Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



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

Contents

Nominations

List of number-one hip hop albums of 2017 (Germany)

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 00:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is my fourth list up as an FLC; I think it meets all the criteria. It's stable, the lead is long enough and gives enough information, five pictures are enough and the table should be alright. (All in my opinion obviously). Best regards, Lirim | Talk 00:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Official Classical Singles Chart

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I originally nominated this article for FL status back in January, but the nomination was unsuccessful. Since then, I believe that the outstanding issues have been resolved, so I'm having another go. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The following part (In January 2013, following the release of his album In a Time Lapse, Einaudi's singles) is a little odd. I think that the beginning part of the joining phrase should be "Einaudi" rather than "Einaudi's singles" to connect back to the "his" in the preceding phrase.
  • For this part (E. L. James, author of the original novel on which the film was based, said that she was "delighted" that her readers had been introduced to the piece of music), I think you can paraphrase the "delighted" quote.
  • I believe for this part (At the time of the launch, classical music was becoming more popular in the UK:), it should be a semi-colon instead of a colon.

Other than these very nitpicky comments, I think the list is in great shape. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

List of longest-living members of the British royal family

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors! I am nominating this article because it is a comprehensive yet narrowly-scoped list of the longest living members of the British royal family. Please feel free to share your suggestions and comments here on any improvements this article may need to become a featured list! Thank you in advance. — West Virginian (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "Member by blood" is linked in paragraph 2 but the term is used earlier - link it there instead
    • "She is also the longest-living member by blood" - as this comes after a string of royal women, it is a bit unclear to whom the "she" actually refers, so this could do with clarification
    • "deprived of their British titles in 1919 under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917" - might be worth adding a few words or a note to explain why this was done
    • "Elizabeth II (born 1926), is presently the sixth longest ever living British royal family member, the longest-living British monarch, and in September 2015, the longest ever reigning British monarch" => "Elizabeth II (born 1926), is presently the sixth longest ever living British royal family member, the longest-living British monarch, and, since September 2015, the longest ever reigning British monarch" - she didn't only hold the distinction of longest reigning monarch in that one month......
    • Most significantly, the chronology table is back-to-front - by definition a chronological list should be in chronological order, not reverse chronological order.......
    • Notes b & f and c & g are identical and could be combined
  • Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Radiohead

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My Talking Heads FLC has three supports so I think I'm good for my next song list: the English rock band Radiohead. Many of Radiohead's pages are featured or good articles and because their music has been so influential since the 1990s, I felt this list deserved better than this. As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I have to oppose this right now as I think the lead is overlong - lots of waffle and too much detail. In fact I meant to add an "overlong lead" tag to the page earlier today but didn't get round to it. I may attempt to trim it soon myself. edit: I should add that your recent work on the article has been excellent and has greatly improved it. Popcornduff (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff Thanks very much! I do think it seems a little long as well but I wanted to make sure I got everything since many of their albums were completely different from the ones that came before them. Any suggestions on how to trim it? I have some ideas but I'd like your opinion as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest less detail about the style and reception of each album. That stuff is relevant but not to the extent that it's currently covered. I don't think the lead for this article should be significantly longer than the Radiohead lead, as a rule. Popcornduff (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff I trimmed it down more and it's now shorter than their main article's lead. I mainly trimmed down info about EPs and less info about OK Computer, In Rainbows, and The King of Limbs, as well as removed the info about The King of Limbs live album and The Help Album. Does it look better enough to no longer oppose? :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Great job trimming this down. I've done another copyedit, which was much easier because the lead was so much slimmer. I'm not sure it's kosher for a someone to support or oppose FAC noms when they've contributed a fair amount to the article themselves, so for now let's just say I'll withdraw my opposition.
I have a couple more suggestions and questions.
  • You differentiate some songs using colours *and* keys. Is it necessary to use both?
  • That's how other featured lists do it. I've also have nominated six songs lists for FL and have used this format for every one. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Do single releases include promo releases? If so should this be clarified? (I'm unsure on this myself.) But, for example, Lotus Flower is listed as a single presumably because it was a promo single - but Lift isn't, despite receiving a music video - is this correct? Again, I'm unsure exactly about what counts as a single or promo single, so maybe the article is already correct... just making sure.
  • Yes. Some articles differentiate promo singles from regular singles but because Radiohead has not released that many promo singles I just combined them. "Lotus Flower" had a music video and was released as a promo single but no official commercial singles were released for The King of Limbs. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As a result of my last copyedit one source has ended up looking a bit weird - "featured a sound[4]" - I'm guessing we can just get rid of this citation as it's not clear what exactly it's citing any more...
  • There are still a couple of bits in the lead that are a bit vague for my liking. For example, there's a fairly concrete description of Kid A - influences from these genres, etc. But for The Bends we get abstractions like "displayed the band's musical growth". Same for OKC. If possible I think it'd be good to dig through the wiki pages for those bands and get some more concrete descriptions of what distinguishes those albums.Popcornduff (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's hard for Kid A and In Rainbows because their wiki pages don't really describe what the songs are like, mainly their genres. I've listened to Kid A but not In Rainbows so I'm not sure myself. I'll keep looking. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff Comments above. Thanks very much for your help! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor

Nominator(s): NØ 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. Lists I used as reference while writing it included List of songs recorded by Katy Perry and List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift. I don't see anything that would hinder it from being featured. All input is appreciated. Thanks.--NØ 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Megan Fox

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above is a list of the awards and nominations received by actress Megan Fox, well known for her role in the Transformers film franchise. I used the List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey as a model for this nomination. For those interested, this is what the list looked like prior to my expansion. I had withdrawn a previous FLC for this to take a wikibreak, but I believe that this is ready for the FLC process and should be pretty uncontroversial. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:@MaranoFan:: Pinging the two reviewers involved in the last FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from MaranoFan
  • I'm gonna support this FLC since nothing much has changed since the last one. I just have one question (which doesn't hinder my support vote because I know you'll address it quickly), but there's an award from the Austin Film Critics Association in the infobox but not in the main table, perhaps is this in error? Would also appreciate your comments on my new FL nom [1], have a great day!--NØ 05:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. I have removed the reference to the Austin Film Critics Association. I had used the same model from the McConaughey list, and I must have overlooked that part. I will get to your FLC by the end of tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Support - happy to re-support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Support – Glad to see you're back! Happy to support. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you! I am glad to be back. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Source review

Went through the archive bot and only two references were given links in case the site ever goes down so it is well done. I checked all the 26 references and they all seem reliable due to how most of them have links to their own articles. The ones that don't have links are derivative from other publishers like Nick while I'm pretty sure Cinemablend qualifies. Dates and authors are also available when needed so I think this article passes the source review. Good work Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Status update
  • It looks like Aoba47 is taking a Wikibreak. If there are any outstanding issues, I would be happy to take care of them in the mean time. ceranthor 13:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I can still check in periodically, but I would still appreciate any of your help. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Albania international footballers

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have reworked the page to match my other recent international footballers FLs. I believe this list now stands alongside them and meets the FL criteria. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "As of October 2018, Albania have played 324 international fixtures, winning 79, drawing 68 and losing 177" - we're now in November, are these figures up to date?
    • Why are all the player names in bold?
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. The figures are up to date (although only until tomorrow). I put October to avoid confusion with their two upcoming fixtures this month. Removed the bolding. Kosack (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think I have anything else -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Baja California

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I am in the process of bringing up all the list of municipalities across North America to a high standard and I believe this one is already at featured list quality despite failing a previous nomination from lack of reviewers. The creation of this article involved a collaborative input which makes it one of the better lists that I have nominated. Thanks for taking the time to provide a review! Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Honestly looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support consistent with the other Mexico articles. Reywas92Talk 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1995

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to FLC regulars bored with country music by now, but 18 of these lists have now been promoted, so here's #19. Don't worry, I only have another 55 potentially ready to bring here ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Any reason the second paragraph has no refs?
  • Ref → ref abbreviation

Looks good as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph now has one ref. Nothing else in the paragraph needs a reference, because it is summarising info in the table (i.e. there is no need for a ref to show that only Alan Jackson had three number ones, as the table clearly shows that......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – As always, great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Indian Nobel laureates

Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because since the past nom some three years ago, the article have undergone a significant amount of changes and additions. The problems raised in the previous nomination were sorted out and therefore changes were incorporated into the article. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments
  • These links should be fixed.
  • You need to mention somewhere in the first para that the awards are given by the Swedish and Norwegian institutions.
  • Make sure all the images have alt text.
  • Most of the links are not properly formatted. Provide the title and the publisher.
Not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Publisher added in all links and access date updated. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The Geir Lundestad quote on Gandhi seems redundant to me. You can simplify in a sentence.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Done. Alt texts for the table entries were kept as such but !scope is used in the table to provide blue links to the corresponding articles. Also I've added empty alt fields per MOS. Thanks The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • All tables need scope rows and scope cols. You're good on scope rows in the first table
  • I think the lead image of Tagore should be replaced with a regular infobox but that's just my opinion. You can wait to see what other editors say about it.
  • All images need alt text
  • Care if I center the year column?
  • Use plainrowheaders in the tables
  • If it was jointly awarded to Malala in 2014 shouldn't she be in the table?
  • Quick correction, I meant shouldn't her image be in the table together with Satyarthi? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That would again be redundant since the article is specifically about Indians. Her name in the brackets would serve better than to add an entire image, IMO. It would be like blue sea, instead of links, its pictures...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh I see now and because she's not Indian. My bad, all good. :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead: "Committee.They" – space
  • Lead: 5 and 7 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
  • Ref 4 & 15 doesn't have the correct dating style

Looks good. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: All done save infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To add one into a list article like this where already all the information is pretty much summed up as three tables (each containing only their Nobel Prize subject, rationale and year) would be superfluous, IMO. Thanks for the review.. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah as I was writing my comments I realized an infobox really isn't needed in this type of list since it's just listing Indians who have won the Nobel Prize, not the Nobel Prize itself. Anyways, looks much better, happy to support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Norfolk

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Lead image seems a little big to me
  • In lead, "of which seven" → seven of which
  • 'What to see' on the information page at [2] is blank and I cannot find any information elsewhere. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Barnham Cross Common: sixty → 60 (later you use 40 instead of forty; make sure you're consistent)

Everything else looks good. Great job to you! Care to check out my current FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

List of S&P 1000 companies

Nominator(s): XOLE2129 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it has met the potential to provide valuable information towards individuals and groups with particular interests in business and finance. As a requested article, I have consolidated information provided by S&P 400, List of S&P 400 companies, and other reputable online sources in order to create this list which shows information of 1000 companies that are tracked by Standard & Poor's index. The article contains non-copyright images, and table-sort facilities that help users navigate the page from all devices. Also, it provides background information in regards to the index, as well as technical information. XOLE2129 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I think this article needs a lot more information in the lead and bout the S&P 1000 itself, especially because there is no corresponding S&P 1000 Index to expand on this. Looking at S&P 500 Index, very little of this sort of information is in this list detailing its background.
  • I don't know why the Russell 1000 is mentioned in the second sentence. Tell me everything about the S&P 1000 first, then comparative indices.
  • No comma between exchanges and NYSE.
  • I don't see where in the source for there being 1001 companies actually says 1001, nor why it's not 1000.
  • The last sentence of the lead is meaningless: What technical data? What is Capital IQ? There's no wiki article for it, and the source links to a useless log in page.
  • Why are the constituents split into two lists? This nullifies the ability to sort by name or anything else.
  • How are changes to the list made?
  • The 500 article discusses the weighting formula, why doesn't this?
  • Not that you have to copy the other article, but List of S&P 500 companies is fairly different from this list.
  • So I oppose for now. I think this has a way to go. Reywas92Talk 06:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


To Reywas92, the article definitely needed to cover some of the points that you have mentioned.

  • For your first point, the S&P 1000 is just the combination of S&P 400 and S&P 600, which are just the top nth number of companies in the market index. Hence, there isn't much information that could be written about S&P 1000 Index. Though I only provided background information on S&P 1000 and S&P, the reader can refer to S&P 500 (the main index) and S&P for more information, since it is only a list which combines two indexes.
  • Thanks for noticing that! I added similarities and differences between the indexes. I added it in the second sentence as there is usually confusion between the two. One just excludes BDC and the other doesn't.
  • Changed minor error with comma between exchanges and NYSE.
  • Added a source. Although you do need to log in to Capital IQ as it is a commercial/educational platform, it is the most reputable because it is offered as a subsidiary of S&P.
  • Added more information about Capital IQ.
  • Explained weighting formula. Mentioned briefly how the list is changed. Linked to more information for a more technical response.

I do have a question for other Wikipedians. A 1003 row list is fairly large, and it gets laggy on mobile devices and sometimes laptops/desktops. I understand that it's harder to sort by name etc., but how do I go fixing that? Do we just accept that the page can be laggy for some users?

Thanks! XOLE2129 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I had a think about it for a few days and I realised that it would be more effective overall if the table is combined for functionality, as what you have mentioned. I also removed the 'collapse initially' option to make it quicker for users to navigate the article, with an option to collapse if they're just after the information in the beginning.

Thanks again, I hope you reconsider this article to be a suitable nomination for featured list with the improvements that I have made based on your comments.

XOLE2129 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • I agree with Reywas92, this list does seem extremely big (almost 200k bytes); maybe you could separate the list into A–L and M–Z or something?
  • 'Holdings by region' table isn't consistent with the other tables (col headings should be dark)
  • I find it weird that the table is collapsible when it's the main table; honestly shouldn't be
  • Change date refs to month day, year not YYYY-MM-DD
  • Images need alt text
  • There's also only 11 refs. Feel like there should be more
  • I would bold 'S&P 1000' in the beginning
  • Since this list is American, make sure to use American English (capitalisation → capitalization; annualised → annualized; etc.)
  • Why are the dates in the image captions DD MMM, YY? Change to American dating
  • Lead "index.The S&P" – space
  • Many of the companies in the table are redirects and aren't properly stylized (for example: Aaon Inc should be AAON Inc.)
  • Acxiom is now known as LiveRamp
  • I would put a content box above the table so you can click a letter and it would go to the first company with that letter for better navigation

Still needs work. I'm sorry but for now I'm going to have to oppose. I do want to see what other editors have to say about it being too large because in my opinion it is. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Comments from XOLE2129
  • Hi, I originally had the list separated from A-K, L-Z. However, Reywas92 mentioned that it'll ruin the functionality of the table sort (alphabetical order), so I changed it based on that feedback. However, I am entirely open for editors to discuss which option would be better suited.
  • Fixed all graphics and formalities (date, alternative text), thank you!
  • It is a table combined from two individual ones, so it is hard to add more information (and therefore references), since it is a list. Though, there should be a main S&P 1000 article but unfortunately there isn't.
  • The content box would be an interesting addition in the article but would I need to do one for every letter? Disregard that, I assumed that the contents box would be vertical so it would have made the list excessively not proportionate and long.

Again, it's open for discussion on the function of the actual list (whether it should be sorted, or separated since the list is big). I only made the table collapseable because the article is big. Regards, XOLE2129 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2005

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In light of the success of my previous nomination, here are the cardinals who elected Benedict XVI in 2005. Comments and suggestions made on the 2013 list have been incorporated in this one, which is almost identical in style, so there should be no major issues. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

My only comment is that I don't understand this bit at all: "The number of votes required to be elected pope with a two-thirds supermajority and with a one-half simple majority were 77 and 58, respectively". How can there be two different numbers of votes required to be elected? The article doesn't explain this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Clarified accordingly. The simple majority would have only come into use in the case of a protracted stalemate (which didn't happen here). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. In that case support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Godflesh discography

Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because is a comprehensive log of all that Godflesh have released and I hope to eventually include it in a good topic. The lead recounts the history of the band's main releases and is supported by many references, the structure of the discography is easy to follow and clearly labeled, and, because no one else really edits Godflesh articles anymore, it is currently stable and will remain so for the foreseeable future. After my other list, List of songs recorded by Godflesh, reached featured status, I have a little more familiarity with this process, and I hope the discography can improve with help from all of you. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lirim.Z

Comments from Lirim.Z

  • Change the tables to the proper format like here. Keep the note section, just change the details columns and remove the year.
  • The rest seems pretty good.
--Lirim
Support: Just corrected the style issues. The lead is good, the format using notes is something interesting i've never seen before, but it fits this discography well. Removed single details at Cover singles, the single details should be given in a proper article and not in a discography. --Lirim | Talk 03:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see any reason to split original and cover singles into separate tables. No other discographies do this that I am aware of, and the tables are only small so could easily be combined -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Good point, I made the change. Thanks! CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A few more comments:
    • Numbers below ten should be written as words (in the first sentence)
    • "one of, if not the, first industrial metal releases" - this seems slightly grammatically mangled to me. I would go for "one of the first industrial metal releases, if not the first"
    • "2001's Hymns was recorded" - a sentence shouldn't start with a number, so maybe switch it round and have "Hymns (2001) was....."
    • There's a couple of places where you mention that an album/single "saw release". It may be pedantic but a record doesn't have eyes, so "received release" would be better
  • That's all I have at the moment. Excellent work :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much; all your suggestions are now implemented. CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good. Once again, great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Alexis Sánchez

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably the last of these for a while as I think we've hit our limit. Sanchez used to be decent, then he moved to Manchester United and it was all over bar the shouting. This could be his final tally... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Great job here! I have a couple of questions I'd like some clarification on. In the sentence that says "... Chile failed to qualify for the finals", wouldn't it be better if we rephrase to "... Chile failed to qualify to the 2018 FIFA World Cup"? That was linked in the DYK hook but apparently not in the body paragraphs. In addition, for the phrase "... two in FIFA World Cup finals", wouldn't it be better to put "... two in FIFA World Cup games" instead? One of them happened in the group stage (against Australia) and the other in Round of 16 (against Brazil). "Finals" from my understanding are the last stages of the tournament (or in other words, in the knockout stage). Could be wrong. MX () 02:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    Hey MX, thanks for your comment. My usual take on "finals" is the tournament post-qualification, i.e. it includes the group stages and then the knockout rounds to the final. It doesn't include the years of qualification games. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Got it. That's all I have. I think the article is ready for promotion. Please check the changes I made to the article. Feel free to revert any of them you don't think are necessary. Nice job again! MX () 18:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - the only thing I have is this minor grammar issue: "Despite scoring seven goals [....], Chile failed to qualify for the finals" - should probably be "Despite Sanchez scoring seven goals"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    Fixed that, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - muy bien, El Hombre Divagante ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Support – Good as always. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

List of number-one hits of 2017 (Germany)

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 10:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

My third list up for FLC. Added Refs, pictures and made the lead bigger. I think this meets the criteria. Lirim | Talk 10:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - just my opinion, but I think the singles number ones and albums number ones should be separate lists (articles). I've never seen both combined in this way on WP for any other territory/year..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Small problem, this format has been used for more than sixty lists, probably in accordance with the German articles.[3] I can't decide on my own to split all these articles in two seperate lists.--Lirim | Talk 12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The lists for Austria and Switzerland use the same format.--Lirim | Talk 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Rohit Sharma

Nominator(s): Political Cricketer, Vensatry (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rohit Sharma has had a phenomenal success in ODIs since 2013. His figures in the format stand next only to Virat Kohli. Political Cricketer created the article (happy to include him as a co-nom) and I expanded the lead and tidied up the table. As always, look forward to comments. Vensatry (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • In the first sentence, "twenty one" should be 21
      • Either one should be fine. Let's stick with words. Vensatry (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "In October 2013, he became the third player to score a double-century" - picky, maybe, but clarify that he was the third player in ODIs to achieve this
    • "highest individual total by a batsman in the format as of October 2018" - we're now in November...........
    • "highest score by a visiting batsman against Australia until England's Jason Roy made 180 against Australia" - second "against Australia" isn't needed
    • "In December 2017, he became the first player to score three double centuries in ODIs" - source?
    • "and he is only player" => "and he is the only player"
  • Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. Vensatry (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Link not out in the lead too.
    • Provide references for ODI and T20I debut matches.
    • "Test centuries scored by Rohit Sharma" seems unnecessary to mention since page is only for rohit sharma. Instead you can write as "Centuries scored in Test cricket". Similarly for ODI and T20I.
  • Other than those, all looks OK. Sa Ga Vaj 15:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sagavaj: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. Vensatry (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support my concerns addressed. Sa Ga Vaj 15:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Deccan Chargers cricketers

Nominator(s): Sagavaj (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this contains entire statistics of players who played for the Deccan Chargers and I would like it to become a featured list. This was already nominated and got rejected twice in 2012. I hope all those issues were answered now. Sagavaj (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments
  • Fix this one green link.
Replaced with another link.
  • Full stop missing from Gilchrist's alt text.
Corrected
  • In ref 9, DNA India --> Daily News and Analysis.
Corrected

Yashthepunisher (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Corrected the above issues. Sagavaj (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

List of AFL debuts in 2008

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Continuing my quest to develop more Australian Football League-related featured content, this will hopefully be my third FL this year after successfully getting Norm Smith Medal and List of Gold Coast Football Club players promoted. This time I have turned my eye to developing a format for VFL/AFL debut lists that can hopefully then be replicated across this series of existing lists. Allied45 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments - looks good, just one minor point spotted so far: key tables should not have a full stop at the end of text that isn't a complete sentence. Also, given that the key says, for example, "The number of games played in 2008", is it really necessary to say "Statistics are updated as of the conclusion of the 2008 season"? Surely that's obvious/implied...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks ChrisTheDude, all fixed. Allied45 (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor discography

Nominator(s): NØ 07:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I've made sure that only the most reliable sources are used in this list, and it is modeled after Taylor Swift discography, which is also an important FL about one of Trainor's peers as a singer-songwriter. One of the primary reasons this list's first FL failed was because Trainor was a new artist and I was blocked. Both the problems are clearly fixed now.--NØ 07:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Lirim.Z
Resolved comments from Lirim.Z
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • Is there another picture? The picture used in the artist article shouldn't be used in the discography.
  • Don't use Musicline for German charts, rather use this
  • Australian charts: [4]
  • "Dear Future Husband" was released as Trainor's third single, and was certified triple platinum by the RIAA. "Dear Future Husband" reached number 14 on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Trainor's third consecutive top 15 single.[8] Trainor's fourth single, "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which featured John Legend, was certified quadruple platinum by the RIAA. It peaked at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Trainor's third top-10 song.[8] It also reached number one in Australia and New Zealand. To support the album, two more singles were released; "Dear Future Husband" and "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" featuring John Legend. Both peaked in the top 15 on the Billboard Hot 100 and are certified multi-platinum in the United States. Latter also reached the pole position in Australia and New Zealand.
  • and became one of the best-selling singles of all-time with sales of over 11 million units internationally. Add "(As of 2015)."
  • Is there any information about the third studio album, that could be used in the lead?
--Lirim

Support.--Lirim | Talk 01:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man
  • See MOS:NUM re: cats and dogs for your intro sentence, all numbers or all words, but not a mixture.
  • Trainor is mentioned four times in four sentences, mix it up a little, sometimes with "she" or similar.
  • " When Trainor signed with...", "After signing with Epic, Trainor's..." repetitive.
  • "one of the best-selling singles of all-time ." remove space before full stop.
  • "All About That Bass" was certified diamond ... why start a new para when this song and its sales were being discussed in the previous para?
  • And link "certified" appropriately.
  • ""Dear Future Husband" and "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which featured American singer John Legend." did they both feature Legend, that's how this could be read.
  • "reached the pole position " no thanks, just "number one" or something less tabloidy.
  • " It was certified double platinum by the RIAA.", " It was certified triple platinum by the RIAA.", "The album was certified platinum by the RIAA. "... repetitive and needless small sentences, could be creatively merged with each preceding sentence.
  • Which territory is the release date of each album relevant to?
  • According to her MySpace page, all three of her independent releases came out a day before what you have in the table.
  • What's referencing all the various singles which didn't chart?
  • Notes in the Writing credits section do not need the bullets.
  • Avoid spaced hyphens per MOS:DASH, I count 13 in the ref titles etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

All addressed. All her albums were released on the same day in every territory so the release dates refer to all of them. As for the independent albums, pardon me if I misunderstood something but the release dates are all correct according to her Myspace? Thank you so much for weighing in, I hope to have your support for this FL in the near future!--NØ 18:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Check out this link then, from your reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I believe its the same link. The release dates for Meghan Trainor, I'll Sing with You, and Only 17 are respectively given as December 25, 2009, January 31, 2011, and September 14, 2011 on her MySpace page. These are the ones that are currently listed in the article.--NØ 19:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Edit:The release date for her albums are also confirmed here, here and here if you prefer this website!--NØ 19:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologise, I meant her current MySpace page, not that archive you have. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh! I wouldn't trust the current page tbh, because it only has Only 17 listed on it with no mention of her first 2 albums. We have the archive as reliable proof of when the albums were actually released. After her major-label debut, her new label tried to cover up all mentions of her independent albums to market Title as her debut, but the new information thats currently being shown on the page is inaccurate (as also proved by discogs). This is one of those rare cases where archived information is more reliable than what it has been changed to by her new management.--NØ 19:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

But if this is gonna be a dealbreaker for the FL then we can just remove the dates and keep the release years (which can be sourced by NRJ as well as Forbes).--NØ 19:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, The Rambling Man Hate to bother you again and again but can you indicate if you would prefer to keep release dates that are currently in the article (aka in the archive of her Myspace page) or remove them to just keep the years (which are sourced by reliable, secondary sources)? Your opinion is very important for me.--NØ 05:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I would acknowledge the issue with a footnote, i.e. a note to say although her official MySpace page gives slightly different date, most sources give the release dates as you have them in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Added hatnote.--NØ 16:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
  • I would revise this sentence (When the singer-songwriter signed with Epic Records in February 2014, her three self-produced albums were pulled from circulation.) to (These self-produced albums were pulled from circulation after she signed with Epic Records in February 2014) as I believe it would improve the wording.
  • For this part (She initially released three independent albums:…), I would revise it to something like (She self-released the albums:…) as saying “three independent albums” is slightly repetitive with the previous sentence and makes the prose less engaging. I also think it is important to emphasize that she self-released them as I was initially uncertain if she did that or did with a small record label when I first read the lead.
  • I would revise this sentence (The lead single from Trainor's second major-label studio album, Thank You, called "No" was released on March 4, 2016, and charted at number three on the Billboard Hot 100, earning a double platinum certification from the RIAA.) to (On March 4, 2016, Trainor released “No” as the lead single from her second major-label studio album, Thank You. The song charted at number three on the Billboard Hot 100, earning a double platinum certification on the RIAA.) as I think the original sentence would benefit from being split in two.

Great work with the list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Implemented all the changes.--NØ 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support from BeatlesLedTV

Support – Looks good. Great job! Quick question: The sales from her albums are over 2 years old now; should they be updated? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried looking for newer sales figures but reliable industry sources like Billboard and Forbes never updated Title's numbers since 2015.--NØ 06:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Talking Heads

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

After taking a break from editing and FLC's for a while, I'm back. My return to FLC is another song list, this time by the rock band Talking Heads. I will also return to commenting on other FLCs like I used to earlier this year. As always, comments are appreciated and welcomed. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments
  • "Talking Heads were an American new wave band" - I am not American but my understanding is that American English would say "Talking Heads was an American new wave band". This applies in a number of other places eg "their debut", so probably worth confirming with someone American :-)
    • That's how it's worded on their main page so I worded it the same here.
  • "12 of which weren't officially released" => "12 of which were not officially released" – Done
  • "live recordings of songs from their four albums (at the time)" => "live recordings of songs from their four albums to date" – Done
  • "only Top ten hit" - no need for capital T on Top – thought so
  • "a song that the English rock band of the same name named themselves after" => "a song from which the English rock band of the same name took its name" – Done
    • You haven't used the wording I suggested, and what you have put in doesn't make grammatical sense - you need to say "song from which", not "song that" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The album marked a return the experimentation" - think the word "to" is missing – yes it is
  • "After Naked, the band went on a "hiatus"" - can't see why hiatus is in quote marks
    • It's in quotes because that's how it was perceived by the public. They really broke up in 1988 but didn't officially announce it until 1991, so to the public they were on "hiatus"
        • Then you need to clarify that with actual wording. Simply putting the word in quote marks doesn't convey that at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed the quotes. I mainly used them because AllMusic & their main page puts the word in quotes as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "12 previously unreleased songs have seen official release" => "12 previously unreleased songs have been officially released" (songs don't have eyes and therefore can't see anything) – Done
  • "Non-album single, B-side to "Psycho Killer"" - if it was the B-side then it wasn't a single, so change to "non-album song"
    • That's how I've had it for my other featured song lists so I think it's fine
  • ""Take Me to the River" - (Al Green) cover" - closing bracket is in the wrong place – yes it is
  • They released 22 singles as far as I can see. Was there really only one non-album song on all those B-sides?
    • The song "New Feeling" was originally a B-side but was later released on their debut later the same year. I have that fact in a note on the song. Yeah unlike the Smiths, Talking Heads never really had many non-album B-sides

Hope this helps - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

    • ChrisTheDude Thanks for your comments! I'll be sure to check out your FLCs if I haven't already! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Support from MaranoFan
  • The only thing different I noticed about this list compared to other FLs of the same type is single releases being indicated separately. But its helpful to readers so no need to remove them.

The prose is great. This list has my support for FL promotion!--NØ 09:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "Beginning as former art school students" This sounds a bit clumsy to me. Maybe "After leaving art school"?
  • Fixed
  • "but suffered from David Byrne's "lyrical pretensions"" This is editorialising and should be attributed inline.
  • Yeah I never liked that because it seems biased and non-encyclopedic. I just removed it.
  • Looks fine. Just a couple of quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • Ref 14 has a bit of all caps (TIME) that should be taken out. Otherwise, all of the references are well-formatted and the link-checker tool shows that the links are all in working order.
  • Given that Discogs is generally considered an unreliable source because it has user-generated content, we can do without the links in refs 3, 19, and 35. The liner notes themselves are perfectly fine sources, and it's not worth it to include an unreliable source even if they are just convenience links.
  • Spot-checks of refs 14 and 17 turned up no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • With those comments resolved, I'd say this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "musical transition". What does Ruhlmann believe the band were transitioning from and to?
Basically Remain in Light built upon Fear of Music in its use of African polyrhythms and things like that. Ruhlmann just talks about how Fear of Music was basically the precursor to Remain in Light and showed what was yet to come. Make sense?
Yes, that makes sense. But, looking now at what the source says, Ruhlmann actually describes it as a "transitional album", rather than a "musical transition". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Ruhlmann actually used "musical transition" in his review of Remain in Light so I added that ref to that sentence.
I still think it might be worth very briefly expanding on what he meant by "musical transition", though. So Fear of Music was the band's transition from their more straightforward first two albums, to the musical experimentation of Remain in Light? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A Thousand Doors Affirmative :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Billboard Latin Music Award for Latin Jazz Album of the Year

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

So this list differs from my previous works on Wikipedia. Even though most of my contributions have been focused on Latin pop, tropical, and special Latin music awards, I wanted to do something different. As someone who is also fan of jazz, I wanted to contribute to a jazz-related article so I have chose to work on an award that used to be presented by Billboard. I look forward to your feedback! Erick (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion, but was there ever a reason given for the discontinuation for the category after 2008?
  • For this part (a ceremony which honors "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music, as determined by the actual sales, radio airplay, streaming and social data that shapes Billboard's weekly charts.”), I believe the period is supposed to go on the outside of the quotation marks, unless you are citing full sentences.
  • This is another clarification question, but how can an album, like Latin Soul, be nominated two years in a row. I would imagine for award ceremonies, like this one, there is a cut-off period to be considered for a nomination. Has anyone ever talked about this or explained how it was allowed to happened?
  • Something about this sentence (His records, Danzón (Dance On) (1994) and Hot House(1998), are both winners of the category that are also recipients of the Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album.) reads awkwardly to me. I am not sure if the transition to the Grammy Award is fully working here. Maybe something like (His records, Danzón (Dance On) (1994) and Hot House (1998), are both winners of the category, and also received the Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album.)?

Wonderful work with this list. The prose for the lead is well-done, and the two images have appropriate ALT text. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FLC. Either way, I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've looked through pretty every Billboard magazine issue from 2009 and couldn't find their rationale for the removal. Only thing I could find was an article saying they added 13 new categories. According to Leila Cobo in the 2001 awards, it continued to do well on the Jazz Albums chart even though it was released in late 1999. A similar case happened where Lo Mejor de Mí (song) by Cristian Castro won the award for Latin Pop Song of the Year by Billboard in 1998 and was nominated again in 1999 because it continued to do well in the Latin Pop Songs chart. I think the opening paragraph about how Billboard determines the nominees by charts and sales probably helps with this bit. Anyways, I've addressed everything else, thanks for your input! Erick (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification! I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support my concerns addressed, cheers for the patience! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List of World Heritage sites in Albania

Nominator(s): Tone 19:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Following the recent successful nominations of lists in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, I think this one is ready as well. Style is consistent with the previous two and there are enough items on both regular and the tentative lists to merit a separate article (admittedly, the Macedonia list was a bit thin in this regard). Tone 19:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from N Oneemuss

Interesting list. It looks like a lot of work has gone into it and I think I will support.

  • "dating back to the antiquity" shouldn't have "the" in it.
  • The link to architecture in the table seems a little unnecessary. Basilica and citadel could maybe be linked though?
  • Maybe "Byzantine" should link to Byzantine Empire instead of Byzantine architecture?
  • "two-storey houses". Also, "outstanding" seems a little biased to me.
  • I'd use "transnational" instead of "transboundary", it seems a bit more specific.
  • The lead says that the forest site is shared with eleven countries, but you list twelve in the table.
  • "Beech" should be linked on the first mention instead of the second. Also, European beech might be a better article to link to.
  • Is there an article you could link "postglacial" to?
  • Be consistent with British/American English: "archaeological" vs "paleochristian". Also,"20.000" is neither British or American; you could use a comma or a space.
  • "The area around the town of Pogradec shores of Lake Ohrid" at least one word is missing here.
  • Pogradec is overlinked.
  • Also, "paleochristian" 1) should probably be "paleo-Christian" 2) could do with an explanation or a link.
  • Date ranges shouldn't use a hyphen.
  • It should be "a close relationship".
  • The "the" isn't needed in "the Roman times" or "the Ottoman sources", but is missing in "to Via Egnatia". Via Egnatia is also overlinked.
  • You need a comma after (300 ft).
  • I think it needs to be "two circular towers and one rectangular tower" because the first one is plural while the second is singular.
  • Reference 5 could do with a bit more information.
  • Reference 8 is the only one that says "whc.unesco.org"; this should be consistent across the references.

As you can see, these are all minor points. I'll be happy to support once they're addressed. Great work on this list! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 19:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tone these comments have been here a week, would you address them please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Done, thank you for a detailed review. Sorry it took me a while. --Tone 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Support N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 10:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

List of unsuccessful major party candidates for President of the United States

Nominator(s): Orser67 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a well-written, comprehensive, useful list that satisfies the Featured List criteria. I hope that it will help guide interested readers in understanding and comparing unsuccessful major party presidential candidates. Orser67 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007
  • The column title "Office" could be reworded to "Previously held office", which would make the note somewhat unnecessary.
    • "Previously held office" would make sense for a list of presidential winners, but in many cases these candidates held office before, during, and after the presidential election. The note is also useful in clarifying that it refers to the most recent office the candidate held (e.g. Henry Clay in 1844 could also be referred to as a former Secretary of State, but he's referred to as a former Senator because he had held that office more recently) -Orser67
      • Orser67I still think this needs to be clearer. Footnotes should not present key information to the reader. They should be there to elaborate, clarify, or provide additional info. Previously held office or Office before nomination while still including the note would be better than the current column title. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not 100% convinced of it its necessity, but I changed the column title to "Office at time of election." Orser67 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Instead of a note, "PV%" and "EV%" would be better written using the {{Abbr}} template, ie PV% and EV%
  • NR should also use the {{Abbr}} template, i.e. NR.
  • All of the abbreviations in the table under "State" should either be linked in their first instance, or at the very least use the {{Abbr}} template.
  • The key with the dagger and double-dagger, in my opinion, should come before the table so the reader naturally knows what they mean before they start looking at the table.
  • You don't explain what the bolding means in the PV% and EV% columns.
  • The "Election" cell should span two rows. You can do this by moving the Election field up and adding the rowspan qualifier to the table. I.e. move ! rowspan=2 | Election above the ! colspan=4 | Candidate

I really only focused on the table for now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments, I implemented all of your suggestions except for the first. Orser67 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Comments from TompaDompa
  1. An image or two would be nice. Perhaps a timeline of the major parties?
    Added an image, open to adding more. -Orser67
  2. Avoid using a "this is a list of" phrasing, as this is clunky.
    Rewrote the first sentence; not sure if this comment applies to anything else.
  3. The United States has had a two-party system for much of its history, and the two major parties have nominated presidential candidates in most presidential elections. – seeing as this assertion serves as the basis for justifying the construction of this list in the first place, this definitely needs to attributed to WP:Reliable sources.
    Done
  4. In the presidential election of 1820, incumbent President James Monroe of the Democratic-Republican Party effectively ran unopposed. – this should be explained in a bit more detail.
    Added a note
  5. Similarly, in the presidential election of 1836, four different Whig candidates received electoral votes; the main Whig candidate in the North and the main Whig candidate in the South are listed in the table below. – why those two?
    The source emphasized that they were two major candidates of the Whig Party, and I thought it made sense to only include the two main candidates. Harrison was on the ballot in all but one of the Northern states that had a ballot (Webster was on the ballot in MA), while White or Harrison were on the ballots of every state in the South that had a ballot (Mangum received the electoral votes of SC, which didn't hold a presidential popular vote). If we included every major party candidate who received electoral votes, we should include a several other minor candidates who also received electoral votes, and I believe this list is better of those types candidates are not included. -Orser67
  6. "PV%", "EV%", and "NR" should use the {{abbr}} template.
    Done
  7. The state abbreviations should use the {{abbr}} template and link to the states.
    Done
  8. The "EV%" column should use the {{percentage}} template and/or just write out the fraction.
    Done. I'm assuming the PV% column should also have a % for each record.
  9. I think the election years should use rowspans where there are several candidates for the same election year (1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860).
    Done
  10. In the 1792 election, the emerging Democratic-Republican Party did attempt – I'd say "attempted".
    Done
  11. The Whigs did not unite around a single candidate in 1836, and four Whig candidates, William Henry Harrison, Hugh Lawson White, Daniel Webster, and Willie Person Mangum received electoral votes. – the punctuation should be changed, and perhaps also the phrasing. I'd suggest moving "received electoral votes" to right after candidates", and using a colon before the list.
    I rewrote it.
  12. Greeley would have won 66 electoral votes (18.8% of the total number of electoral votes) – I'd write how many electoral votes there were in total.
    Done
  13. The "See also" section should be placed above the "Notes" section.
    Done

TompaDompa (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Responded to all of your comments, thanks for the various suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well the article title is "List of United States major party' presidential tickets" so that entire "Other significant tickets" section could be removed, though I'm not why sourcing election results would be difficult... The main table in the loser list is just the same as the tickets list but with the winners and VPs removed, so it actually provides even less information.
  • That list also includes ages and years of birth for the presidential candidates, which are difficult to source even for some of the major party candidates. I like how this list cleanly and simply presents the list of presidential losers, and I think it works as a good complement to the list of presidents. Orser67 (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait so now you've added third party candidates, making it even more similar to the List of United States major party presidential tickets, despite still being a less-useful article by not listing the VP candidates or just having all tickets? That article could easily be modified to denote the winning and losing tickets better, with whatever criteria you want for the minors. At the least, now the title here is wrong. Reywas92Talk 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This list is designed to be more biographical and mirror List of Presidents of the United States. The other is essentially a list of election results. It contains portraits/photos of each candidate, which aren't suitable for the other list. It also contains notes and refs that don't exist on the other list, as well as a further reading section and an external links section that are designed to help the reader find more information on defeated candidates. Anyway, you've already made it clear that you oppose this list. Orser67 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay well that wasn't how it was designed when it was nominated last week. And "major third party" isn't a thing. The title needs to be changed, otherwise Ross Perot, George Wallace, etc. don't fit here at all. I think adding the images is an improvement, but the name is something that can be easily fixed and I could then lean toward support. Reywas92Talk 01:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that I nominated the list prematurely, so that was my mistake. Orser67 (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Reywas92 do you still object to this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
This has improved substantially since its original state so I guess I can support it. Reywas92Talk 22:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment LOL I was about to suggest moving the candidate's name to the left and adding running mate, but I just refreshed the page and voila it was already there!

  • The birth and death dates would be better if made small.
    • Agreed (and done)
  • I recommend changing the fully-shaded party cells (which are undesirably the most eye-catching elements of the table) to the thin strips of the list of Potus.
Good idea, done. Do you think I should move the thin strips to the other side of the "party" column?
  • I also think the images at 125px make each row too tall; if you add cropped versions of the pics (I'm looking at Goldwater or even McGovern as models of how tightly cropped) they appear easily visible even at 100px or lower. It's a lot of work though, cropping ~60 images, so I won't insist.
    • I changed the size to 100px and I agree it looks better. I've cropped several images since you left this comment, and I think I'm happy with all of the images as they are now, except for Landon and Dukakis, both of which imo lack good pictures on Wikimedia for whatever reason.
  • Office at time...: I don't think Fmr. needs abbreviating? Inconsistency in linking: President but not Senator, for eg?
    • Changed to consistently link to some office (except for "none"). I like abbreviating fmr. since it's shorter and focuses more attention to the office held, but that's not a deal-breaker to me.
  • State: probably needs a note explaining exactly what you mean, state of birth or what? Again, I don't think you need to abbreviate these.
    • Added a note clarifying that it's "state of primary residence" as opposed to state of birth. I think I prefer abbreviating the states since the abbreviations are widely known and it keeps the column narrow, but as with abbreviating fmr., that's not a vital point to me.
      • I don't think the abbreviations are widely known outside the US, so from a WP:Systemic bias point of view there is a good reason not to abbreviate them. TompaDompa (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Add a link to their presidential campaign somewhere?—indopug (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • " two major parties have " this is linked but not to an article about "major parties". Indeed, using that link, we would expect to see individuals only from the Republicans and Democrats in the list. It may have been covered in previous discussion here, but where's the definition of "major party" for this list please? And what makes it notable?
    Changed the link, and tried to make clear why the list is about major parties (their candidates have won most presidential elections). -Orser67
  • "electoral vote" is piped to a redirect.
    Fixed
  • Ah, re: my first point, I see you go on to explain it, using one source to define "major party"... is that enough?
    It was tough finding sources that explicitly listed the pre-Civil War major parties, so I tried to use a good number of sources that made clear what parties don't qualify as major parties.
  • "Vote[6][2]" numerical order for refs please.
  • Changed
  • (Birth–Death), just death, not Death.
  • Sure
  • Candidate and Running mate should sort by surname.
  • Done
  • If you have a key, why not add EV and PV to it?
  • Sure
  • "List of unsuccessful major third party and independent candidates" why are they in this list?
  • I'm ok with dropping them, but I'd slightly prefer to keep them because a)some of them were borderline members of major parties (as is discussed in the notes) and b)I think the list is simply more informative with them included.
  • Check refs for hyphens in year ranges per MOS. Should be unspaced en-dashes.
  • I think I got them all, let me know if that isn't the case
  • Don't split refs per 35em, either 30em or nothing.
  • Sure
  • Don't SHOUT in reference titles.
  • I think I fixed them all now

Enough for a quick skip through. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't understand why the birth & death dates are listed at all. I could possibly maybe see an argument for "age at time of election", maybe, but what does it matter whether the candidate lived for 5 years or 50 afterward? Seems the equivalent of listing candidate height or spouse's name or alma mater too. I see birth/death years are on List of Presidents as well, but would also be in favor of removing it from there too unless there's some significance I don't see. I'd also prefer just "born 19XX" for living people over 19XX-present, but that's just a style preference, no big deal either way. SnowFire (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Next up, Falcao. This one doesn't "Rock Me Amadeus" (that was Falco anyway) but he does score a few goals. The most, in fact, in Colombia's history. It's already been forked off a large main article, I just tidied it up in the usual style. I humbly submit it to the scrutiny of the reviewing community and pledge to do my best to address any and all comments in a timely fashion. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
  1. an injury sustained while playing for AS Monaco FC, his club team, in January 2014, ruled him out of the finals should be rephrased as "an injury sustained while playing for his club team AS Monaco FC in January 2014 ruled him out of the finals" to avoid breaking the sentence up with too many commas.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. His first FIFA World Cup finals appearance came in the 2018 FIFA World Cup finals, four years later, with his 74th cap, against Japan in a group stage match in June 2018. should also be rephrased to avoid having a high number of commas close together.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. I'd add a mention about the number of goals scored from penalty kicks in the WP:LEAD.
    No, I have no definitive source that's the number of penalties he scored, i.e. no one single source to back it up. Where I've found reliable verifiable evidence that a goal was scored by penalty, I've noted it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

TompaDompa (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers TompaDompa, done or responded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose You may as well take out the 3b part from the criteria if you're not going to follow that. Currently, this whole list doesn't even cover my screen fully. The Lukaku list is borderline now, but he's young and a beast, that list is going to expand more. Falcao, on the other hand, is close to retiring from the international football. Anyway, this is going to be the shortest "List of international goals scored by..." in the WP:FL. By this tendency, we are going to have lists with 10 goals or even less next time. I will not even be surprised to see a page where it states "this player may score a goal one day because he shot on goal 10 times". P.S. We even have a candidate with 1 item for three weeks now and none of the FLC directors/delegates quick-failed it yet. Is that really what Wikipedia is about? Quantity over quality? I understand in general, but in featured content, quality always has to be above quantity. --Cheetah (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for your input, I don’t see anything actionable there, but cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, you must have missed it. Don't worry, I just did it myself. Cheers!--Cheetah (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I think that's what they call "deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". I think 31 items is sufficient to standalone. And by the way, he scored a few days ago. Your rant is noted, but ultimately is ineffectual and will not be considered further. Please don't get blocked for being pointy. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well, you made me do it. You said you didn't see it, so I showed it to you. You don't have any rights now to say what will be considered, you're just a nominator here. I know I am probably the only one worrying about the quality of featured lists here, but I won't be silent about it.--Cheetah (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't "make you do" anything. Your comments have been read and noted. There's nothing more to say. I'm happy to leave it to the community to decide, rather than just you making pointed edits. No-one asked you to be silent, just not to make pointed edits which are deliberately disruptive. I know I am probably the only one worrying about the quality of featured lists here um, nope! Anyway, thanks for raising your concerns. I'm sure other reviewers will chip in too. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I have to say I share Crzycheetah's WP:FLCR 3(b) concerns, even if I strongly disapprove of their actions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, as you did on the other FLC, where a consensus has formed in favour of the standalone list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    TompaDompa You may or may not be aware that the Lukaku list your raised concerns against is now a FL, so clearly the community consensus is that that list, and others of a similar nature, like this one, are acceptable standalone lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "He surpassed the previous record of 25 goals (in 68 appearances), held by Arnoldo Iguarán" - the wording seems ambiguous as to whether Falcao took 68 appearances to score 25 goals, Iguaran took 68 appearances to score 25 goals, or Iguaran had 68 appearances in total
  • "an injury sustained while playing for his club team AS Monaco FC in January 2014, ruled him out of the finals" - no reason for that comma after 2014 as far as I can see
  • In the title of the ref which is currently number 21, the dash isn't rendered properly
Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude thanks, I've addressed those issues I think, hopefully to your satisfaction. Let me know? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man - the problem dash is still there. The ref currently shows as " "Colombia 5&dash;0 Bolivia". Sky Sports. Retrieved 28 August 2018." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude sorry Chris, I missed that, fixed something else instead. But should be fixed now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi TRM, I think this is my first association football review so pls excuse beginner's questions.

Lede

  • His first goal came in the following game - 'the' is ambiguous ie could be Colombia's next game or his next. Change to Colombia's if he didn't have break?
    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • more goals in friendlies than in any other format, with fourteen - fifteen
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • the remainder being scored overseas - many are in Sth America. I know overseas has a broad meaning but - swap to 'abroad' or in other nations/countries or outside Colombia?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Falcao has yet to score an international hat-trick - 'yet' seems a bit presumptive?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Key / col headers

  • I did not immediately understand what 'Score' was. Finally found explanation via Rooney's list. My humble suggestion would be to expand key table to include something like:
Cap | the number of appearances to date for national team (and remove cap wlink in table header)
Score | the score after the Falcao goal
double dagger as is
I've made an adjustment in line with Rooney's list, not exactly as you suggest, but close? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that's fine thanks. JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Main table

  • header - International goals by date, venue, cap, opponent, score, result and competition - this was order of cols in eg Rooney. Move 'Cap' into new second column order
    Do I have to? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    Perhaps you thought I was suggesting changing actual column order? Nope, just the text line above the table. It just looks weird that all other words are in same order as the columns except "cap". (But no, you don't have to.) JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed I was misinterpreting that comment! I've adjusted it (I think). That's the table "caption", I think that's what confused me when you mentioned headers... sorry! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • last double dagger has a capital A on alt ie "Alt=Penalty" - tiny inconsistency but is okay, doesn't affect screenreaders?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • goal 30 - refine wlink to section? #Poland vs Colombia
    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Refs

All are online and working. AGF Spanish lang though scores are obvious. These ref numbers are per 30 Sept version.

  • ref 2 Hmm, the 'website' parameter italicises, even though Goal is not a printed work? Add publisher=Perform Group?
  • 7 - title should be Matches of R. Falcao, publisher=Perform Group
  • 9, 12 and 13 - 11v11 - should include parameter for Association of Football Statisticians?
  • 14 - 27 May 2011 - March
  • 18 - byline Rex Gowar
  • 22 - per caption on Falcao photo the Col v Peru match date was 11 June
  • 24 - byline Robert-Jan Bartunek, and Philip Blenkinsop
  • 26 - byline Luis Jaime Acosta and Rex Gowar - but this ref doesn't give score progression ie that his were 2nd and 3rd of the 6 goals (this does ie after Bacca scored first)
  • 27 - pubn date 30 Mar - 31?
  • 28 - I can't see where espn gives location, either stadium or city (this does)
  • 30 - byline Andrew Downie
    All addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Stadiums venues

  • Estadio Atanasio Girardot - needs pipe to avoid redirect?
    Piped. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Matsumoto Stadium - ditto
    Piped. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Goals 11 and 31 - This venue name change thing comes up now and then. The way the venue is used here is correct (named Sun Life Stadium (2010-2016) and Hard Rock since Aug 2016) and will match refs, but when sorted by venue, ie one wants to ascertain how many appearances or goals a player has had at a particular location, the different names don't compute reality. I presume this has been discussed over the years. Is there a guideline or discussion I should read?
    This is interesting. I could force the sorting so they stick together, and add a footnote to highlight the name change, what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure. It came up in some rugby and/or cricket lists but it was possible to avoid sponsor names with those. Probably not too important, anyone delving that deep will likely visit stadium articles and realise. I thought it must have been discussed before. I'm happy if you decide to leave as is. JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    Footnote added. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sun Life needs pipe?
    Piped. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Opponents - all good

Statistics

  • Goals by year table - Source for number of appearances per year - copy ref 1 to Appearances column? (Rooney's has RSSSF) Actually, ditto for Caps column in main table.
    Source added. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Goals by competition table - Friendlies different wlink to in lede and main table?
    Link aligned with previous usage. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That's it for now. Again, sorry for newbie questions and comments... understanding will help me if I do any further assoc football lists. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz no need to apologise, thanks for your detailed review, I've addressed almost all of the issues and where I haven't, I've left comments for further discussion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for tweaks. I've added 3 replies above. JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
JennyOz I think I've covered off those last points, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Everything now addressed. Thanks! Happy to sign my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in South Carolina

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I am continuing my project of standardizing all lists of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will follow 20 (!) successful nominations (such as: Montana, Alabama). This one may need some copyediting and rewording in the lead for readability, but nothing that can't be tweaked during the review process. I have modeled this list off of other promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard but there are always improvements. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
  1. As usual, I think the numerical values are overly precise per MOS:UNCERTAINTY.
    This is different from the Mexican area figures which had 3 decimal places (all were cut down to 2 decimal places). The US Census publishes accurate area figures to the precision of 2 decimal places, and this is the standard for all US articles and lists as far as I can tell. Also you wouldn't be able to tell which cities are bigger since many will now show the same area if the 2 decimals are reduced to 1 decimal, also screwing up the sorting button since it will default to alphabetical.
  2. I'd try not to place "waste management" and "water management" next to each other. It sort of becomes a stumbling block when reading. I'd suggest "waste and water management".  Done
  3. One instance of "mayor" is written with a capital "M", and the rest are written with a minuscule "m".  Done
  4. providean is a typo and should be two words.  Done
  5. I have to say that the descriptions of the three forms of government are mostly confusing.
    Based on the second reviewer below, I've made changes to the descriptions. I think it reads better now, but perhaps more can be done to improve readability? Any suggestions?
    I wish I could help, but since I don't really understand the differences, I can't say how to make the differences clearer. Sorry about that. TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. There are a couple of references preceded by spaces in the WP:LEAD.  Done
  7. The symbols should be inside the coloured fields in the legend. Use the |text= parameter. Done
  8. There should be no empty cells in the table. They should replaced with {{N/A}}, {{N/A|Unavailable}}, or {{Unknown}} as appropriate. The ones that say "NA" should also use the template.
    Thanks for pointing this out. I forgot that this was discussed before and the conclusion was to use the Template: ntsh instead of NA since it retains it's sortability. I've made all the changes so it is now consistent.
  9. The town incorporated on 2012 should either give the full date or say "in 2012".  Done
  10. The town incorporated on March 6, 2008 and is thus not represented in the 2010 census. – that should be the 2000 census, right?  Done

TompaDompa (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Great catches! Thanks for taking the time to review, will finish up with the rest of the comments later. Mattximus (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
All comments addressed, thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • " seven or nine members including the mayor all elected " - needs commas round "all elected" Done
  • "and the has power to levy taxes to match the budget" - word order is a bit mangled here  Done
  • "Under the council-manager form of government the council composed of a mayor and four" - missing word? Done
  • "and for a general survey of municipal business" - doesn't seem to make sense - is there a word missing? Done
  • Don't need to link Columbia twice in consecutive sentences Done
  • Can't spot anything in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your review! I know the prose does not read as smoothly as it could, but I've made all your changes and think it sounds better already. Mattximus (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I would include ALT text for the top image.  Done
  • Why break up the following phrases (the Southern United States) into two links when it could be done with a single link (i.e. Southern United States)?
  • This link was left in since it's the only link the the USA in the entire article.
  • For this sentence (According to the 2010 United States Census, South Carolina is the 24th most populous state with 4,625,401 inhabitants but the 40th largest by land area spanning 30,060.70 square miles (77,856.9 km2) of land.), I would put a comma after the word "residents". Done
  • Would it be helpful to include a more up-close image of the state along with the image of the state in the context of the country as a whole (i.e. as done in List of municipalities in Florida)?
  • Absolutely yes! I've been searching for a map just like this but could not find one anywhere....

Great work with this list. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have time, I would greatly any feedback on my current FLC. Hope you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I will try to get to yours by next weekend. Mattximus (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support--Lirim | Talk 23:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The mayor's responsibilities include:" Using commas both within and to separate responsibilities is unclear. I think a semi-colon would be better to separate the different responsibilities.
  • I agree, anything that can make these sentences flow better is worth a try. I've made your suggestion.
  • "staffing of all municipal employees". This sounds odd to me. Is it USAmer?
  • I believe it is so, the language was taken from the source itself.
  • "voting as other councilmen" I do not understand this - does it mean that the mayor votes as a councilman as well as presiding and having a casting vote?
  • Good point. I think I clarified the first point by removing "as other councilmen" as redundant.
  • I am not clear about the differences between the systems. In the first the mayor has executive power but is he or she directly elected or by the councilmen? In the second and third presumably the mayor only presides at meetings and is chosen by the councilmen?
  • In the second and third possibility the mayor retains the vote, however this is mentioned I believe. Otherwise the roles differ simply in the responsibilities of the various titles. It's a bit silly to be honest, but this is the best summary I can make from the source material. If there is any more clarification please let me know, I'm *very* happy to make all changes here, I'm not 100% happy about the wording, but it's the best I can do right now.
  • Four columns for two notes looks odd. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by four columns. Are you referring to the formatting of the notes section?
  • Yes. The 30em spreads the two notes across four columns on my screen. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strange it spreads it out to 2 on mine, but either way you are correct. I've fixed it.
Thanks for your review! I've made changes but a few require some feedback. Mattximus (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • All of the references are reliable.
  • The link-checker tool says that ref 1 (the most cited source) is a "crufty url". I clicked on it and it works, but it's showing me data from Alabama. There seems to be a drop-down menu, but I'm not getting it to work. If it works for you, it might be worth noting in the cite what you need to select for the cited info to appear. If it doesn't work for you, we'll need a link that does work.
  • I get the same thing, for some reason all the links I try default to Alabama. If you scroll to South Carolina, all the data is there, but I can't seem to have a direct link to South Carolina...
  • In that case, I suggest adding a note to the end of the cite saying "Select South Carolina from drop-down menu" or similar, to inform the reader how to access the cited information. You could even put it outside the cite template if necessary, although there is a format= parameter you can try. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The only formatting issue I see is that the date formatting is inconsistent. It should be one style throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • " in the Southern United States" is a SEAOFBLUE, especially in this case when Southern links to Southern United States. I don't think a link to United States is needed.  Done
  • "24th most populous state" is piped to a redirect. Done
  • "land area spanning 30,060.70 square miles (77,856.9 km2) of land" firstly not sure you need "of land" and secondly, one assumes this would include the area of lakes within the state as well in any case?
  • Nice find, but actually there are data for "area", "land area", and "water area". I've chosen to use the land area stat since it doesn't make sense to include a big lake as part of your city.
  • I'm the last person to get too PC about everything, but do you still call women "councilmen"?
  • This is completely ridiculous, I agree. But that is actually what they call them in this state...
  • James Island - don't like blank cells, could we put N/A to mean "not available"? Should probably sort in the middle for "change" (i.e. it's not lower than -36.8%, probably should be 0%)
  • I've had a heck of a time trying to get the N/A to sort properly, and just gave up. It's the same as other featured lists like List of municipalities in New Mexico, so I just left those blank too. It still passed, but if you know the code for N/A that still sorts properly I'm happy to change all these lists to that format.
  • Any way you can use the {{hs}} template alongside the {{na}} template? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "63.3/sq mi (24.5/km2)" vs "63.3/sq mi (24.4/km2)"... (and they sort out of order).
    Very interesting catch! I've already posted a request for this error on the template talk page found here: Template_talk:Pop_density#Strange_rounding_error. I've found that these requests are often answered rather quickly. Mattximus (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And it's fixed. Done Mattximus (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Half a dozen of the km2 are down to two decimal places, I wouldn't do that. Done
  • Why is government type over-capitalised in the table, e.g. "Council-Manager" when the prose just uses sentence case, i.e. "council-manager". Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Mattximus some comments here for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping and your excellent comments. I've addressed half, but I will have to do the other few in a couple of days. Mattximus (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605

Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The next in the 17th century conclaves series I am working, this conclave only followed a month after the previous one (list of electors), and was pretty easy to make work of since there were only a few changes in the electorate in that month (two deaths, a few arrivals, and sickness). The conclave this list goes with is one of the more entertaining ones and features some of the best drama from saints and other leading figures of the late 16th and early 17th century Catholic church. I tried to capture these in the captions to the images, as I think they fit better there than in the prose, and I welcome any critiques on improving this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It might not be completely up to my standards, but it's certainly good enough for me to support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm truly sorry but I don't see why this isn't simply an expansion of the brief Papal conclave, May 1605 article, and a bid for FA. Once again, TompaDompa's 3b acceptance here seems very peculiar to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The Rambling Man, long-term, that is the plan for this series (taking the 17th century ones to GA/FL/FA). I’ve been removing the lists from the articles for a few reasons because 1) they’re generally sourced to self-published sources and require a lot of effort to source the lists like this and 2) I think the format that exists for the 20th and 21st century conclaves of having a list of electors that is distinct from the article is better. I’ve seen several of the older conclave GAs with lists and I personally find them overwhelming and distracting from the prose of the article when incorporated. I agree that the May 1605 article is short now, but when/if it is eventually expanded, I think having the list as a part of it rather than as a separate page would be less useful for readers. At least I tend to ignore incorporated tables in articles, and I see value in having them distinct so people who are more interested in the various electors themselves can have a treatment of them that is focused. It’s fine if you disagree, but thought I’d explain my logic here for the choice in this format. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Tony, I appreciate your explanation. I think your best bet is to just go all-in on one of these, merge the table and the GA header article, and head to FAC. I'm never going to turn down a great FL but I really can't, hand on heart, go for this one as an FL based on the really brief main article. I should also note that my opinion here is simply as a reviewer, and that others may (and probably will) disagree, and I'm not playing any kind of trump card on it. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Understood completely, though I disagree that it would improve the main article to have it there, to the point where I’d be fine with neither of them going to FL/FA if people think they’re too similar. My honest view is that a merge would be a net negative for the article, and keeping it readable and useful for the readers is what I care about more than the icons on the top. People can disagree in good faith on the best way to achieve that, which we seem to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Honestly, I think it would form a part of the main article which would eventually be auto-collapsed. Until the main article can be so large as to sustain a spin-off, I'm not sure I could legimitately support it standalone. I think TompaDompa is using a different approach to 3b, but let's see what the other FL delegate and director say since this is clearly going to be somewhat contentious, and possibly precedent-ial. Thanks for your approach, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
            • No problem. I don’t mind discussion about these things ever. I’ve been pretty busy the last 6 or so months IRL, which is why I’ve mainly been focused on the easier admin type things than the conclave project (content being harder to do than mashing buttons...) I’ll have some time later in the week/this weekend to go over the main article again, and I think I might have some ideas there that could help with your objections. Part of my reticence here is that I’m trying to get this series of articles and lists to the point where it can be used as a sort of example of half-decent Catholic historical content, and that incorporating lists has traditionally been a way that articles in this area get away with not having reliably sourced prose. Tangential to the FL discussion, but I think it helps explain the choices I’ve made: I view it more of a long term project getting done piece by piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Okay, cool, just let me know if you'd like more from me. For complete clarity, I'm just a single reviewer here, nothing more. If consensus weighs against my position, no problem either. I think you have a really strong Featured Topic in the making, once you merge these lists with their GAs. It could be more awesome than my Boat Race GA series (160+ and counting)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

List of members of the 15th National Assembly of Pakistan

Nominator(s): Saqib (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria and so has great potential to become a Featured List. It has resemblance with List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan which became a FA couple of years back. This is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject Pakistan. It has good lead and prose and is referenced as per the referencing guidelines. --Saqib (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
  1. Images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  2. marked the constitutional transition of power from one democratically-elected government to another for the second time in the history of Pakistan. – It should be mentioned that the first time was after the previous election.
  3. The National Assembly is a democratically elected body consisting of 342 members – The discrepancy between this number and the 329 members in the list should be explained in detail.
  4. There are a few discrepancies between the number of seats in the WP:LEAD and in the table on the right.
  5. Per MOS:DTT, column headers in the middle of the table should be avoidable. I'd suggest simply splitting the table of members in two: one for the constituencies, and one for the reserved seats.

TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thank you for your comments. I made some changes and tried to fix the first two issues. The reason of discrepancy is because some of the seats are vacant and by-election are due to be held in October. Regarding the last point, it was not an issue for List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, the discrepancies should be explained in the WP:LEAD. That the last issue was missed in a previous WP:FLC is no reason not to fix it in this one. TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: I've made the changes. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
PTI has 149 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 150 according to the table. PML-N has 82 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 81 according to the table. PPP has 53 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 54 according to the table. TompaDompa (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
PML-N and PPP numbers are correct. PTI's difference is because one reserved seat for women is vacant. --Saqib (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The differences between the table and the next need to be explained on the page itself. TompaDompa (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have removed PTI's vacant seat from the table. --Saqib (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There are still a bunch of mismatches between the text in the WP:LEAD, the image in the lead, and the table in the lead. The image says 329 seats in total, whereas the table says 330. The text says 149 seats for PTI, whereas the image shows 150 and the table says 151. The text says 82 seats for PML-N, whereas the image and table say 81. The text says 53 seats for PPP, whereas the image and table say 54. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Saqib are you going to address TompaDompa's last comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Of Course but by 21 October. --Saqib (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and TompaDompa: I've fixed the list. --Saqib (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments I compared this to the previous edition which is already a FL so it's understandable why it's so similar, but I have some current comments:

  • What does "bicameral" mean?
  • "remaining 2 directly-electable" two
  • "PTI won 149 seats in the National Assembly." infobox says 156, discrepancy needs explanation or resolution.
  • Similar for the following sentences.
  • " PML-N" key says " PML (N)"
  • "On 14 October 2018, by-election were held on 11 National Assembly seats.[10]" by-elections, and what was the result of this?
  • Rowspans should be used where possible.
  • Blank "assumed office" cell should be fixed.
  • In fact, what's the point of the "assumed office" column when 99% of it was 13 August 2018? Just add footnotes to the ones who didn't assume office on that day.
  • What is the default sort? Why can't I get back to listing it by constituency?
  • Use ref's 11, 12 and 31 more elegantly, instead of repeating them dozens of times.

That's it for a really quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Let me answer some of the queries here. Parliament of Pakistan is a bicameral federal legislature that consists of the Senate as the upper house and the National Assembly, as the lower house. I've fixed the 2nd point. PTI won 149 seats and PML-N won 82 in the general election held on 25 July. Some of the seats won by PTI were later vacated and by-election on vacated seats were held. As of now, PTI has 156 seats and PML-N has 85. I've expanded the last paragraph to resolve the 6th point. I don't get 7th point (Rowspans should be used where possible.). 8th point (assumed office date) has been fixed. --Saqib (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
You haven't answered all of the questions, as for the 7th point, please see Help:Table for how to implement rowspans (where you don't have to repeat the same data line after line after line, like you do with Region (for instance) with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa repeated 30 or so times... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Rowspans added. Regarding your question "what's the point of the assumed office"; if you look at the List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan, you will find many new members joined the National Assembly following the 2013 general election so I assume same should happen with the 15th National Assembly and we should mention the office joined date to give an overview who joined when. There is no default sort and I've no idea how to fix it. I've fixed the last point (references). I believe rest of queries have been answered already above. Please feel free to raise further issues. --Saqib (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Lesley Manyathela Golden Boot

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the page contains a well sourced and informative list of seasonal goal scoring achievements by footballers in the South African Premier Division. South African football is not comprehensively covered and the list thus provides a reliable source of information for viewers. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • Rather than simply referring to "in honour of the late Lesley Manyathela", I would explain who he actually was by saying "in honour of Lesley Manyathela, a South African international striker who died [etc]"
    • I would put the image of Parker below the "winners" heading - it looks odd straddling it
    • Don't think the word "conversely" is needed in the lead, especially since it doesn't immediately follow the info about the highest-ever season total
    • "The 2017–18 season saw" - a season can't "see" something
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Response
    • Hi ChrisTheDude, thank you for taking the time to help with this nomination.
      • I have added more infomation on Manyathela, highlighting that he was a former international and recipient of the award.
      • I have moved the image to below the "winners" heading
      • I agree that the sentences don't flow and removed the word "conversely"
      • I have tweaked the wording of the final para of the lede, let me know what you think.
    • Thanks again, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • "....after Polokwane City and Mamelodi Sundowns forwards Rodney Ramagalela and Percy Tau both ended the campaign on 11 goals" - this wording is slightly confusing, it could be interpreted as saying that both players played for both clubs. Maybe "....after forwards Rodney Ramagalela of Polokwane City and Percy Tau of Mamelodi Sundowns both ended the campaign on 11 goals".........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Comments from TompaDompa
  1. Images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  2. If there are photographs of the current holders available, having them in the infobox would be nice.
  3. Since the award was renamed, it should be mentioned what it was called before.
  4. The WP:LEAD is a a bit short. There is plenty of space to expand it.
  5. The "Ref(s)" column should be "Ref(s)" (i.e. {{abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}).
  6. Since the players do not represent the countries they are from but the clubs they play for, including their nationalities is not appropriate.

TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Response

Hi TompaDompa, thank you for the feedback.

  • I have added ALT text and removed one image due to a factual inaccuracy.
  • There are unfortunately no images of the current winners, or of those mentioned in the lede. Do you think the image of Parker should be used?
  • The award had no previous name. I have reworded the lede to mention the colloquial name and that it was named - rather than renamed - in 2003.
  • I have added some more info to the lede. Let me know if you think more is required.
  • Added wiki code for Ref.
  • I've left the nationalities in, though. I do believe it is relevant has place in equivalent FL's such as Premier League Golden Boot.

Thanks again for your comments, please let me know if you have any other concerns. Also, ChrisTheDude, please see the abovementioned edits and let me know if you are still happy to support the nom or if there are new tweaks which you feel need to be made. Thanks. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's better to keep the image of Parker where it is. I stand by what I said about nationalities; the players don't represent their countries but their clubs, and this use of flags is proscribed by MOS:SPORTFLAGS. TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll keep the Parker image where it is then, thanks. I disagree with the interpretation of MOS:SPORTFLAGS, though. The nationality of club players is commonly used on like football pages: see Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, European Golden Shoe, Capocannoniere, List of Ligue 1 top scorers... Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and I would say all of those pages contravene the principle of not emphasizing nationality without good reason. TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just checking in to say yes I am still happy to support..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi TompaDompa, please see recommendations below, particularity with regards to nationality, and let me know if the changes I've made cover your concerns. Thanks. 07:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Astronomical symbols

Nominator(s): W559 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets or surpasses the criteria for a Wikipedia featured list, and for inclusion in a print encyclopedia. The article is useful, comprehensive, and extensively researched. I put a lot of effort into editing and organizing the page several years ago (under IP addresses), including writing most of the body text, finding sources, and pruning unsourced and unreliable speculation. (Scouring Google Books for instances of astronomical glyphs in their OCRed scans of nineteenth-century print matter was fun.)

Regarding FL criterion 3b, I note that some of the scope and content of this article overlaps Astrological symbols, an article created in 2006 as a fork of this one. Astronomical symbols, the nominee, meets the criteria of WP:SUBPOV, and therefore I believe it should not be disqualified as a featured list.

Thank you for your consideration. W559 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Just looking quickly I noticed that some sentences in the "represents" column start with a capital letter, where others do not. Mattximus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Fixed. The seven rogue capital letters have been lowercased. I also removed stray punctuation marks and made tiny fixes to the wording of a couple of entries. Thank you! W559 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Support: comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols." I am not clear what you are saying here. Do you mean that the papyrus texts were neither preserved nor copied, and only survive by their incorporation in Byzantine codices?
  • "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when?
  • The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced.
  • monogram should be linked.
  • The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've reviewed your comments:
  • "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols."Replaced "the" with "many" to avoid the implication that Greek papyri survived only as copies in Byzantine codices. Is this better?
  • "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when? – Per MOS:LEAD, the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". I believe that specific details about when different symbols fell into disuse among professional astronomers are best left for the article.
  • The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced. – Source citations in the lead are not strictly necessary; see WP:WHENNOTCITE. I tried to limit sources in the lead while still citing sources for any claims that might reasonably be challenged. The sentence beginning "New symbols were further invented..." is a one-sentence summary of the Symbols for minor planets section, which introduces 34 sources and uses more. The section "with some exceptions..." briefly alludes to sourced material in bits and pieces throughout the body of the article. If you think the lead would work better with more or fewer source citations, let me know.
  • My understanding is that list articles are an exception to the rule that leads do not require referencing because they generally contain information which is not referenced below, but I see that you have repeated and referenced below, so I agree that more referencing is not necessary in this case. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • monogram should be linked.Agreed. The first occurrence of monogram (in the Symbols for the planets section) is now linked.
  • The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols.Not done. The article is about "astronomical symbols", which is what reliable English-language sources call the symbols described in the article. See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:CONCISE. An article about "astronomical notation", a different topic, would properly cover modern notation in more depth, and would reasonably be expected to include more information about Arabic, Indian, and Chinese astronomy, but this isn't that article.
Let me know what you think. W559 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
That is fair enough regarding modern symbols as they are often referred to as notation, although I would like to see a comment or note explaining why they are not covered. I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols. Just because sources are Eurocentric does not justify Wikipedia in following their example. There are for example off-wiki sources about Maya astronomical symbols, and I would expect at least brief coverage in a generic article about the subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I'm not convinced that the characters used in the Maya calendar belong in this article any more than, for example, the written names of the planets and zodiac signs in Hindi and Chinese, both because the article is about "astronomical symbols" as opposed to normal written language (and, come to think of it, numerals and mathematical operators), and, of course, because English-language sources do not generally group them with the symbols that make up the content of this article. However, a link to the Maya characters in the "See also" section would be appropriate. Here's what I've done:
  • "a comment or note explaining why they are not covered": Added some text to the first sentence of the lead further clarifying the scope of the article.
  • coverage about Maya astronomical symbols: Added a link to the relevant page in the "See also" section of the article.
How's this? W559 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • See [5] for a discussion about non-European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't read what you linked; Google Books gives me the message, "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." If the source you linked has content that would improve the page, feel free to be bold and incorporate it into the article. Edit: I switched browsers and went incognito, and Google Books is serving up the page for me now. The page you linked doesn't seem relevant at all to this article other than being a search result for the words "Chinese", "astronomical", and "symbols". The section of that book discusses the "Chaco supernova pictograph" (see Chaco Culture National Historical Park#Archaeoastronomy, reviews several theories about the image, and then concludes that the drawing marks a Zuni sun-watching station. The page specifically discusses the star next to the crescent in the petroglyph, compares it with the Islamic star-and-crescent symbol, and mentions the theory that the symbols together originally depicted a conjunction of the moon and Venus.
Regarding your previous comment, "I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols", we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I note in passing that the equivalent pages on the Chinese and Hindi Wikipediae, zh:天文符號 and hi:खगोलीय चिन्ह respectively, both have "general titles" while also being about the same set of "European symbols" that the astronomical symbols page discusses. W559 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Dudley Miles just a quick question, are you complete with your comments here? The nomination has been stalled for about six weeks now, so it would be great if you'd be prepared to offer some guidance on your current view. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I do not have a problem with the article text but I do with its title so I prefer to neither support or oppose. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • The two external links in the third paragraph are a Manual of Style violation. I suggest replacing the bare "The Unicode Consortium" citations here with properly formatted references that include these links.
  • Photo caption: "in a German almanac printed 1850". This needs "in" directly before the year.
  • Symbols for the planets: Minor point, but if other key figures have their full names included later in the article, than Struve probably should be formatted that way here.
  • Symbols for minor planets: "The circle later became a pair of parentheses, and the parentheses sometimes omitted altogether over the next few decades." For this to work grammatically, it needs "were" before "sometimes".
  • Symbols for zodiac constellations and signs: Are the items in the table referenced anywhere? I don't see inline cites in the table, unlike the others. In addition, the last sentence of the section, on symbols related to solstices and equinoxes, isn't cited either. If the references before are meant to cover this sentence, I'd suggest adding cites there as well.
  • Not doing a full source review right now, but I did see that reference 26 has different formatting for its access date than other refs, which use the YYYY-MM-DD format. This formatting should be made consistent throughout, however you choose to do it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thank you for reviewing the article. I've made changes in line with your comments:
  • The two external links in the third paragraph: Fixed. The links are now reflinks formatted with Template:Cite web.
  • Photo caption: Added "in" before the year as suggested.
  • Symbols for the planets: Included Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve's full name.
  • Symbols for minor planets: I could defend the original phrasing as an instance of gapping in a coordinate structure, but I added "were" before "sometimes" as suggested.
  • Symbols for zodiac constellations and signs: Added references for the images of the zodiac symbols, the English translations of the names of the signs, and the modern IAU abbreviations.
  • Different formatting for the access date of reference 26: Reformatted to use the YYYY-MM-DD. I also found and reformatted a small number of differently formatted dates in the references; all publication, archive, and access dates now use the same formatting throughout the article.
Let me know if there are any other changes that you would like to see. I will be offline for most of this weekend, but I will definitely be able to follow up by no later than Tuesday. W559 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Jackson videography

Nominator(s): Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC), Akhiljaxxn (Talk) 07:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I added a lot of work into the article way back when and have nominated it before, but after a while I added some things that were listed as reasons for not being promoted. Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Akhiljaxxn

Few thoughts
Reply to Akhiljaxxn: I am not sure what you mean by the first bullet. Are you saying I should add one or two sentences about those two in the lead or are you asking why I only have one or two sentences about then in the article? As for the section on television, I agree that it is quite small, but there is notch content from Michael Jackson on the matter. I would love more input as to what you mean better "compose" as it use to be a table and that was awful for one or two shows. Chase | talk 14:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
yes you should add one or two sentence about those three films/short movies.amd yeah you are right on section television.except above i mentioned the article definitely meets all of the requirements; I don't see why this shouldn't be accepted.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Reply to Akhiljaxxn: Green tickY Done Chase | talk 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Allied45

Comment: nice work on the list, just wondering though why there are several directors that are red-linked when other have been left unlinked? Also in the filmography table there's no links for directors with multiple appearances, yet they are linked in other tables? — Allied45 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Allied45 how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems a lot more consistent now! – Allied45 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Reply to Akhiljaxxn and to Allied45: Thank you for fixing the names, Akhiljaxxn. I did notice that when I first looked at the page from a while back, but just forgot to change it. Anything else you want to comment on, Allied45? Chase | talk 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I had another look over, and although I'm no expert on the topic, here's some things I noticed:

  • "The video was filmed in four geographic regions (Americas, Europe and Africa)" – should this be three, or four within?
Americas including two regions ie, Nrth America And South America. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The video features a cameo appearance by the rap duo Kris Kross and Michael Jordan" – the wording sounds like Kris Kross and Jordan are the rap duo. Perhaps change to: "The video features cameo appearances by the rap duo Kris Kross and basketball player Michael Jordan."
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Link to the albums mentioned in the "Description" column of the "Video albums" table
Reply to Allied45: The only reason that I did not do that because they are linked multiple times throughout the article, per MOS:REPEATLINK, but it does state links can repeating if it is necessary in tables, etc. So do you think this table needs it even though they can scroll up and see the same link? Chase | talk 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY Done. Chase | talk 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is all I really noticed, the list looks good, Allied45 (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the nomination – Allied45 (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

  • The WP:LEAD is way too long; the recommendation is no more than four paragraphs, whereas this is twice that. From what I can gather, this is an over-correction from the previous FLC review. The longest lead of the WP:Featured lists for artist videographies (the one for Beyoncé) has a word count of 715; this has a word count of 1,027.
Hey how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Still too long, in my opinion. The WP:LEAD needs to find the right balance between the number of entries described in it and the level of detail each entry is described in. To my eye, the problem is more with the latter, and I think it can be fixed. If it turns out that I'm wrong and it is not feasible to get the WP:LEAD down to a reasonable length without leaving out either too many entries or too much information about each entry, one may have to consider tightening up the scope and/or using WP:Summary style. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the word count of this article is almost same like beyonce now and I feel like the lead should be longer than Beyonce's. Beacuse MJ had a long career spanning more than four decade. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The WP:LEAD needs copyediting to pass WP:FLCR 1. For example, the last paragraph has a typo ("an" should be "and") and a sentence beginning with a minuscule.
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Taking a quick look, I see a bunch of stray periods scattered throughout. I say focus on the length, though. The copyediting can wait until the bigger problem has been fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The descriptions for "Billie Jean" and "The Way You Make Me Feel" contain MOS:CONTRACTIONS.
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The following links are dead: reference 25, reference 52, reference 58, reference 73, reference 86, reference 87, reference 105, reference 125, reference 126, reference 144, reference 155, and reference 162.
 Done no more dead link now. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I still get error messages for the following: [6][7][8][9][10][11], and this redirects somewhere completely different. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Reference 120 is a duplicate of reference 29 (both link here).
 Done.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Michael Jackson: For the Record appears twice in the source list.
 Done Removed one.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

At this time, the list does not meet the criteria for WP:Featured list status. If and when the above issues are resolved, I'll do a more thorough review. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Replaced few links with new. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

CCamp2013 has not edited Wikipedia for three weeks, if they do not respond here and/or this nomination is not adopted, I will archive it in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn are you willing to adopt this nomination? If not, I'll close it very shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man yes I am. And I think I've adressed all the suggestions above. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
TompaDompa your concerns have been responded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The last four issues remain unresolved. I haven't checked whether the ones relating to the WP:LEAD have been resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Solved all your issues and tell me how it looks now? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
See my replies above. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Reply to The Rambling Man and to TompaDompa: I am also here to provide any edits as the original nominator. I want to thank Akhiljaxxn for keeping this alive as I have put a lot of work into this list over the years. Also, I feel like the lead should be longer than Beyonce's, although I think the lead that I first nominated the list with was fine as well. Chase | talk
Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everything. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Some more comments:

  • Jackson has been called the King of Music Videos. – by whom? Is this so common as to warrant being mentioned in the second sentence of the page?
Jackson has been called the King of Music Videos by many including Guinnes book of world records.[1] Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Jackson transformed the music video into an art form and a promotional tool through complex story lines, dance routines, special effects and famous cameo appearances, simultaneously breaking down racial barriers. – this shouldn't use WP:WikiVoice. It sounds very promotional.
See how it looks now .Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The choreography in Thriller has become a part of global pop culture, replicated everywhere from Indian films to prisons in the Philippines. – "everywhere" doesn't seem like WP:NPOV phrasing to me – it reads like trying to play up the impact.
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The video for "In the Closet" was Jackson's most sexually provocative piece. – this is pretty subjective. In general, the WP:LEAD doesn't really give an encyclopedic impression. It reads more like an article in a magazine at times.
  • The photo of David Fincher is of poor quality. The ones of John Landis and Martin Scorsese aren't great either.
Replaced two photos of David Fincher and martin Scrosese, And no more photo of Jhon Landis available on commons. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:SURNAME, the artist should not be referred to as "Michael".
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The descriptions for the music videos are not consistent in style. For instance, some are in the past tense and some in the present tense.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

All the references should have the same date format, an accessdate, if given an author and the 'work' parameter should only be used for magazine and newspapers. For e.x. use 'publisher=MTV' not 'work=MTV'. I did a couple of refs already.--Lirim | Talk 23:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Seee how it looks now..Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
There are still refs with different date formats.--Lirim | Talk 19:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Lirim | Talk 21:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008

Source review – There's a lot of issues here, some of which should have been spotted before now. I haven't done spot-checks yet, but formatting and reliability checks show a laundry list of concerns:

  • Refs 8, 64, and 150 have all caps in their titles that need removal.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 looks poorly formatted with the cite patent template. There's no publisher or access date with this template. I'd suggest just using cite web for this, as it will lead to a result more consistent with the rest of the article. Also, the inline link to this cite needs removal, as that is a Manual of Style violation.
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Inline link still needs removal. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Extra period after ref 12 needs removal.
 Done Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Refs 19, 68, and 96 are book cites with no page numbers. For verifiability, I suggest including page numbers for these or searching for replacements.
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This wasn't done at all. None of those cite have had page numbers added to them, and they are all still there. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I hate to leave this unstruck, but one of the book cites still doesn't have a page number. Its number is currently 21 (Guinness World Records 2004). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
In the replacement, you have "Lewis Jones" as the author. This is obviously a mixing of two books; which is it supposed to be? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This is also replced and see how the current one looks.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the publisher of that source is Lulu.com, a self-publishing company. Most of the books from that publisher are not considered reliable sources, and I doubt this one would be an exception. The other reference, once the author is correctly identified, would be a superior source to this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 27 doesn't need to have The Grio in both the work and publisher parameters, as it leads to duplication in the cite.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Refs 29 and 30 are YouTube links. Is this some kind of official site? If not, it's probably a copyvio and we shouldn't be linking to it. Even if it is okay, the cites need publishers added to them.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 31 lists the page as "Unknown", which isn't really acceptable. If this was from an unpaginated Google Books link, my suggestion is to add the chapter number or name.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Time is listed twice in ref 41. Also, the date appears a second time in unique formatting.
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Iamnotastalker.com (ref 42) doesn't sound reliable to me. A replacement should certainly be found for whatever material this is supporting.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Refs 48, 51, 74, 124, and 150 are print publications and should have their publishers italicized.
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 53 has more duplicate formatting, and Billboard shouldn't be the article title. Also, the month shouldn't be shortened here.
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 57 is another unreliable source (IMDB). That needs replacement as well.
 Done.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 60 is missing a publisher (Rolling Stone).
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 62 is another poorly formatted parent link.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a br visible in the table after ref 63.
Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 67 is another one where the publisher (Jet) is being incorrectly listed as the article title.
Jet is the title; not the publisher.Johnson Publishing Company is the publisher.pls do a double check.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
No, Jet is the name of the magazine. You want to have the title of the specific article itself in that field. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 83 (The Guardian) needs more formatting, as it's missing most details, such as publisher and access date.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 101: Surely the last word of Dance and Fitness Magazin needs to be fixed. In addition, that publisher should be italicized.
 Done Citation replaced.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 108: Last word of High Beem is another typo.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 112 looks like somebody's personal website. Why is this a reliable source?
 DoneNew RS added. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 113 is missing an access date.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • TMZ (ref 118) isn't particularly reliable, as it's mainly a celebrity gossip site. Is there really nothing better for the facts it's supporting?
 Done New RS added. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Near that reference are pages from Michaeljackson.com and michaeljackson.com. One style of formatting should be used consistency throughout.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Still see different usages here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a ton of unformatted citations from refs 129 to 138. I'm stunned that nobody saw them earlier, but this should be addressed urgently. While I'm on the subject, MJstar.com (ref 137) sounds like an unreliable fan site.
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Most of these are still missing access dates, so I'd say they still need more formatting. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Still see no access dates in any ref from number 124 to number 128 – five in all. We need an access date in addition to the date the source was published, as the other web references have. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Same goes for MJ Vibe (ref 144).
 Done New RS added. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 148 needs further formatting.
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This page shows some link issues that are worth looking at. In particular, it's apparently having some problems accessing ref 106. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everythin. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a couple more things from the checks I did in response to the above comments, in addition to the responses above. First, the title of ref 107 is "archived copy", which isn't going to be right. One of the bots does this sometimes; just take a look at the source and put its real title in that field instead to fix this.
Second, the publisher of ref 149 should be italicized since that is a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I left another note above, and count two outstanding items as I write this. Spot-checks of refs 45, 135, and 136 turned up no issues, so we're a couple of fixes away from the source review being a pass. However, please look below for other pressing matters. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to update, I left a couple more notes above. In addition, I saw one more glaring prose issue in the last sentence of the Television section: as an encyclopedia, the use of Michael here is much too informal. I could understand it if we were using it to distinguish him from other members of his family, but that isn't the case there. Let's get that and the other issues fixed so that I can fully cap this review. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The point above about references 124 through 128 lacking access dates remains an issue, and I left another comment above that one as well about the newest source. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Daniil Trifonov discography

Nominator(s): Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to Lang Lang discography, a FL, this article has a more engaging lead and is more detailed. Thank you for your consideration, Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Question - are the performances listed under "contributions" the exact same performances as appear on the earlier album? We don't normally include tracks which have been "re-used" on compilation albums in a discography (at least not in the pop/rock field)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Yes, indeed. The reason why I included them is that Lang Lang discography also did... I'm happy to remove the "contributions" from Trifonov's article if it is well-established policy not to include them. Zingarese (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the Lang Lang discography, the "contributions" there are what I would expect them to be - instances where he performed new music but it was on an album that was not credited to him. In the case of Trifonov the listed contributions seem to be instances where his record label put one of his already-released performances onto a compilation album (the equivalent of a pop singer having one of their singles put on a Now That's What I Call Music album or similar). I would not include these. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In the case of the Schumann and Brahms that is not the case, but the others, yes. That's my bad. I think I will remove the contributions from Trifonov's article. Zingarese (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Almost ready to support, but one last question - why are the refs in a smaller font size (or is it just my ageing eyes?).........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There was a missing {{refend}} tag, which I've now added. That's my bad! Zingarese (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Taking all the above into account I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

  • The article should start with {{As of}} – doesn't seem likely the "seven studio albums, three live albums, one video release, and one compilation" would be the end of the pianist's recording career, and without the {{As of}} the list could be soon outdated.
  • The list's layout, in particular the layout of its tables, seems quite problematic, at least on my screen. I'd suggest two tables (and only those two):
    • One table focussing on Recordings (separate columns for recording date, title of the work, number of movements–i.e. tracks–, composer (the composition's number in the composer's works catalogue can be included in this column), studio/live/video, recording venue, orchestra/conductor accompanying the pianist, ... ending in a last column that indicates in which album(s) the recording is included)
    • Another table focussing on Releases (Title of the album, type–CD/DVD/...–, when released, by whom, unique identification of the release –e.g. publisher's code or EAN–, accolades like chartings and other prizes)
  • I'd like somewhat more prose on reception.
  • Avoid editorialising (and other WP:WTW issues), e.g. "considerable" in "...received considerable critical acclaim..." – the nature of the acclaim is an interpretation: either such interpretation can be referenced to reliable sources, or, if such wording can't be sourced reliably, press reviews should be referenced individually, leaving it to the reader of the Wikipedia article whether or not that amounts to "considerable" (without using that word in Wikipedia's prose).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Thank you for your suggestions. As for the {{As of}}; most discography articles do not include it, even for artists who still have active recording careers (see WP:FL; Artist discographies). I will be sure to update the article when new releases arrive! :-) Also, after I nominated this article, User:EditorE added peak chart positions in the table; while a tremendously positive addition, it made the tables severely unreadible on smaller screens. I simply moved those to a separate table, and now, after some other tweaks, the tables are now very legible! I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright (it's somewhat subjective in any case) and did some tweaking on the remainder. Please let me know what you think! Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Daniil Trifonov discography#Compilations is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Video releases is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Live albums is a sortable table with three entries: to me this doesn't make much sense either. In Daniil Trifonov discography#Studio albums the table has seven entries, but since the bulk of the content is in unsortable columns one has to wonder whether the sortable table format makes any sense here too. For those four sections I'd drop the table format altogether (if the two-table suggestion I made above finds no approval).
Re. "I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright" – OK, but this clashes with my "I'd like somewhat more prose on reception" suggestion. I suggested more prose on that topic, not less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: thank you for your comments; @Francis Schonken: would you mind commenting? --Zingarese talk · contribs 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
They are currently blocked, so I don't think they can. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry; didn't notice that. Would I be able to earn your support if I reverted the table structure for the releases to what it was before, removed the "recordings" table (& possibly merge it to a separate new article), and fixed the intro? Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Zingarese do you intend to return to this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I don’t believe I have ever “left” it? —Zingarese talk · contribs 19:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Well you've made about four edits in the last two weeks, so I was just checking. Plus you didn't respond to TompaDompa. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I really haven't made many edits here lately at all... real life has gotten in the way! I believe I have addressed all of TompaDompa's concerns; when I get the chance, I may add two (or three?) compilations featuring Trifonov back to the article (which I had removed to restore the table to original format).This article is fine with or without them, but I feel it's not too bad of an idea to include them. --Zingarese talk · contribs 20:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Indeed you have. Support TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I restored the more detailed layout; and commented out the collapse above which suggested this was somehow solved. It isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: What is not solved? Pinging TompaDompa as well if they dont mind commenting Zingarese talk · contribs 02:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
They've been blocked again. I still support this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Quick comment – Haven't reviewed this one in detail, but the Compilations table probably doesn't need to be sortable yet, as it currently has only one entry. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • "set off with a focus on" is a bit verbose for me, "initially focussed" perhaps.
  • Ref 2 appears not to verify all the claims about the competition and him coming third.
    • The back cover of the album in the ref state (in Polish) that the music was recorded live at the Competition. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decca is piped to a redirect.
    • Fixed
  • "homage of" I would normally say "homage to".
  • I'm mildly confused that TompaDompa would support this when the main article is so very small indeed. What makes this not a clear-cut 3b violation while lists such as List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao are of concern to TompaDompa?
    • Sorry, but I do not see how this violates 3b at all. This is a very substantial article, with almost half of the albums winning notable awards including Grammys, and would be much too long for the main article. One of the reasons why the main article can be perceived as small is because it certainly needs updating and expanding. I invite TompaDompa to comment. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, the point is that some users have been recently attempting to strongly reinforce 3b, and this is a case in point, the main article is not much more than a stub so merging this information in would be no problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
        • The explanation is that when I did my initial review, the discography was so long that it would not have been reasonable to include it in the main article (even though the main article is indeed short). When the discography was restructured and thus got a lot shorter, it did not occur to me to reassess it from a WP:FLCR 3(b) perspective. I have now taken a second look at the length of the main article and the length and depth of the discography (which roughly corresponds to the tables and the WP:LEAD, respectively). In doing so, I tried copying the tables from the discography to the main article to preview how it would look if the pages were merged. I came to the conclusion that the current length might not necessarily make it unreasonable to merge the pages, but I think the depth is such that it would be inappropriate to include it on the main article (see my related comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Capital Bra discography/archive1). I have to admit that I'm not certain that I would have reached the same conclusion if this were the first time I assessed this list (as opposed to a reassessment). TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
          • Okay, that's not particularly convincing, it seems to imply that you're applying different standards of 3b to different lists/articles, which is a pity. As the main article is so slight, in my opinion this is far more a 3b violation than some of those you have opposed, yet you actually support this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
            • The Rambling Man, sorry but I have to vehemently disagree with your view. Minus the tables, this article is pretty lengthy with over 3,000 characters of prose (more so than the featured lists Lang Lang discography and Kronos Quartet discography). In addition, please take a look at those FL's vs. their main articles, as well as Oregon Symphony discography vs. Oregon Symphony. I share TompaDompa's view that the depth of this discography is such that it would not be suitable to include it on the main article.. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
              • You are welcome to "vehemently disagree" with me. My main issue is that we have a reviewer applying different interpretations of 3b to different lists here, and that is of concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
                • (edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure what it is you think implies that I'm applying different standards – would you care to elaborate? I'm certainly not doing so intentionally. TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
                  • Your position seems to be that if a main article is very small indeed, and a forked article is quite large, that the forked article is just fine. If the main article is quite large then the forked article suddenly becomes not a reasonable fork. For instance, if we reduced the main Radamel Falcao article to a couple of paragraphs, then the list of international goals would be fine in your eyes for a standalone list. However, because the main Falcao article is very substantial, you think the list should be incorporated within it. Very odd to me, and not what 3b was ever designed for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
                    • I think you're reading more into my words than I ever said or intended. I didn't say I thought List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao should be merged with Radamel Falcao – I said I had concerns about WP:FLCR 3(b) (if my choice of words made it come off as unreserved agreement with the editor who said it didn't pass, I apologize for not making myself clear). I consciously avoided either supporting or opposing the nomination because I was on the fence about whether it passed. I also specifically avoided commenting on Talk:Radamel Falcao#Merge tag for the same reason – I didn't think the pages should be merged, I was undecided about whether they reasonably could.
                      Perhaps my reading of WP:FLCR 3(b) is more literal than the one that was intended when the criteria were formulated – I take it to mean that there are three categories of lists: (1) lists that should be merged with a main article, (2) lists for which both merging and keeping separate would be valid options, and (3) lists that should be kept separate from the main article. In my reading, only category (3) would qualify for WP:Featured list status, but perhaps the original intention was either that category (2) should also qualify or that there is no category (2). I just now took a look at the talk page archives for the WP:Featured list criteria, and I see that the phrasing, interpretation, and implementation of 3(b) has been controversial for nigh on a decade now (and I see that my reading of it has been criticized as well as advocated long before I started reviewing WP:FLCs). I thank you for raising the issue of what the purpose of WP:FLCR 3(b) is, and I will keep this in mind with future nominations. TompaDompa (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS.
    • Fixed
  • Are the release dates global or do they relate to release in one or more specific territories?
    • Global
  • "Trio élégiaque No. 1 /" why the slash?
    • Fixed
  • " Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra" is that the " Warsaw National Philharmonic Orchestra"?
    • Yes; both names are used to refer to the orchestra although the former is more common
  • "Peak chart positions" all the hyphens should be en-dashes (per your own key).
    • Already Fixed
  • As noted, compilation table need not be sortable.
    • Fixed
  • Peak chart position table doesn't sort correctly.
    • Fixed
  • "US Classical" is piped to a redirect.
    • Don't see the problem; the redirect goes directly to the part of the page about US Classical
  • Avoid spaced hyphens in the ref titles, use spaced en-dashes instead.
    • Fixed
  • Ref 7 is missing access date.
    • Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everything. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Zingarese talk · contribs 16:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

  • Mixed date formats in the references.
    • Fixed
  • Some SHOUTING in there too.
    • I'm not sure I understand...
  • Also some spaced hyphens there which should be en-dashes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Plus I'm still not sure about how this meets the 3b concerns that TompaDompa seems quite content with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I do not concur with any notion that this list violates 3b. It would make little sense to merge this large article with the artist's article; it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". Take a look at the FLs Lang Lang discography, Oregon Symphony discography, Kronos Quartet discography, etc.. vs. their main articles, for example. If I had more time, I would expand Trifonov's article myself;it badly needs updating. @TompaDompa: Please comment Zingarese talk · contribs 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I believe I've said all I have to say in my comments from late September, above. TompaDompa (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, other stuff exists. I'm afraid I find the previous commentator's approach terribly inconsistent, actually voting against a list which was justifiably split from a main article, while voting for this, simply because the main article is very weak indeed. It's counter to what Wikipedia is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Director comment@Zingarese: TRM's latest batch of comments has been up for a couple of weeks now without a response. This FLC has been going on for five months now and we can't leave it open indefinitely. Please respond to TRM as soon as possible, or I'm afraid we will eventually be forced to archive the FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

  1. ^ http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/71833-longest-music-video
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=869711851"
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