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this last time and can already see that my concerns have been resolved. My only issue at the moment is that the penultimate sentence (in the lead) looks too lengthy. Perhaps, the "all-time record for any team" bit could be moved to a FN. Vensatry (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, please find my comments below:
  • Lead:
  • 41 victories, 49 draws and 30 defeats replace with this ref
  • The emergence of Don Bradman as an extraordinary batsman fix link to Batting (cricket)
  • while against the West Indies they won 8 matches and lost 3 add this ref
  • England won 14 matches by an innings link innings and add this ref
  • while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions add ref from above
  • Table:
  • These three points below were raised at the previous FLC as still need to be addressed
  • Test no. 172 and 173 in the table – at first glance it seems like one of the dates are wrong but as it turns out two English sides were playing at the same time! This definitely needs to be explained. I found this ESPNcricinfo article which explains the situation. May I suggest just add a note after the date in both rows to explain the situation.
  • Added a note, how is it? Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Test no. 178 and 214 – a comma is required between Bourda and Georgetown
  • Done. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Test no. 205 – change Kolkata to Calcutta (name didn't change until 2001)
  • Done. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Summary table
  • Make the table sortable
  • Bold all the figures in the total row
  • Link the teams
  • As for the refs, you only need the totals which ref 3, 25 and 26 give and the breakdowns are 1, 2 and 3. Lose the ref column and add appropriate the pair of refs after Total matches, Home matches and Away matches.
  • Just (frustratingly) ran out of time to do this one now. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ianblair23: I think I've ticked them all off now, just worked out the last one! Harrias talk 16:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick one, this should be called "England cricket team Test results (1920–1939)". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man looks like that one changed since I last worked on these significantly. Harrias talk 16:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Suffolk

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of county lists of Local Nature Reserves, and is in the same format as Essex and Cambridgeshire, which are FLs. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This is another list of listed buildings in the English county of Somerset. It follows the format of the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset and the more recently promoted Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. I believe it is comprehensive including images where possible, with brief information about each entry and links to its official listing documents.— Rod talk 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "Europe's oldest known engineered roadway, the Sweet Track." This is correct according to all the sources I can find apart from the Wikipedia article Sweet Track, which says the second oldest. Strange!
  • There has been some debate about this since one was discovered in London in 2009 & other sources may not have been updated since. Although Sweet Track was built over the Post Track which would also pre-date it. I have tweaked the wording.— Rod talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The original list was generated by a semi-automated dat download from English Heritage (now Historic England) during set up for Wiki Loves Monuments & these descriptions were included in that process. I have now standardised on "Church".— Rod talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better to correct excessively vague HE titles, e.g. "No 10 and attached railings" to "10 King Square and attached railings", especially as other titles are shown as e.g. "8 and 9 King Square", and this is obviously carelessness by some people writing entries. However, I realise that may go against your practice in other FL lists.
  • I have tweaked these as suggested.— Rod talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A ten figure grid reference, accurate to the metre, may be helpful for a cross but it seems too exact for buildings.
  • I have shortened the grid refs & lat & long entries, but display options seem to be set by the template.— Rod talk 10:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A first rate article. Just a few minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Peter

An excellent list, as always. Just a few thoughts you may consider to make it even better.

  • Ref 1. Why not go to the "horse's mouth" and use Historic England's own site rather than that of Manchester City Council? It's at [6]
  • Thanks - I don't think that was available (or I didn't find it) when I started these lists). I have also changed it on the other Somerset LB lists.— Rod talk 13:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 10 and 11. Why not use the NHLE reference rather than British Listed Buildings (same reasoning)?
  • I thought I always used NHLE in preference to "British Listed Buildings" but must have copy & pasted these without noticing - now changed.— Rod talk 13:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 4–6, 12 (maybe more) Why not use the NHLE template for these as well. This will give consistency to your referencing (which I thought was a requirement for a FL).
  • I've tried to do this (let me know if I have missed any) - I have been nervous about using too many templates as this can cause problems with large lists (some of the Somerset ones are extremely large), most are generated automatically from the template "EH listed building row" but hopefully now consistent.— Rod talk 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Overlinking of "Historic England" It needs to be linked only on the first occurrence. After that it can be blocked by adding "|fewer-links=yes" at the end of the template on each occurrence. This will much reduce the unnecessary blue-linking.
  • I have tried adding "|fewer-links=yes" I didn't know about this "switch" on the template.— Rod talk 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Cardiff City F.C. league record by opponent

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

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

Support on style and comprehensiveness. Minor quibbles:

  • "They achieved their highest ever position during the 1923–24 season, finishing in second place of the First Division, losing the league title on goal average to Huddersfield Town," could be tightened. Not a big fan of the -ing repetition.
  • You need to add 'Category:English football club league records by opponent' at the bottom
  • The reliability of Soccerbase is questionable. Some users have reported missing data, myself included. Best add another site in case.
  • Ref 1 needs date.
  • Could add alt text for image. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lemonade51: Thanks for the review, I've made all of the changes above bar one. I'm probably opening the age old can of worms but Cardiff are a Welsh team playing in the English leagues not an English team as the category seems to suggest. Kosack (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
'Category:Association football league records by opponent' would suffice. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Added. Kosack (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Quantico (season 1)

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • In the "Run" episode description, please address the "clarification needed" tag.
  • Please add ALT text to the image in the "Production" section.
  • I do not believe the links in the "Ratings" table are necessary as it just links right back to a different part of this list.
  • I removed the links but someone reverted me saying it is the part of the template and hence should not be removed.Krish | Talk 13:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that is true as if it was truly "part of the template", then it would automatically be linked and could not be un-linked so easily. Either way, I will leave this up to future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the following sentence (She is taken into custody charged with treason) should read as (She is taken into custody and charged with treason).
  • This sentence reads awkwardly (Featuring two timelines, various flashbacks show Parrish and fellow agents, each having their secret reasons for joining the FBI, training at the FBI Academy.). In this phrasing, the dependent phrase (i.e. "Featuring two timelines" is supposed to modify the subject of the rest of the sentence (i.e. "various flashbacks). Since the various flashbacks are not featuring two timelines, this should be revised.
  • Please revise the following part: "Shelby Wyatt, and (Johanna Braddy),".
  • I am confused by this part (who all seem connected somehow to the bombings), specifically the word "bombings". Were there multiple bombings/attacks? You have only mentioned the one on Grand Central Terminal at this point.
  • I would change "she works to determine who the mastermind is behind the bombings" to "she works to uncover the mastermind behind the bombings" for conciseness.
  • I would change the link on "Senator" to United States Senate to be more specific.
  • You have ABC Studios linked twice in the list.
  • I have two issues with this phrase "Good ratings and strong viewership numnbers": 1) numbers is misspelled and 2) what is the difference between "ratings" and "viewership numbers"?
  • You have Alex Parrish linked multiple times in the list when it should only be linked on the first instance.
  • The characters who were already introduced in the "Overview" section should not be re-linked in the "Production" section or any subsequent section.
  • You have "Grand Central Terminal" linked twice.
  • In the phrase "The twins, Caleb, Shelby, Natalie and Simon", you need a comma after "Natalie" as you are primarily using the Oxford comma in this list in other spots.
  • I have a concern with the amount of quotes used in the "Critical reception" subsection as there are a lot of them. I would encourage you to paraphrase a little more to help build a flow for this paragraph rather than just having a listing of different critics' quotes.
  • You use "season 1" in the "Ratings" subsection; please change those to "season one" to be consistent with the rest of the list.
  • I would move the "Accolades" subsection before the "Ratings" one; also since the "Accolades" subsection is so short, I am not certain if it needs to be separated from the "Critical reception" subsection.
  • I have moved rating section below. Plus, the accolades and critical reception sections are separated in other FLs too.Krish | Talk 13:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for moving it up, and I understand your point. I will leave this up to your discretion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
  • Make sure the recurring and guest characters are sourced.
  • ABC ordered the pilot on January 23, 2015, for the 2015–16 television season - "pilot" links to Pilot (television episode), but I think you mean to link to television pilot. And do link "2015–16 television season" to 2015–16 United States network television schedule.
  • Yasmine Al Massri plays dual roles as Nimah and Raina Amin, right? Mention that under "Production" in the sentence which goes, "...while Johanna Braddy and Yasmine Al Massri rounded out the cast in the final co-starring roles as trainees Shelby Wyatt and Nimah and Raina Amin". The word "respectively" could be added to avoid confusion.
  • Make sure the series' name is italicised in the reviews.
  • Robert Bianco from USA Today gave it a three out of four, praising the diversity Chopra's and Ellis' performances - is there supposed to be a comma between "diversity" and "Chopra's"? Also, does "diversity" refer to the cast?
  • On the other hand, TheWrap's Tim Grierson, who although felt that the show "provides sexy fun", was less impressed writing that the show often succumbed to "lame-brained plotting" and a unconvincing portrayal of the setting. He concluded saying that the fluffy material did not fit well with the darker tones "meant to be struck by the introduction of a cataclysmic terrorist attack." - I think you can begin with something more formal, like: "in contrast". You could add a comma after "less impressed" to split the sentence.
  • Done.Krish | Talk 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That's all from me. Once my comments have been addressed, I will support this. Source reviewing and proofreading may be done by any interested admin. An unrelated question: why is this article being tried for FL and not GA? I am reminded of an incident at List of Agent Carter characters' FLC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @Kailash29792: This is why. It depends on the article/list. This list does not contains heavy texts such as that of the characters' list you have linked above. I hope it is clear now.Krish | Talk 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Support: All my comments have been addressed. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Brojam
  • Actors' names should be removed from the overview section per WP:TVPLOT
  • No need to repeat the word "cast" for subheading (regular, recurring, guest) in the Cast section.
  • Change "Regular" to "Main"
  • All those actors should be sourced per WP:TVCAST. All the main actors and many other recurring actors have sources in the production section so just reference them and for the others try to find casting announcements, episode reviews or other RS, rather than something like Hollywood.com. I don't think it should be too hard to find.
  • The entire Crew section is simply a list of crew members and violates WP:TVCREW. There's no need to list all the directors and writers when they are listed in the episode section further down. The majority of the other members such as production companies and producers belong in the Development section.
  • The Production section should be divided into subheadings (Development, Casting, and Filming) to make it more clear and easier to navigate per WP:TVPRODUCTION.
  • Some small changes to the first paragraph: Joshua Safran pitched the series to ABC, describing the show as "Grey's Anatomy meets Homeland".[3] On September 17, 2014, ABC announced the network had bought the original concept for the drama series from ABC Studios, and creator Joshua Safran and producer Mark Gordon.[3] ABC ordered the pilot on January 23, 2015, for the 2015–16 television season.[4] In May 2015, the show was picked up after the pilot ordered to series, with an initial order of 13 episodes for the 2015 network-television season... In NovemberThe next month, the season was extended to 22 episodes.[7]
  • Second paragraph: "Following the pilot pick up," to "With the series order in May,"
  • Sentence "The show was designed to have a flashback..." should be put in the Development subsection since doesn't belong with Casting.
  • Replace Montreal, Quebec with Montreal, Quebec, no need for "(Canada)" after Quebec and change Sherbrooke to Sherbrooke, Quebec.
  • The source for the explanation of the title of S1E21 does not mention the original title "Closure". Either find a source that does or remove the note since it's kinda trivial without an explanation for the change.
  • In reviews: TheWrap should be italic
  • Ratings section belong as subsection of Reception
  • Would be good to add that it ranked as the third new series of the season among adults 18–49.
  • Ref #71's is not dead and the archive doesn't work.
  • DVD, Blu-ray and Region 1 should all be linked
  • Missing publisher TVShowsOnDVD.com to ref #94
  • For your refs, link the publisher/work/website for each reference to be consistent. Also make sure that you are consistent with using each parameter; you are using both publisher and work for Deadline.com, same thing for TVLine, and TheWrap.

That's all for now. - Brojam (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • It's always best to use the casting announcements for the cast. I went ahead and used those for the ones that were in the production section, for the rest I'm good with the TVGuide ref. I also made some other small changes [7]. Apart from that, everything looks good so I can support this promotion. Great job! - Brojam (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Ben Affleck

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

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

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

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

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


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

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

Anushka Shetty filmography

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked intensely to bring the list to its current state, and I think my efforts deserve to be fruitful. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • In the main image, I would revise the caption to include where it was taken.
The image caption at Commons reads, "Actress and TeachAIDS ambassador, Anushka Shetty, behind-the-scenes in Hyderabad, India before her live telecast at the 2013 Tech Awards Gala in Santa Clara, California". So could I write, "Anushka Shetty in Hyderabad, 2013"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That would be appropriate to me; it would just be helpful for the reader to know where the picture was taken so identifying the city is good enough for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Please provide ALT text for the main image.
Done: See what it is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the phrase (the first being S. S. Rajamouli's Vikramarkudu, which became a major commercial success,), you will need a citation to support the "major commercial success" claim.
There's this source which says "Anushka debut film was Super but she got recognition and fame with Vikramarkudu". So could I rephrase it to something like, The following year, she had four releases, the first being S. S. Rajamouli's Vikramarkudu, which helped her gain recognition? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That would seem fine to me; you could have kept the original sentence if you just added a source supporting that the film was commercially successful through. I am fine with either way you choose to approach this however. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence (In 2008 she appeared in six films, including Okka Magaadu, Swagatam and Souryam.), put a comma between "2008" and "she".
Done as asked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Add the release years for Yennai Arindhaal and Baahubali: The Beginning and Rudhramadevi and Size Zero.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the phrase (The following year she appeared in), put a comma between "year" and "she".
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would link all instance of "cameo appearance" in the table. Since it is sortable, the first instance of the term may change. Same comments applies for "special appearance".
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful job with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Aoba47. All except one have been resolved. Would it be fine to link "Bilingual film" in each cell to "Multiple-language version"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your responses. I have responded to your comments above, and I think that linking "Bilingual film" to "Multiple-language version" would be appropriate in this case. Please ping me when you are done addressing my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Aoba47, your comments have been addressed. Please tell me if there is anything else I can do. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Everything looks good to me; you have done a wonderful job with this. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: IMO the lead is somewhat long although I don't think its a hindrance in passing the FLC. Great work on this list Kailash29792.Krish | Talk 12:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Guys, I'll be travelling till 14 September. I hope someone will take care of the FLC in my absence. Ssven2, I hope I'm not putting pressure on you. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

List of number-one country singles of 2000 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated this list twice before, but each time it failed on the basis that some editors did not agree with single-year lists for number ones. As such lists have continued to be promoted (eg List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011 in 2015), this clearly isn't consensus and therefore I thought it was worth another punt..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I was a little confused by the title of the list as it was not made immediately clear what was meant by "country singles". Would it be more clear to rename this list as "List of Billboard number-one country singles of 2000" to make it a little more clear that you are referencing a Billboard chart?
    • The problem there is that the other 75 articles in Category:Lists of number-one country songs in the United States would presumably also need changing to be consistent............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I will say that it is fine for now then; I will leave this matter up to other more experienced users/reviewers. The title just reads as ambiguous/a little unclear to me, but I will not make an issue of it during my review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The image requires ALT text.
    • Upon further examination, I am not entirely sure about the quality of the image as there is a little bit of "noise" (a lot of the image is taken up by other people/actions during the red carpet). Do you think it would better to simply put two separate images of the singers so that way the reader has a clearer image of the two? Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Changed the image, added alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the infobox image's caption, I think "scored" is a little informal and should be replaced with a better word choice.
  • In the sentence (Published by Billboard magazine, until 2012 the data was compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based on each song's weekly airplay.), I think that the "until 2012" could be better integrated/placed in the sentence as it stands out rather awkwardly in the current phrasing.
    • Changed to something which is hopefully better. On reflection, the fact that the methodology changed in 2012 isn't really relevant to a list relating to 2000...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the phrase (until it was knocked off the top spot by "Cowboy Take Me Away",), I think the phrase "knocked off" is a little too informal and should be revised.
  • In the phrase (performed by girl group the Dixie Chicks,), it should read as (the girl group the Dixie Chicks).

Wonderful work with this list; my review primarily focuses on the lead's prose. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing all of my comments; you have done an excellent job with the list and it is an interesting read. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by She & Him

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Any comment from anyone will be very much appreciated. Damian Vo (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I am a little confused by the following phrase (which served as the soundtrack of Martin Hynes's 2007 film The Go-Getter), specifically the "served as the soundtrack" part. Do you mean that it was included on the soundtrack rather than serving as the film's entire soundtrack?
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it better to cite Richard and Linda Thompson rather than the artists separately as you are referencing when they worked together?
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the phrase (The duo's first Christmas album A Very She & Him Christmas made its debut in 2011), something about "made its debut" sounds odd in the context of referencing an album release.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Something about this caption (The two recorded songs for two of M. Ward's solo studio albums, Hold Time (2009) and A Wasteland Companion (2012).) reads awkwardly, especially since one of the two is M. Ward. I think this could be revised to read better.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would believe that albums in the chart need to be linked as if you sort by the different topics, sometimes an un-linked title appears on the topic. Same goes for M. Ward's name in the "Artist(s)" column.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason why the songwriters for "Me And My Shadow" are "unknown"? Are they not listed in the album's liner notes?
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this list. I honestly have never heard of this duo so it is cool to learn something new. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments. Damian Vo (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my comments; you have done a wonderful job with this list. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Carbrera
  • Both "The Christmas Song" and "The Christmas Waltz" do not have quotations surrounding them so please add some
  • On liner note sources such as #22, 23, 24, and 32, there should be Product ID numbers included, much like how you used them for your other refs.
I resolved everything you mentioned above. Damian Vo (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Support – per prose quality and cohesiveness. Looks great. I have a featured list candidate up as well if you'd be interested in taking a look. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC).
Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

EFL Championship Manager of the Month

Nominator(s): Officially Mr X (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of work has gone into keeping this list up-to-date, and complimenting the main list with interesting prose and relevant images. Several editors have contributed significantly to this list, and it exemplifies lists of its type. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comments'
    • Those two one-sentence paragraphs in the lead definitely need to be merged into the existing paragraphs somewhere rather than floating in glorious isolation
    • "For sponsorship reasons, since its inception it has been known as the Coca-Cola Manager of the Month award, with the company sponsoring the league from 2004–2010.[2] From the 2010–11 season, the league was sponsored by npower and the award has been known as the npower Manager of the Month.[3]" - loads wrong with this bit. The first sentence implies that it is still sponsored by Coca-Cola, which it isn't. The second sentence implies that it is still sponsored by nPower, which it isn't. You need to rework this whole bit into a grammatically correct and up-to-date record of what the award was called and when.
    • Any chance you could make the photo captions a bit more varied? At present they essentially all just say "X has won the award N times" over and over again
    • "The below table lists all the people that have won on more than one occasion" - maybe "all the managers" rather than "all the people".....?
    • First and third references under "general" are dead
    • Ref formatting is very inconsistent. Ref 3 has "The Football League" in italics but most others do not. Same with Sky Sports. Some refs have the source as "The Football League" and others just have "Football League", while the ones towards the end suddenly go more specific and have "EPL Championship" (which is wrong anyway - it's not the EPL Championship). Some of the Sky refs have "Sky Sports" but others have "skysports.com". Multiple different date formats are used, in some cases within the same reference! Basically the refs section is a bit of a mess.............

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for now, concerned about sourcing.

  • Formatting of references needs to be consistent. Is it DD-MM-YY or YY-MM-DD? Some sources use 'Football League' others are 'www.football-league.co.uk'. BBC Sport uses the work parameter on some FNs, and in others the publisher.
  • A few dead links
  • guardian.co.uk → theguardian.com
  • Why is there no mention of Football League First Division Manager of the Month, the precursor?
  • Tables could do row and colscopes for accessibility, per MOS:DTT. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Officially Mr X: You haven't responded to any of the reviews from the past few weeks; if you aren't able to respond soon I'm going to have to close this nomination. --PresN 04:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks

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

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

  • Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Neerja

Nominator(s): Mr. Smart LION 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by 2016 Indian film Neerja, which is one of the best films of 2016. As of now, the film has won 39 awards, which is not a less number for a film to win awards. Please kindly note that I didn't nominate the list for peer review, because I believe that the list is currently meeting at least 70% FL criteria. I will bring this percentage to 99, if issues are raised here. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same. Mr. Smart LION 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would include this in the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Awards and prizes, WikiProject Film and WikiProject Lists.
  • Is there any particular reason why you are not include the typical infobox used in these types of lists? (i.e. as seen in these two lists List of accolades received by Aadukalam and List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film)?
  • I would recommend adding citations for everything in the last paragraph of the lead.
  • The title in Reference 12 should not be in all caps.

These are a few points that jump out for me when I read through the list once. You have done an excellent job with this, and I will provide a more complete review once my comments are addressed above. My review will primarily be focused on the lead and the prose just so you know. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing the list and for your comments. I have addressed your first, third and fourth comments. As for your second comment, my answer is yes. Check the Featured lists in the "Recognized content" box in Portal:Bollywood. None of them has an infobox. So I copied their style. Waiting to hear your complete review. Mr. Smart LION 05:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; I will leave the infobox question up to other reviewers as I think it is fine without one. I support this for promotion.f possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thank you for supporting this list for promotion. And I looked at your current FLC. Though I've not fully gone through it, but it's looking great. All the best for your FLC. Mr. Smart LION 04:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Comments

Kapoor was fantastic in this fantastic thriller.

  • Regardless of how Bollywood accolades are, an infobox is needed to give an overview of the awards received by the film. See similar lists at WP:FL. The WP:DISINFOBOX in Bollywood lists was a result of some early discussions as it was thought to have confused the reader instead of helping. However, I disagree now.
  • "served as the stunt director for the film.[5][1]" => "..the film.[1][5]" (shift the references).
  • Mumbai, Karachi, Pakistan - WP:OVERLINKING.
  • "As of 15 July 2017, the film has won 39 awards" - I would cut the as of part since it is unlikely the film will receive more (competitive) awards in the future.
  • "The film won two awards: Best Feature Film in Hindi and a Special Jury Award for Kapoor—at the 64th ceremony of India's National Film Awards" would better work as "the film won two awards at the 64th ceremony of India's National Film Awards—Best Feature Film in Hindi and Special Jury Award for Kapoor".
  • "At the 62nd Filmfare Awards ceremony" - cut ceremony to avoid repetition.
  • " including Critics Award for Best film and Critics Award for Best Actress" => "including Best Film (Critics) and Best Actress (Critics)".
  • "Neerja was voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016" - according to whom, by whom? Somewhat WP:WEASEL-y.
  • Ref 8 and 13 - wikilink India Today in first instance and de-link in the next.
  • Ref 9 and 10 - ditto.
  • Ref 12 and 18 ^^
  • Ref 19 is incomplete. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@FrB.TG:  Done I've resolved all the issues. Mr. Smart LION 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Not quite
  • Mumbai, Karachi, Pakistan still not de-linked. In addition, there is now Indian that borders on overlinking.
  • "Neerja was voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016" - according to whom, by whom? Somewhat WP:WEASEL-y. I did not ask you to remove this altogether, just some explanation was needed. Was it voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016 in a poll by a critic?
  • Ref 18 needs accessdate. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Done except the second one. As for the second one, I searched on Google, but I could not found the answer to "Was it voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016 in a poll by a critic?". So I thought that it would be better to remove the sentence. Mr. Smart LION 05:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
You didn't need to Google. Just looking into the source for the answer would have done, but it does not seem like a relevant info anyway.
  • Support FrB.TG (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Mr. Smart LION 07:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

John Ford filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because John Ford is largely regarded as one of the greatest movie directors of all time. Therefore he warrants a featured list for his filmography. Having done several FL filmographies in the past I have now prepared this one for what I believe is ready for the upgrade. Please feel free to make some suggestions to help me get there. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Support - All my concerns were addressed. I'm quite impressed with how well-written the list is. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Slightlymad: Tried so hard for a nitpick but alas, this list exceeds expectations—from comprehensiveness to high-quality sources. Well done! SLIGHTLYmad 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Once again, thanks. Jimknut (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - Good work on the article. A fully detailed list and well sourced.--Earthh (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you.Jimknut (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Slovenia international footballers

Nominator(s): Snowflake91 (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article has clear inclusion criterias, is well-sourced, and was modelled after other similar football FL lists. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias talk
  • First, big one is that the table needs to be accessible. MOS:DTT gives some guidance on this.
  • The equals signs don't work in the '#' column, as they break the sortability.
  • Personally, I'd expect this list to give me some indication of the captains of the team.
  • Visually, I think the table would be better narrower.
  • The lead could probably do with being expanded a little bit more for a featured list too.

Overall I think a fair amount of work is needed to improve this to Featured quality. Perhaps take a look at the more recently promoted List of Cardiff City F.C. players for a more up to date idea of what is expected. Harrias talk 09:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Response

Hello, thanks for your comments. Resolving the problems:

  • Done, recreated the table from scratch.
  • Removed "#" column, which is not really needed.
  • Marked players which captained the team in five or more matches with source; there are no "fixed" captains over longer period, so its hard to do it year-by-year.
  • The table is now narrower, same as on Cardiff article.
  • Expanded the lead with 3-4 new sentences, if the lead is still too short I would like some ideas what could be mentioned as well since I cant think of anything. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Velaiilla Pattadhari

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian Tamil comedy-drama film, Velaiilla Pattadhari starring Dhanush and Amala Paul. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members, especially Dhanush, several awards and nominations. It is my eighth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I think the following part of the lead can be revised to flow better (a civil engineering graduate who is unemployed for four years, and his search for a job, which he gets), specifically with how the sentence ends with a verb. I am not sure "which he gets" is entirely necessary, so I think you can remove it and that would fix that part.
  • For the phrase (it received seven nominations and won five), I think you need to add "awards" after "five" to complete the phrase as without the word, it sounds like you are saying it won five "nominations".
  • In the phrase (It garnered eleven nominations at the), the "eleven" should be put as "11".

Great work with this list; once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have resolved the first two comments. As for the third, I'll stick to "eleven" so as to maintain consistency in case other fellow editors question it in future. I hope you understand. Thank you for reviewing as usual, Aoba.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me; I support this. Wonderful work with this list. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks Aoba. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I'm currently taking a break from reviewing as per my talk page statement. Good luck with your FLC though, looks great.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response, and I apologize for not checking. I hope that you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thank you for asking, Aoba. Yes, my weekend is good. Hope yours is too.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Northamptonshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLs such as Essex and Cambridgeshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "Northamptonshire" should be in blue, not in bold.
  • Couldn't "Area" be replaced with the following code instead of repeating the units in every cell? "Area<br />{{nowrap|<small>[[Hectare|ha]] ([[acre]]s)</small>}}"
  • I think it is more convenient for readers to see the units when looking at each site. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Site names are in bold and centered. Not consistent with your previous SSSI lists.
  • Fixed. (I must have edited with Word, which messes up the formatting). Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "B" and "G" lack {{tooltip}}. Not consistent with your previous SSSI lists.
  • "Area" and "Location" lack notes; "Map" and "Citation" have different notes. Consistent with Cambridgeshire but not consistent with Essex.
  • Fixed first one, fixed Esses for second. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • {{commons category}} is at the bottom. Not consistent with Essex.
  • {{GeoGroup}} is near the "Sites" heading. Consistent with Cambridgeshire but not consistent with Essex.
Please note that I'm not saying this list should be updated to look like the previous ones – you might as well update the previous lists, just be consistent. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your review Sandvich18. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem. :) If you prefer having units in cells, then may I suggest adding style="width:75px;" to the first cell in the "Area" column and |disp=br() to each {{convert}} in the table? It would make that column look less busy. I took the liberty of implementing that change myself to show you what I mean, feel free to revert it if you don't like it, of course. I also think expressing coordinates in DMS instead of decimal would look better. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes to the area column. It looks much better. I prefer not to change to DMS. Decimal looks OK to me and it would be a lot of work to change all the lists to DMS. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright. I'd also suggest using "{{As of|2017|07}}" in place of "As of July 2017". Other than that, I think the list looks great and I support this nomination. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
'As of' template added. Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw Another interesting list which has already had most of the minor tweaks resolved, so I don't have much to add:

  • In the lead does England need to be wikilinked? (I thought linking of common terms was discouraged)
  • Would it be worth wikilinking fen as some readers may not familiar with the term (eg in description of Aldwincle Marsh)
  • I know we have debated definitions (and wikilinking) of ancient woodland in the past but now we have "secondary woodland" which could be wikilinked to Secondary forest (eg in description of Ashton Wold)
  • In Alder Wood and Meadow we see "a surviving fragment of the Royal Forest of Rockingham" by the time we get to Banhaw, Spring and Blackthorn's Woods and Wakerley Spinney we have "remnants of the ancient Royal Forest of Rockingham" and at Geddington Chase, Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods and Short Wood "medieval Royal Forest of Rockingham." - would it be worth making these consistent? Is it ancient or medieval?
  • I followed the source in each case, but William the Conqueror introduced Royal Forests, so they are medieval and I have corrected.
  • I know ages of geological deposits are approximate but we have the Rutland Formation and up to nearly the top of the White Limestone Formation, "169 to 166 million years ago" (Cranford St John) & "168 to 166 million years ago" (Finedon Top Lodge Quarry). At Roade Cutting we see White Limestone Formation between 168.3 and 167.1 million years ago. Have we got a date for Blisworth Clay (Thrapston Station Quarry)
  • The International Commission on Stratigraphy says 168.3±1.3 to 166.1±1.2, so I have settled on 168 to 166. The British Geological Survey says Blisworth Clay is Bathonian, and Thrapston is the type site, so I have amended accordingly.
  • Many of the references to citation sheets etc are archived but some are not - any particular reason? I now use the IA bot form to archive them all.
  • Someone else must have archived some citations as I rarely archive, but I have tried running your bot. I have never used bots before and I got two failures with error messages but the third time it worked fine.

I can't see any other issues with meeting the criteria at present.— Rod talk 13:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for addressing these minor issues. I think it now meets the criteria so I can support the nomination.— Rod talk 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Image and source review
  • It is the only source I could find for uncontroversial information. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead, and that source, omit Rutland from the list of counties that it borders. (It isn't inaccurate, it just says "borders 8 counties including...", and only lists 7 of the 8.) This might work for the bordering counties, this for boroughs and councils and this possibly for the "East Midlands". Harrias talk 14:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done - with I think a better source for East Midlands. Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Put a full-stop at the end of ref #43 for consistency.
  • Checks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Harrias talk 13:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice work, thanks for the quick responses – images and sources are all okay. Harrias talk 18:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Metra stations

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the last time this article was an FLC, it was archived due to my inactivity. But for now, I am back to make any changes necessary for it to pass. Additionally, I believe I addressed any concerns from the previous FLC, so I'm hoping the second time's a charm. Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

These will be some quick comments.

  • Wouldn't it be better to have the key before the lines?
  • It would and I have made that change.
  • Why is "Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation" in bold in the lead?
  • No idea but I unbolded it and instead linked it to the corresponding Wikipedia article.
  • The lead seems a bit long. In addition, you do not specify the inclusion criteria.
  • I'm a bit confused about this one to be perfectly honest.

That is all for now. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: I have taken care of the first two bulleted items, but I'm a little confused about the third, particularly with regards to the inclusion criteria. Do I need to explicitly state that included on the list are current stations only plus a section for future and former stations, respectively or is it something else? As for cutting down the lede, I don't think the fourth paragraph is necessary, so I'm just going to add to the first paragraph that there are not currently any planned extensions of the system. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It means stating, at the beginning of the lead, what the article is about. It is where you do "This is a list of xyz". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: I will work on that shortly. I need to flip through similar articles that are Featured Lists to see how to set it up. Thank you for the feedback. Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: I have added a short history section about how the system came into being. I'm going to work on the paragraph more, but it's a start. I have a few questions/comments of my own:

  • In the "Lines" section, is it worth including Weekday Ridership and/or the mileage of each line in the table? I'm tempted to include the former, and neither set of statistics are hard to find, but I will only include them if they will add to the list.
  • Should I add more images? I feel like the list may be a bit lacking in that respect.
  • As for scope/inclusion criteria, see List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations and List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations for examples. They don't state in bold that it is a list of stations because in my opinion, that's not good writing at all. I clarified that the stations on the list are active stations, so if you read the first paragraph it should be pretty obvious what the list is about.

Let me know if there'a anything else I can do for the list. Sportsguy17 (TC) 15:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • I'd specify a time frame regarding average weekday ridership being 292,000; as of when was this figure accurate?
  •  Done - Stats have been updated to 2015/2016 depending on what was most recently published.
  • "all are within a short radius of each other" - I'd give some indication as to what "short" is? How big is the radius?
  •  Done
  • Do you think information about the planned Romeoville station should be included in the lead? As there's only one planned station I'm getting the impression new stations aren't added very often so this might be of interest. Up to you.
  •  Done - I added a small bit about it, but nothing too grand because it does deviate from standard practice.

That's all I found. I've never really looked at a list like this before so I'm assuming the way you've provided access to external links in your 'Stations' table is the accepted standard. Freikorp (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Though I don't particularly like it, many FLs about train stations do you external links instead of references in part due to the shear number of stations and it's far easier. Once I find the radius number all of your comments will be resolved. All comments have been resolved. Sportsguy17 (TC) 15:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. I'd actually probably shorten the information about the new station myself. I'd drop "Construction on the new station began in May 2017" and just say when construction is due to be completed. Again, up to you though. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Municipalities of Colima

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I brought this page from a stub to what I think is featured list quality using some of the templates I made for other list of municipalities in both the USA (ex:List of cities and towns in Montana) and Canada (ex:List of municipalities in Nunavut). It seems Mexican geography articles are under represented on here, so I thought I'd give this one a try. It is a small list, and I used previous comments from my other 14 successful nominations to inform this article. Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't "List of municipalities in Colima" the title of this article? Sandvich18 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure, but all Latin American articles appear to be this way. I have nominated Cantons of Costa Rica without problem. The list of is a bit redundant I think, but if you think it should be changed that could be done, but it should be done to all ~40 or so articles... Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Metro (Minnesota) light rail stations

Nominator(s): BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I was very surprised that this list didn't exist at all so here is a list of all 37 current and 26 planned light rail stations in Minneapolis–Saint Paul's 13-year-old system. I've taken cues in creating this list from other FLs of light rail stations, most directly List of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail stations. Suggestions and input are more than welcome, especially in ensuring this list is accessible for all users. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Just a minor issue, but the map should not include bus rapid transit stops in the map, since the list is just about the light rail system. Otherwise, counting the stations on the map will reveal more stations than are on the list itself. Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Mattximus. I agree and am going to install Inkscape and see if I can't recreate the whole map as an SVG on my own; if not, I'll head over to the Graphics Lab to see if one of the whizzes over there can either crop the Red Line out of the PNG or recreate the whole thing (w/ and w/o the Red Line) as a vector image. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 22:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, Mattximus, I gave it a shot! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 01:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm the words on the right are cut off for me, are they cut off for you too? I wonder if the map could also show the river like this one [8] Mattximus (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Mattximus, I gave it another go. What do you think? Best, BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 23:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Much better! Nice job! I think the image is perfect now. I will try to get to the review of the article at some point, however I will be heading to China soon so it might not be until the end of August. Mattximus (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The light rail portion of the network, managed by Metro Transit, consists of 37 light rail stations". This does not sound right. A network does not "consist of" its stations, and you do not need to repeat "light rail". Maybe just "has 37 stations".
  • "Extensions to both Metro lines are planned" This will become out of date, so you should say "As of September 2017,"
  • The status of the proposals is unclear. You say where the lines would go, implying that they have not been approved, and then say when give estimates when they will open, implying that they have been. Have they been approved and has construction started?
  • "Many stations connect with rail or bus lines." An extra column showing the connections for each station would be helpful to readers - this is just a suggestion. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Dudley Miles! I've tried to address your first three bullets and I'll take a look at possibly adding another column with bus and rail connections, akin, perhaps, to what's in the List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations. I'll ping you when I've come to a decision on that. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 04:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Dudley Miles. I took a stab at adding a Connections column to the table and it ended up being a wash. Most stations connect with several regular (non-rapid transit) numbered bus routes, leaving the Connections column looking like a numerical soup. The only stations with connections to bus rapid transit or commuter rail routes are mentioned in the lead and regular numbered bus routes are listed in the infoboxes on individual stations' pages. I think doing without Connections will keep this cleaner. However, I did find this article in the process which I think would be a good link or see also somewhere in the list. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 18:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fine. Support as meets the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina

Nominator(s): Sandvich18 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have taken care of the issues mentioned in this discussion and I believe this list is ready to regain its former featured status. I updated the lead, introduced a clickable skyline image, created new tables with images and coordinates, removed unsourced entries and added properly formatted references where needed. If it's necessary, I can also add alttext for images. This is my first nomination on Wikipedia and I hope to update all the "List of tallest buildings in ..." articles and standardize their structure. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just a bit of minor wording, featured lists don't start, or contain "This lists..." or "this is a list of..." or anything self-referential like that. It's somewhat tautological. A better way to start would be something like "There are x buildings over x height as of x year".
  • Also errors in the very first sentence. "67 completed high-rises, 6 of which stand taller than 492 feet (150 m), and 46 are over 60m". But 46+6 does not equal 67....
  • 33rd-tallest building in the United States needs a citaiton. So does "There are currently seven buildings under construction".
  • "4th in the Southeast " I think you should reference that you mean united states. Mattximus (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I wanted to make it clear that the first list is a ranking while the others are just lists, but I guess that's redundant; fixed. There's no error - 6 high-rises are 150m+, 40 (46-6) are 60-150m, and 21 (67-46) are under 60m (and are not listed here). I added references for the "33rd-tallest" and "seven buildings under construction" claims, and clarified that I mean the Southeastern United States. Sandvich18 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
No prob,
  • however that number in the lead should really match the number in the list, otherwise it's quite confusing.
  • Also "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings; they are listed in order of floor count, then alphabetically. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." should be placed in a note, linking to notes section (since it's just instructions).
  • as should " Any buildings that have been topped out but are not completed are also included."
  • The paragraph at the beginning of each section needs a ref (even if it's just copied from the lead).
  • Since 1909 needs an explanation (first building over x feet (x meters) tall?)
  • Why does the 8th tallest have a note saying 9th tallest? Lots of little details like this need cleaning up. Mattximus (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Details still need cleaning up. I checked the first link of the first note and it said Bank of America is the 234 Tallest in the World, but the article says 230.... Oppose for now until little issues are fixed.
I'm really not sure about the first sentence, I don't think it's confusing at all... I would like to hear a second opinion. I moved the instructions to notes, added references to the sections (except the timeline, which is self-evident), and clarified the year 1909. Indeed, the 8th-tallest building in Charlotte has a note saying it is the 9th-tallest building in North Carolina, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Sandvich18 (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I can try to reword my concern. You have a list of 47 buildings, but your opening sentence in the lead says "there are 67 completed high-rises". Since the lead summarizes the list, the numbers should match. I'm not sure anyone would disagree with this.
  • Also you still have lots of little details to iron out before reaching featured list status. For example, the first link I clicked on was to check if the tallest was 228th-tallest building in the world, but the link said 230th tallest. Just for example. Mattximus (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I removed that part of the lead. The reason why the link says 230th tallest is because two buildings taller than the Bank of America Corporate Center have apparently been completed since I added that information (for example the Guangxi Finance Plaza as slightly evidenced here). I will try to keep everything up to date, but I hope some delays are allowed. Sandvich18 (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure no problem, it is looking better already. I clicked on all three refs in the first box to find a source for "tallest in North Carolina" but it wasn't there or I couldn't find it. Mattximus (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Emporis page states that the BoACC "is the tallest building in both the Carolinas, and the tallest between Philadelphia and Atlanta." I changed "the Carolinas" to "North Carolina" to be consistent with other entries in the table. The rest of the buildings in the list are not ranked in North Carolina in their sources, though, so I will add this link to the general section of references. Sandvich18 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm actually not sure about that link since it already appears as a specific reference. Should I use it as a source in each row of the table (when it's appropriate) or would that clutter up the boxes too much? Sandvich18 (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, I don't think it's actually that big of a problem. It may as well be used both as a specific and as a general source. Sandvich18 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm maybe one of the few people who remembers the proposed Four First Union from 1999, which would have been the 5th tallest building in the country. Seeing as how the featured Chicago list includes canceled proposals, maybe that could be included here? [9] has some info. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • A note on the definition of high-rise and skyscraper would be helpful.
  • "230th-tallest building in the world" I am dubious about this. You link it to an article about tallest buildings according to a different definition, and it is already out of date as the source now says 234th. I suggest deleting (and 454th below).
  • Looks fine. Just a couple of minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • I'd remove the piping of National Register of Historic Places to "Registered Historic Place" and just link to the full article title.
  • "the construction of 101 Independence Center" - should this read "the construction of the 101 Independance Center"?
  • As per MOS:REALTIME, don't use terms like "currently" on Wikipedia. Reword "There are currently seven buildings" to specify as of when your source states this was happening. I.e "As of April 2017, there were seven..."

That's all from me. Looks pretty good overall. Freikorp (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sandvich18: You haven't responded to any of the reviews in the last month or so; if you aren't able to get to them soon I'm going to have to close this nomination. --PresN 04:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 TV series) episodes

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As the title suggest, this is a list for the episodes of Transformers: Robots in Disguise, the sequel series to Transformers: Prime. The show's first season aired its 26 episodes during 2015 and the second one had 13 eps in 2016. Later that same year, a 6-episode miniseries featuring Starscream was aired. The show is currently on its third, and hopefully not final, season. I worked on this page mostly by looking at other F-episode-L like Avatar and Eve. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would recommend adding ALT text for the logo. I would also add a caption specifying what it is for an uninformed reader/to avoid potential confusion (i.e. writing The logo for Transformers: Robots in Disguise as the caption).
  • I added an ALT text; I hope it's good. But I'm not too sure about adding a caption. I've seen other episode lists which include the logo and none of them seem to have a caption for it.
  • Thank you. Makes sense to me. I will leave the caption part up to other reviewers to comment on; I am fine either way as I think the meaning and usage is clear even without a caption. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would move the information from the note to the actual lead itself, as the part about it debuting on March 14, 2015 is not necessarily accurate if it was released officially prior to this date.
  •  Done Though I might have to rewrite it to fit in better.
  • The bit in the note about Canal J needs a citation.
  •  Done
  • I am a little confused by the phrase (his Minicon pupils Slipstream and Jetstorm, and Windblade.). Are you separating Windblade from Slipstream and Jetstorm as he is not one of the Minicon pupils? If so, then a short descriptive phrase in front of Windblade may be helpful for context. A brief descriptive phrase in front of Drift may also be helpful for how he fits in the context of the series.
  •  Done She's not. I was hoping the comma would help distinguish her from Drift and his minicons. Added in a description about Drift as well as Windblade.
  • For the phrase (began airing in 2016), use the exact date.
  •  Done
  • You use the phrase "the Bee Team" in the third paragraph, but it is never made clear what this means or who constitutes the team exactly. Some context would be helpful here.
  •  Done Added that Bee Team is the name for Bumblebee's team. I guess for outside viewers the word Bee must be somewhat confusing.
  • Please include in the lead any information about the DVD releases.
  •  Done
  • Shouldn't the original air date for the first 13 episodes be December 31, 2014 according to your note as that is when they were first made available/shown? Just wanted to clarify this as the date listed could be correct, as it depend on how you define "air date".
  •  Done
  • Look through the episode descriptions and make sure that all of the cases of "they" are clear. For instance, in this phrase (While Bumblebee works to get Grimlock to trust them, they must work together), I have no idea who "they" is referencing.
  • In the "DVD releases" section, "Season 4 (2017)" should be "Season 3 (2017)".
  •  Done Crap, don't know how I missed that.
  • In the same section, I would remove "Region 2" if there have not been any releases made in that region.
  •  Done Though I'm hoping they'll start releasing them in Europe cause I'd like to buy some. :P

Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I will support this as I believe that all of my major concerns have been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Slightlymad

Comments from Slightlymad

The prose is well-written already, but I did a minor copyedit for unneeded links, spelling and punctuation, and use of contractions which is a discouraged practice in encyclopedic writing per MOS:N'T. The following are my thoughts on the list:

  • Oh my, refs 66-70 are bare urls! I can't comment on the sources' reliability, though; I think a FL coordinator has got that covered.
  •  Done
  • Is there a reason why the Online shorts section is unsourced?
  • I tried finding sources for the rest of the video but I wasn't able to find them either on Facebook or YouTube. According to the Transformers Wikia, most of them were first uploaded on Hasbro's Transformers website but I checked there and unfortunately, none of the videos actually have upload dates. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Well since this is a source-related issue, I will leave that to another reviewer; it is not too much of an issue to hold up my review. Slightlymad (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There might still be contractions in the prose so just fix them yourself.
  •  Done
  • Substituting those N/As with this template will do nicely: {{N/A|None}}
  •  Done
  • Lots of inconsistencies on the date formats: for instance, the footnotes use the dmy format while the prose uses mdy. Don't you worry, I got this.
  • Thank you.

And that's it. I'll put this onto my watchlist so no need to ping me when they're done. Comments generally resolved, Supporting. Slightlymad (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

Comments from Freikorp

I'd be happy to support this now if it wasn't for the two un-referenced single sentence paragraphs at the end of the lead. I really think you need a citation for both of these statements, and at the very least they could be merged together to form a slightly larger paragraph. Considering how short this information is though I'd either try and flesh it out or merge it with an existing paragraph. Freikorp (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I merged the two sentences into a single paragraph as both of them were indeed too small by themselves. I also found a reference for Transformers: Cyberverse. Regarding the DVD releases, the release dates are at the bottom and as of now, only the first season (unfortunately) has been released on a single DVD box set. And only in the United States and Australia. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. Don't feel obligated, but I'm looking for comments on my FLC. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Source comment

At this point, I'd advise the nominator to take a look at this thread, as a bunch of us were concerned about episode titles, directors, and writers not being cited in the list in question, which is similar to this one. I'd feel uncomfortable promoting the list if the information remains uncited; I'm willing to say that plot information can be assumed to be covered by a given episode, but for these items I'd want to see sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, just so I'm sure I understand what the discussion was about. You want me to find a source that cites the episodes' titles, directors and writers? Because something tells me it's gonna be near impossible. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @PanagiotisZois: I think that the consensus from the thread was to cite the episodes directly (and correct me if I am wrong about this @Giants2008:). I just do not agree with that method personally, as it is already assumed that the episodes are the primary sources themselves, and it would also unnecessarily bulk up the references section. If this is to become the new standard for these types of lists, then I would imagine a large discussion and consensus would need to be developed in the future. Just wanted to help out a little with this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The clear consensus from that discussion was that some kind of reference should be provided for verifiability. I wouldn't say that there was a strong consensus in favor of a particular citation method, though. One user suggested citing the episodes directly; others suggested using general references for the purpose. The latter method was ultimately used, with references to episode lists from TV Guide and Futon Critic. This offered the advantage of having refs from third parties, and was less work for the nominator than citing all of the individual episodes would have been; it also didn't add much of the bulk that Aoba is concerned about. Perhaps this idea could be considered here? The delegates can do what they like and I'll support their decision, but I'm not planning on promoting the list myself if some sourcing is not provided. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: I checked Futon Critic and it doesn't provide either the directors or writers of the episodes. Some episodes don't even have their own page there. As for TV Guide, for some reason I can't currently access the site as it's taking too long to load but if I'm not mistaken, that doesn't offer that information either. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of birds of Puerto Rico

Notified: Joelr31, WikiProject Birds

Someone posted a request to have this article listed on FLRC talk a while back, and it was never done. I decided to have a look at the list, and it has obvious deficiencies that cause it to fail the FL criteria. The most pressing of these is a lack of inline citations; there's only one in the whole article, and the body doesn't have any. In addition, it has the old-fashioned "This is a list of" opening, and the formatting in general pales in comparison to modern FLs such as List of parrots. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Although the content is uncontroversial, the standard is well below what is required for a featured list now. Unless someone is prepared to take on the considerable task of salvaging this, it should be delisted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Delist. As pointed out above, it would be a major project to bring the referencing up to FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Delist: Per above, standards are and should be much higher now.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Tulsa, Oklahoma

Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Architecture

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=801809483"
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