Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



Contents

Nominations

Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Lizard (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've spent several hours working to bring this article to its current state, compared to how it was previously. I believe it meets featured list criteria. Lizard (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

List of most viewed YouTube videos

Nominator(s): Daylen (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list has been viewed almost half a million times, it is being constantly updated with new information as it comes available, contains a lead section which nicely summarises the articles in the list, the entry includes an image, and the facts are well sourced. Daylen (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: this nomination was not actually transcluded onto WP:FL until May 25. --PresN 14:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose and considering speedy close- this list is a long way from featured quality. The lead is just a set of short statements with strange formatting instead of a discussion about what's interesting or important about high-view Youtube videos, videos are excluded from the list because they "manipulated" to get high up, which means that the editor in question didn't like the way they got a high view count; most of the interesting comments about the videos are hidden in the notes section instead of a comments column, half of each note and many of the notes entirely don't have references, 63-80 don't even have notes, linking the the videos in question by making it a reference for the video name is odd, sorting by name sorts "The"s wrong, there seems to be a lot of sourcing to non-official "top 100 videos" videos (and I saw one that's to a random google spreadsheet?), the Historical most viewed videos section has 11 videos instead of "all" or "10" for not explained reason... There's a lot to sort out here. --PresN 15:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Daddy Yankee

Nominator(s): Brankestein (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Brankestein (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note- this nomination was never actually added to WP:FLC until 5/25. --PresN 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Benni McCarthy

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Benni McCarthy is South Africa's all-time leading goalscorer in football, and is widely recognized as one of the nation's best ever footballers. All reference to career achievements and goals scored are well sourced and set out in an easy to read manner.Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Drive (2011 film)

Nominator(s): Bluesphere 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by the 2011 crime movie Drive. It's a real shame that no one even bothered to work on this list before. It's a cool flick about a nameless stunt driver and a getaway driver (played by my main man Ryan Gosling) who falls for the girl next door (played by Carey Mulligan) to start his life anew. He, however, gets sucked in to the criminal underworld after her debt-laden husband is released from prison and is forced to take part in what ends up as a botched heist that jeopardizes their lives. Seriously, everyone should see this movie in case they haven't; it's a film about a real human being and a real hero. This is the first film accolades list I've worked on, so hopefully this goes well. Bluesphere 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Quantico episodes

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I think “upto” would read between if separate into two words “up to”. This is more a stylistic choice, but I am more familiar with it being two separate words.
  • There should not be a comma after the phrase “who also serves as an executive producer”.
  • The sentence about who directed the pilot episode seems oddly specific for the lead and I wold suggest removing it unless this fact is extremely notable for some reason.
  • I would combine the first and second paragraphs of the lead as the first paragraph is rather short, especially if you remove the final sentence from the first paragraph.
  • I am not sure of the value of the link for “New Agent Trainees” as it leads directly to the FBI Academy article and does not appear to provide much context to the term. The term is already defined in the text as “young FBI recruits”, and that seems like enough of a definition without the link. It also seems rather redundant as the FBI Academy is linked later in the paragraph.
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph is rather long and I would recommend breaking it up into two sentence as it is covering a lot of content.
  • The phrase “revealing various detail about their previous lives and later switched to one timeline” reads somewhat awkwardly to me. Maybe if you made the part about the timelines switching into its own sentence and giving it more context, or just revising this sentence to have it flow better.
  • There should be a comma after “while for the second season”.
  • I would say “the production moved to New York for its second season”. The word “for” seems more appropriate than “in”.
  • Do you think it would be beneficial to add some information on the awards and nominations for the show in the lead?
  • This does not need to be done for the FLC, but it may be helpful to make a separate template for the television show as there are several articles that would make one appropriate (this list, the main article, the lists/articles on the first two seasons, the future list/article on the third season when that does get made, and the article on Alex Parrish). Again, this is just a suggestion and does not need to be done for the FLC. Just wanted to note this.

Wonderful work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Aoba47: Done. Actually there was a template, which was recently deleted.Krish | Talk 05:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; after looking through the argument to delete the template, it makes sense to me now. I will support this; good luck with getting this promoted. Remember to keep this updated when new episodes come out in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

List of sunken battleships

Nominator(s): –Vami_IV✠ 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the page has grown to its ideal size, is reliably cited, undergone both a Peer Review and the copyediting of other editors, and have implemented all suggestions of all editors that have previously reviewed this article. –Vami_IV✠ 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - On the map, why are some battleships stars and others circles? Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not entirely know (nor did I know those were there). They seem to denote major clusters of sinkings, such as at Tsushima, but then don't do that for Jutland. I had designs to redesign it for a time while I was working on the article. –Vami_IV✠ 01:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Holby City

Nominator(s): Soaper1234 - talk 15:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating List of awards and nominations received by Holby City for featured list because I believe that, after extensive work, it meets the Featured List criteria. In my opinion, the prose is professional and the lead is engaging, with a summary of Holby City and what the article lists. It covers every aspect correctly, is within suitable length and meets requirements of the stand-alone lists. The list is easy to manage and navigate and complies with the MOS. The list is ordered by award and date, with section headings to enhance the reader's ability to navigate. The list features three images, which are all appropriately captioned and checked, and the article is not subject to any sort of edit wars or content disputes. This is my FLC so all comments are appreciated and very helpful! Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 15:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Paradesi (2013 film)

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2013 Indian Tamil period drama film, Paradesi starring Atharvaa and Vedhika. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fifth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash
  • the cinematography and editing were respectively handled by Chezhiyan and Kishore Te. "respectively" may come last.
  • Anything more formal and non-biased than "in a hellish manner"?
  • You could add the INR Convert template for ₹400 million, or a note regarding the exchange rate (wish INR Convert was always accurate).
  • When you say the film was nominated for/won x number of awards, major ones (producing, directing, acting and writing) should always be mentioned. I don't see the lead mentioning Vedhika being nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare, or Atharvaa being nominated for Best Actor at Vijay.
  • Poornima Ramasamy won for Best Costume Design at the 60th National Film Awards - could you say "At the 60th National Film Awards, Poornima Ramasamy won in the category for Best Costume Design"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: I have hopefully resolved your comments. Do let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and this FLC has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Thank you very much, Kailash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - It's hardly been three days since your last nomination. Also, the unwritten rule is that a nomination must have a minimum of three supports with no outstanding concerns. Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: why don't you review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress/archive1? This one has received only 2 reviews in the past 3 months. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Vensatry: My other nomination now has 4 supports. Feel free to leave comments in both.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Could you possibly clarify "a degrading manner"? As someone who not seen this film, I am not certain what you mean by this as it sounds a little vague. Are you referring to an extreme mistreatment akin to slavery or is it something different? Some additional context would be helpful in this case.
Yes, it is slavery. I have added a bit more.
  • Do you have any information on the box office of the film (how much it made) as it would be helpful to get some sort of number to show how it "failed to recover its production costs"? If it is unavailable, then it is fine as it currently stands.
Unfortunately, it is unavailable. If it were, I would have put it up before.

Wonderful job as always. I only have two very minor clarification questions/suggestions. Once they are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved your comments. Do let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. Great work with this. I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted, and with your future projects as well. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Can't see any issue in it. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: Thank you very much, Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The prose looks good. Just have a minor comment for a reference: unless the article was originally published by IANS, I would remove it from reference 12.FrB.TG (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I couldn't get the original IANS source though as the links die quite quickly.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Done. Replaced with another source.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Moonlight (2016 film)

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Moonlight is a 2016 American drama about a young African-American gay man struggling with his sexuality. It won numerous awards including the Academy Award for Best Picture. This list covers these, as always look forward to all the helpful and constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I reviewed any of your FLCs.
Comments from Skr15081997
  • Since Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, and Adele Romanski were recipients for the Academy Award for Best Picture, they might be added to the lede.
  • Something could be added to the publisher parameter in the OFCS citation.
  • I have gone through this film's awards page at IMDb and the following awards could be added to the list–2017 Gold Derby Awards, IndieWire Critics' Poll and Village Voice Film Poll.
  • All the recipients and nominees are sorted by their last name.
This one needed lots of work and you have tackled it brilliantly. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Madras (film)

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian Tamil drama film, Madras starring Karthi and Catherine Tresa. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fourth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Finished watching the film just now. Found it slightly melodramatic, but that's okay. Well, on a formal note, i am going into the comments.

  • "It was produced by K. E. Gnanavel Raja under his banner Studio Green" -- I suggest you opt for "It was produced by K. E. Gnanavel Raja's Studio Green company". Not really adamant on this.
Good call anyhow. Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would have objected the listing of so many supporting characters, but they are integral to the plot. So, it works for me.
  • "The musical score was composed by Santhosh Narayanan while the cinematography and editing were respectively handled by Murali G and Praveen K. L.." -- Two points here.
  • What do you mean to say by musical score? Madras had no songs?
Changed to "soundtrack and score".
  • Please either introduce the editor first or write it as K. L. Praveen. Watching two fullstops back to back is sort of weird.
Praveen K. L. is his name and that's how it is listed in the credits. I don't know why he calls himself that.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Released on 26 September, Madras received positive critical feedback and box office success, becoming one of the most successful Tamil films of that year." -- We already know it is 2014. Why "that year" and why not "the year"?
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for its direction, screenplay, performances of the cast members, music, and cinematography." -- If i give up writing and sound design, almost every department of the film is here. Add writing as a key aspect of direction and screenplay. Let us assume that the sound designer will work along with the music director. Now, what is the use of "particular" here?
Its actually to specify that the crew under their respective categories/professions are appreciated for their work on the film. But since you mentioned that almost every department of the film is here, which is correct, I have removed "particular".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not compulsory, but numbers above ten are not usually written in words. We can use numbers.
  • In the last paragraph of the lead, except for Filmfare, i see you mention the heroine's last name. We introduced her in the lead. Why write Catherine Tresa again for Filmfare? Tresa is enough, isn't it?
Good point. Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • We get that Madras is a Tamil film. Why mention Tamil in Filmfare awards? It is for granted that Tamil awards are given to Tamil actors, actresses and technicians. Please remove the word to avoid repetition; i see that everything is appropriately pipelinked there.
Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Same for South. It is given only to one among the four industries and it is mentioned that the ceremony was Filmfare awards south.
Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "At the 9th Vijay Awards, it was nominated in fifteen categories and won in three..." -- Why "in" here? any featured inspiration?
Tweaked the sentence.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as a deliberate error. But read this line once: "Among other wins, the film received seven Ananda Vikatan Cinema Awards, six South Indian International Movie Awards and four Edison Awards." SIIMA ws mentioned above, wasn't it? Why again?
Good point. Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sources and Dablinks are fine.
  • To be honest, i should not comment on the image (as it was uploaded by me). But, given that many follow Bollywood Hungama's template and upload similar files in commons, i take the liberty to say the image is fine considering that an administrator/reviewer (Vensatry in this case) has verified it.

Okay. These comments are a result of an unbiased assessment of this list made by me to the best of my knowledge and skills with a sane mind. I expect the contributor or his friends or anyone in such capacity to resolve these comments or provide a proper explanation. I shall return in three days and am hopeful that the comments shall be addressed by then. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 17:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Pavan. Do let me know if there's anything at all. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Three days have passed and all my concerns have been addressed. The list has my support. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 07:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: Thank you very much though, Pavan. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
Extended content
  • The term “his banner” sounds a little odd to me; I would use “his production company” or something along those lines to be more specific on exactly what is being described and introduced.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would move the final sentences in the lead’s first paragraph about the film’s plot before listing all of the actors involved to better situate a reader who is unfamiliar with the film. You would have to revise the wikilinking and introduction of the actors if this is done.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As someone who has never heard of this film, I was a little confused by the sentences on the plot. How does Kaali intend to avenge his friend’s death? What are the two political parties involved in this film? A little clarification on these two things would be very helpful here.
It is actually two factions of a single political party which are arguing over a wall to establish their so-called supremacy. I have explained a bit more.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the part about Kaali being an IT professional really necessary? Is it important to the film’s plot? It seems rather trivial, and it would seem to be more beneficial to expand on the main conflict of the film and clearly and concisely explain it in a single sentence.
Well shouldn't we say who the protagonist is and what he does for a living? Otherwise readers would assume he's unemployed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a pretty big assumption to make; I would just think that the person's job is just not important enough to the plot to mention in a small, two to three sentence summary. I still do not see the value of this exactly, but I will not press it further. It may just be a small nitpick on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In the phrase “becoming one of the most successful Tamil films of that year”, I would assume it should read “Tamil-language films”.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In the table, I do not believe that the people need to be wikilinked following their first appearance to avoid over-linking.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Great job with this. It was an interesting read. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Aoba47. Do let me know if there's anything at all. Thank you. As for the FAC, I'm not aware of the subject, so I'm afraid going to have to decline the offer. I hope you don't mind.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I will support this nomination. Thank you for addressing my comments. It is okay if you cannot help with my FAC, but your reasoning is a little weird to me, especially when you post a request for me to review this out of the blue and I did the review even though I am completely unaware of the subject matter. Again, it is fine if you are unable to do the review, but your exact rationale seems a little hypocritical to me. Aoba47 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thank you very much though, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments
  • "The film's story revolves around Kaali (Karthi), an impulsive and short-tempered IT professional who lives in the Vyasarpadi area of Chennai. His friend Anbu (Kalaiyarasan) is killed in the midst of a feud between two factions of a political party over a building wall at one of the housing board apartments in the area. When Kaali hears of this, he decides to avenge Anbu's death." A little too detailed for an accolades list to be honest. How about something shorter like: "The film's story revolves around Kaali (Karthi), an impulsive ... Chennai. When his friend is killed amid a feud between two politicians, he decides to avenge his death"?
@FrB.TG: This is what Aoba47 asked me to do: Expand the plot for clarity. This is quite alright and anyways, the lead is not as big as La La Land's list (no offense).
None taken. Your reasoning makes sense, although the comparison to the La La Land list is not quite right because the musical has won many more awards than this film.
  • The norm for film accolades list is that the plot is followed by the names of important cast members.
Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have the budget and box-office figures?
Kailash29792, please explain. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't focus so much on finding definitive budget/BO figures for this film, as this is an awards list, not a fiscal list. And definitive data on budget/BO figures in Indian films are elusive. Just saying it was among the highest-grossing Tamil films of the year is enough I think. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Not something that should be done but it would have been nice if we had the data.
  • I would remove "As of 2017" as it is unlikely that the film will win more awards in the future.
Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "and Best Male Playback Singer (Pradeep Kumar)" - what song?
Done as asked. Added the song.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "won three, which are" - I would get rid of the other two words. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Nicely put together. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Thank you, Frank. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Skr15081997
  • The titles in 12th and 13th refs can be changed to lowercase.
  • Per the lead Pa. Ranjith won the Vijay Award for Best Director but the table doesn't support this statement.
  • The above reviews have left nothing for me to comment on the prose quality.
Nice list. Good job on this one. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Skr15081997: I have hopefully resolved your comments. Do let me know if there's anything at all. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Now there's 1 redlink in the lead and Vijay Award for Best Supporting Actress and Actor both lead to the same article. These 2 issues need to be resolved. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Skr15081997: Done.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to Support this nomination. --Skr15081997 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Skr15081997: Thank you, Skr15081997. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Sorry for the delay. I was very busy. Coming to the list, I think it fulfills every criteria for FL. Hence I support this.Krish | Talk 16:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!: Thank you, Krish. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment

Looking good, just the one thing: why do we not have a reference for the critical response for the various aspects of the film? Rest looks fine. Good work. NumerounovedantTalk 07:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: I actually meant that the awards went to those particular categories. Do you want me to rephrase it?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that would be better. NumerounovedantTalk 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: I have rephrased it now anyway. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Support. Great work. Ping me if you need someone for the spot-checks, I'd be happy to help. NumerounovedantTalk 08:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: Thank you and yes, I would need your help with the spot-checks for both my FLCs (The other one's here. Feel free to leave comments there too) if that's alright.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't be able to do both, I'll try and get to this one later tonight. NumerounovedantTalk 09:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Spot-checks
  • Ref 1. does not name K. E. Gnanavel, nor does it give the release year (look further).
Done. As asked. Used another source.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref.2, 3, and 4 have no proper mention of any of the supporting​ actors. I am just not convinced with just the odd first/last names occurring here and there with contrived spellings. Is there no better source?
Tried everywhere but they don't mention the full names. Removed some of them for now. I'll re-add them if something comes up later perhaps.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref. 5 Same, it's astonishing how no source uses the full names, for all we know it can be any Praveen, Murali, Hari.
Used another one with the full names.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • None of the 6,7, and 8 references give a direct mention of the Indian release date.
@Numerounovedant: Reference no. 8 (10 now) shows the poster of Madras which states "from 26 September". Hopefully, that can be counted.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
How about the bms source? NumerounovedantTalk 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: Bookmyshow is deleted as it seems to be considered non-reliable. Better to go with IBTimes.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Going through the awards. NumerounovedantTalk 17:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The awards list looks largely fine. Sorry for the delay, let me know if I missed something. NumerounovedantTalk 17:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
In light of the recent changes, it looks good to go. NumerounovedantTalk 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: Thank you, Vedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett on screen and stage

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Cate Blanchett is one of the best actresses of all time and probably the best of her generation. Her list deserves to be celebrated, much like her films and achievements. I feel it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2
  • The first two sources [1] and [2] don't really mention Paradise Road being her debut. Find another one that does.
  • "The following year, she garnered worldwide attention for playing Queen Elizabeth I of England in the acclaimed drama Elizabeth, which garnered" — Two instances of the word "garnered" in the same sentence. Please find another alternative. Also, find a source that says Elizabeth is acclaimed (even though I know it is) for those who may not have heard about the film. I would also consider splitting the sentence into two as it is quite long.
  • Write something about her role as Kate Hepburn in The Aviator such as Blanchett's is the only portrayal of an Academy-Award winning actress to have won an Oscar. Something like it."
  • "In 2007, she received both Best Actress and Best Supporting Oscar nominations for her roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and I'm Not There, becoming one of the few actors to achieve the feat." — Writing "Oscar" would seem informal even though the awards are known that way. so, rephrase it as "In 2007, she received Academy Award nominations for both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress for her roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and I'm Not There, becoming one of the few actors to achieve the feat."
  • It should be "[5][6][8]" instead of "[6][5][8]".
  • Do explain a bit about some of her stage work, particularly those that received recognition.
  • Source for Parklands is not there.

That's about it from me. I do recommend a thorough source review for the list. Krish, good job on taking an initiative to get Cate Balnchett's filmography and stage work list this far.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Done. Additionally, I have changed the lead significantly. Let me know if there is any problem with the new version.Krish | Talk 15:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No problems with me. I will provide a weak support on this nomination for now as a source review needs to be done still. The prose looks good.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • In the sentence about Electra, I would link the play in the phrase “the same name” part.
  • I would frame the phrase “opposite Geoffrey Rush” with commas as looking at it quickly makes it look like Rush won something.
  • Instead of “made her feature film debut with a supporting role”, I would say “made her feature film debut in a supporting role”. I think “in” is more appropriate in this context than “with”.
  • In the phrase “garnered her another Academy Award nomination”, I would specify what the nomination was for (it may be repetitive, but it is important to clarify that this is for best supporting actress).
  • This is minor, but I would say “this feat” instead “the feat”. The use of “the” just sounds a little weird to me in this context.
  • I am not sure where there is a “<” sign separating the references in the sentence on her 2015 roles.
  • I am not sure you would use the phrase “the former” following a list of three items; I have only seen that in lists of two items. I would just say the name of the film instead.
  • Wonderful job with this list. I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 13:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will support this nomination, and good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Hmm...

  • This is a long sentence which can be broken into two comfortably.
  • Is it really important to mention Rush here? If yes, can you please explain why?
  • Because he once was her frequent collaborator.Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Those critics awards were given by Sydney Theatre Company. Lovely. Now, instead of writing "...won her the Sydney Theatre Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress,..." can't we say something like "...won her the Sydney Theatre's Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress,..." to ensure simplicity?
  • There's an article for it, so why bother squeezing?Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Blanchett received worldwide attention for playing Queen Elizabeth I of England in the acclaimed drama Elizabeth (1998), which garnered her a Golden Globe and BAFTA Award for Best Actress and her first Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. -- Another long one which can be broken comfortably.

More to follow... ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • However, her other 1999 releases — the widely praised An Ideal Husband and the largely panned Pushing Tin — were unsuccessful. Two things.
  • When using em-dashes, please do not provide spaces before and after them.
  • The term "widely praised" is sounding vague. Please be clear here.
  • Really? But "largely panned" is not? Jokes aside, I have used this to showcase that a praised film sometimes also fails.Krish | Talk 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Galadriel or Gladriel? Read this line: " She briefly reprised her role of Gladriel in the The Hobbit trilogy (2012-14)."
  • A better alt comment would do.

Let me know once they are done. I will return after three days. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave three days and usually wait until they are done. But, given that the nominator has some RL issues and that the comments are already resolved, i declare my support. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 16:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments
  • I think the "notable" is really unnecessary in the Oleana entry.
  • Make sure that the use of "a"s and "the"s is consistent.
  • Please point out where exactly this problem is?Krish | Talk 07:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • A comma after "During this period"?
  • "In 2007, she received both Best Actress and Best Supporting Academy Award" - Best Supporting Academy?
  • This paragraph uses the "Academy Award", a lot, really a lot. While I won't push it, but if you can find a way to minimise the use, that would simplify and elevate the prose.

Fine work Krish, this is one of best written introductions that I've read here. The first two paragraphs sure are. Good job. NumerounovedantTalk 17:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Valve Corporation video games

Nominator(s): The1337gamer (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Valve is one of the most the distinguished developers in the gaming industry. After rewriting this list from scratch, it has gone from 1 reference to 134. The list is now comprehensive, covering all the games they have released to date along with information on a number of cancelled projects. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  • A few notes:
    • Does the first entry in a list need a note saying it's the first entry? :)
Removed this. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • TFC is noted as a remake of a mod whose devs were hired by Valve. But CS just says "mod." I know it wasn't a remake, but were its devs hired by Valve? How did this mod, which originally came out before 2000, end up as a Valve product released in 2000? Likewise, Day of Defeat.
Added that DoD and CS devs were hired by Valve. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • A lot of games lack genre. For example, Counter-Strike Neo is a blacklinked arcade game, so there's no indication as to what kind of game it is. I mean, based on my concept of arcade games it would seem to not be an online multiplayer first-person shooter, so what is it?
It is an online multiplayer first-person shooter that's available in Japaneses arcades. I didn't feel like it was necessary to restate genres for spin-offs/sequels if they were the same as the original game. Do you want me to state it? Which other games should I do that for? --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. That one's tough, because I would say an online first-person shooter *arcade* game is pretty rare, and since it's a blacklink there's nowhere to go for more info on the gameplay except the source. But... since it's Counter-Strike, we can assume in the absence of other notes that it's the same type of gameplay.
    • Likewise, "multiplayer game" is a bit lacking in detail for Ricochet.
I'll write a description on this later. There's not a whole lot of coverage on Ricochet. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I think what you put works.
    • So this might just be me, but I'm curious about "Arcade". Is that a platform? Or should we be more specific and say, for Counter-Strike Neo, that it's on the Namco System N2, and for Left 4 Dead Survivors, it's apparently the Taito Type X3 but this is stupidly difficult for me to source. I dunno if this is needed, but as an arcade geek it would make me happy. :P Especially since they're blacklinks so there's no further place to find info on them on Wikipedia. This isn't needed, since it may be a style change, but I wanted to bring it up. --Golbez (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the delay in responding, and a few extra notes above. Thanks! And btw Support since my new request is optional. --Golbez (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Premier League Asia Trophy

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original version and now meets all 6 FL criteria. This list is largely modelled after the Emirates Cup, which was promoted almost a year ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Madonna bibliography

Nominator(s): —IB [ Poke ] 09:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We probably know American recording artist Madonna as an entertainer, musician, provocative artist who has pushed the boundaries of popular music. However, she has ventured into the world of books and as an author even wrote children's books (surprise!). This list has all the books she has written (or given foreword) and is an exhaustive collection. With the consensus of my fellow editors I would like this one to become a featured bibliography list, the first of its kind for a musician. —IB [ Poke ] 09:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comments from Chrishonduras:
I think that there is other book, named Madonna: Live! (1987).
Madonna Live! is by author Susan Black and nowhere it says that Madonna had any contribution in it. No foreword also is present. So it should be in Bibliography of works about Madonna rather than this page. —IB [ Poke ] 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, there is not too much information about this book.
What do you think about the compilation "5 Books for Children" and "5 Audiobooks for Children"? are relevant to add?.
They are mentioned under The English Roses and Other Stories, maybe we can give the particular name? —IB [ Poke ] 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but during her career Madonna wrote some publications, like "If I Were President" in George magazine and/or she wrote for Yedioth Ahronoth and the article is named "How My Life Changed". For this, I don't know if is relevant to add.
Thanks for pointing this out, yes her magazine entries can definitely be included. I will include them. —IB [ Poke ] 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Is usual that every activity that Madonna is involved, attracts the attention and later become in part of her legacy. So, this article from The Guardian said that "Madonna's success has lured a host of other celebrities and publishers into the market. So lucrative has the celebrity children's book business become that the children's sections of book shops are awash with actors, pop singers and politicians, even an alleged mobster, all trying to grab their market share". I think that we can add part of this in the article. Is a suggestion. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Chrishonduras: I have added and addressed all the comments. What do you think about the new addition now? —IB [ Poke ] 15:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine, IndianBio. I will continue with the review of the article :). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 16:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I think that is an overdetail to mention the background about Maverick company after is already mentioned in the main article and we have a link to know about this company. But what do you think?. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras:, I agree now that you brought up this point. The text about Maverick seemed unnecessary and I have removed and amended the section accordingly. Can you check now if everything is looking fine? —IB [ Poke ] 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I added again just the company name and removed the background of the foundation. After that, everything looks fine. Congratulations, is a brilliant work!. So, I support this nomination. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Chris. —IB [ Poke ] 14:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • The phrase (as an author and also foreword) sounds a little odd to me as in the first part you are saying Madonna is an author, but if you follow that same logic for the second part, then you are saying Madonna is a forward. I would put in something in front of foreword to improve this part.
  • According to WP:NUMBERS, "[i]ntegers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" so numbers such as 3 and 7 should be written out.
  • For the phrase "She also wrote foreword", I am assuming you meant to say "forewords" plural.
  • For the phrase "inaugural issue of George magazine", I would put "the" in front of "inaugural".
  • I find the following phrase a little odd in the context of a book (Talking about five friends,), specifically the verb "[t]alking". Something like "revolving around" or a similar phrasing would be more suitable in my opinion.
  • There are a few additional books from the "Children's books" section that are absent from the lead (such as Lotsa de Casha and The Adventures of Abdi).

Wonderful work with this list. These are the primary notes that I saw while reading through it. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: hi, I have responded and rectified all the points raised. Yes the part about the foreword also kinda irked me so removed it altogether since the table indicates which ones are just foreword. Corrected the numeric versus words issue, as well as listed the other children's books. Also copy edited the last para about the Kabbalah teachings and expanded a bit. —IB [ Poke ] 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your responses; this was a very interesting read. I will have look through some of these books and articles in the future. I will support this, and good luck with getting this promoted. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so. Either way, it was a pleasure to work with you, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Aoba, and yes I will go around to the FAC sometime this week if thats fine? —IB [ Poke ] 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Take as much time as you need as I only recently put it up for FAC and it will be up there for a while. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Death Grips discography

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on the discography quite a bit recently and I think it is a useful list of Death Grips' many releases which could be useful for anyone interested in the band and I think it meets the criteria for featured list status. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose: This list has many problems, to much to count. You should request a peer review before nominating this for featured list. - AffeL (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments. AffeL's oppose seems unreasonable; you need to be specific with the issues that you think prevent the list from becoming featured. Also, it looks like a retaliation for the oppose made by the nominator in his FLC, which is a little immature to be honest. Anyway, here is what I think about the list:

  • "American musical group" how about simply writing it as band considering that you refer to them as a band later in the lede?
  • "The band was formed by Stefan "MC Ride" Burnett" no need for his real name here. I wouldn't call Lady Gaga Stefani "Lady Gaga" Germonatta in articles other than her biography.
  • "In the spring of 2011" => "In March 2011"
  • "received critical acclaim from contemporary music critics" it does not seem right to have "critical acclaim" and "critics" in the same sentence.
  • "in the spring of that year" again mentioning the month would be more helpful instead of season.
  • " in the fall of 2012", "In the summer of 2013", " in the summer of 2014" ^^.
  • A lot of sentences have the structure, "was released to positive reviews and peaked at number xx on the Billboard 200".
  • The tables look good and I haven't looked at the references. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: I think I've addressed all of your issues. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Good work. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Thank you very much! Littlecarmen (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

Timeline of the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The 2016 Atlantic hurricane season was more eventful than the years that preceded it, to say the least. It was the costliest since 2012 and the deadliest since 2008, and featured more tropical storm landfalls on the United States than any season since 2008. It was perhaps most known for Hurricane Matthew, which caused hundreds of deaths and billions in damage along its path in October. After some work, I believe this timeline is now ready to be reviewed against the featured list criteria. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "was also the deadliest since that year." Presumably deadliest in number of deaths but you should say so.
  • The season began on 1 June and the first of the season was on 12 January? This sounds like a contradiction.
    • No contradiction. Alex formed January 12. The season officially began on June 1. In other words, Alex was quite a bit ahead of schedule. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think "The first cyclone, Alex, developed on January 12, before the official start of the season" would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "In June, tropical storms Colin and Danielle became the earliest third and fourth named storms, respectively, on record." I do not understand this.
    • Colin, the third tropical storm of the year, formed earlier than any past seasons' third tropical storm. Same for Danielle. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Your wording here is clearer than in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hermine moved ashore the coastline of Florida as a Category 1 hurricane on September 2, ending the record hurricane drought that began in the state after 2005's Hurricane Wilma." Does this mean that no hurricane hit Florida for 11 years?
  • Hurricane Matthew caused $15 billion and 603 deaths. No change needed, but is this only notable in the cost but not the number of deaths?
    • Well, it's notable so I mentioned it accordingly. In terms of assigning a ranking like damage, no, Matthew was nowhere near the deadliest (over 27,500 deaths occurred in a hurricane in 1780). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I cannot find anything to query in the timeline or notes. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and a couple of suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

NWA World Welterweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  13:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe both the prose and the actual article meets the mark for Featured List. I have had two unsuccessful nominations where I incorporated all the great feedback I got, sadly it was archived both times to do lack of participation and not any issues with content. I have also recently gone through the article and made improvements to the data used for some of the sources per a recommendation of a FAC of mine. As always I am open to suggestions and willing to work with any reasonable request and do any leg work needed to get this to FL status.  MPJ-DK  13:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Margaret discography

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The article consists of all her releases accompanied with albums/singles main charts. Everything is referenced. The lead includes the most important information about her releases. ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at the Pallekele International Cricket Stadium

Nominator(s): Price Zero|talk 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's give a clear idea about centuries in the ground. It's follows FL criteria and I think its good enough to be a featured list. The lead section is also reasonable and nicely sourced. Article is sourced with ESPNcricinfo. I have made reasonable contribution to the article as well. Price Zero|talk 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Hi Price Zero, I feel that list isn't quite up to featured status at this point. The lead needs a bit a work with the opening paragraph using the same sentence format three times. Also a reference to the match report is required for each listing. Please see List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval, the latest list of this kind to be featured, for what I mean.
Additionally:
Ianblair23 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Northamptonshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This my latest nomination of a list of Local Nature Reserves, and is in the same format as Cambridgeshire and Essex, which have passed FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw Another interesting list. Just a few minor comments and questions:

  • I have added an efn note. The only source which explains the position is a noticeboard on the site, and I have given this as the reference, but I do not know whether this is acceptable. It is unfortunate that an absurd Commons rule forbids uploading a photo of a noticeboard. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • They are different, and I cannot find reliable sources for a separate article on Daventry Reservoir, but I have created a redirect to the country park. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not totally sure what the term "brick pit" means on Greens Norton Pocket Park. I'm guessing it was used for clay to make the bricks (in which case Clay pit might be more usual)
  • Brick Pit is not a common term but there are several SSSIs called X Brick Pit. It seems to be more common in Australian sources. So far as I can discover, when it is defined it means a pit where clay is dug for bricks, except for a nineteenth century OED quote where it means a compost pit. I have piped brick pit to clay pit and added the alternative usage to the clay pit article with a citation to an NI offical source. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • How old is "ancient" on "Hills and Holes"? (Natural England says "between the Middle Ages and late 18th Century.")
  • Changed to "This is a disused quarry which was operated during an unknown period between the Middle Ages and the late eighteenth century." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On River Nene the "Brampton arm", mentioned in the description of Kingsthorpe Meadow, is called the Naseby Source or Brampton Nene - can we get consistency in naming?
  • This is a difficult one. A google search shows that Brampton Arm is more common than Naseby Source or Brampton Nene, but some of the Brampton Arm reference are to "Church Brampton Arm" or "Westbridge Arm Junction Also known as the Brampton Arm". I am not sure whether all these refer to the same stretch of water. "Naseby Source" may be an error as it also means the source of the Warwickshire Avon in Naseby in Northants. This South Northamptonshire Council source implies that the Brampton Arm is a tributary of the Nene. Maybe just refer unspecifically to a tributary of the Nene? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In my experience "Arm" tends to be used on a side branch of a (man made) canal rather than a river but it is possible it was given when the river was canalised.— Rod talk 14:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Apart from these minor queries the list is looking good.— Rod talk 07:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments Rod. Please see the query on Brampton Arm. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your responses. I can now support as meeting the FL criteria.— Rod talk 14:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the United States

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My magnum opus is ready for nomination. I started this about ten years ago, in a vaguely presentable form, but this rewrite, which has taken me about two years, is vastly improved:

  • The maps are much prettier ("baby poop brown" was a common term), and include the surrounding geographic context instead of floating in a sea of white
  • The maps are much better, with more standard text and better handling of other countries (and removing the "unclaimed territory" that continues to haunt me every time this goes viral)
  • The disputes are better handled/handled at all, separately, so we get one set of maps of "how the US sees itself" and one set of "how other countries see it".
  • Insular territories! These were a great omission from the previous one, when I was in the mindset of "they're possessions, not *part of* the country." But it doesn't matter - they should still be noted, as they are extremely interesting and important.
  • The CSA is now actually handled instead of a single lump change.
  • The maps on the page now chronicle the changes, instead of showing a snapshot of the country; this should make them much easier to follow, and are generally more useful to the reader. Snapshots are still available at commons, in the link at the top of the article.
  • This couldn't have been done without the amazing help of others, especially User:Jeff in CA, User:XavierGreen, and others whom I may have left out.

So, I now present it to y'all's mercy. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. If there are any questions or concerns i can help with going forward with the FL review, i am happy to assist.XavierGreen (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As I am sure it is for Golbez and XavierGreen, my assistance with this list is a labor of joy. Kudos to you! I too am glad to help with anything. Jeff in CA (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Clearly lots of work has went into this page, but there are quite a few changes that need to be made before it becomes featured. This biggest issues are that this list is not inline with the style of lists on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists). For example:

  • The lead is far too short for a list of this magnitude. Not done
  • The notes section should be made of notes, and located at the bottom of the page. Not done
  • I can give you a good example of why this is important. This note applies to only one entry: "Dates are given in local time. This only matters for some changes in the mid-Pacific. For example, Guam surrendered on the morning of December 10, 1941, which was December 9 in the mainland United States.", so why not add a endnote right after this one point, which links to the bottom of the page with other notes? This is the preferred style of wikipedia, so as to not overwhelm the user with trivia before even getting to the main list! I would use the {{#tag:ref format.
  • An excellent idea, but as I was doing it I realized we probably didn't need to specify at all. The date is not confusing, it's not like there's events on the previous and next days that we need to worry about it leapfrogging, so I removed it altogether.
  • There is no need to tell the reader to click on the image to view at full screen, this is implicit. In fact, any notes that tell the user what to do should be used very sparingly, and even then only in the notes section.
  • Just to expand here, you should never refer to the list itself directly, for example "This article includes", as that should be evident by the title/lead and redundant.
  • OK, but we have to communicate the rules of the list, otherwise people will be confused as to why things like Cuba, Berlin, and Attu are omitted.
  • I disagree, if you need to communicate the rules (beyond a legend), they should all be done after the table in a notes section, like every other featured list. There is no reason to have a completely new format just for one page. Mattximus (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no argument regarding "click on the image to view" and accept the removal. Just fyi, it is the second click (once at the Commons image view after the first click) that I found helpful in order for me to view the smallest, minute details of an image. Before working on this list, I was unaware (ignorant?) of that capability in Commons, because I had no need. It was an "a-ha" thing when I first wanted to get deep in the weeds.Jeff in CA (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The notes section is completely unsourced. Not done
  • Even statements like this: "the purpose of unorganized territory was to act as land for Native American settlement. " needs a source.
  • Yes, and not to be rude but I specifically mentioned that in my response, so I'm unsure why you're repeating it here. I've removed it, since it was difficult to source and ultimately unnecessary. --Golbez (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that having a row on "The State of Pennsylvania enacted a constitution, renaming itself the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" constitutes a territorial change... Not done
  • Then the scope of the page is more than territorial...
  • Probably right; if you have a better title, I'm open to it. I created the term "territorial evolution" out of whole cloth a decade ago.
  • The way I see it, a change of name is not a physical alteration of a territory, but it is part of territorial evolution. Just saying. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Some notes are not even needed at all "Due to the lower complexity, maps of the changes to the United States in the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, or northwestern North America include any disputes." If this is very important to a map, then the note should be on the map, not before the list.
  • Scrolling randomly I came across "The United Kingdom created the British Western Pacific Territories, including Atafu and Nukunono.", how does this related to the territorial evolution of the United States?
I can answer this, the inclusion of Atafu and Nukunono in the British Western Pacific Territories created the territorial dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over those islands. Prior to the creation of the British Western Pacific Territories, these two islands were not claimed by the United Kingdom.XavierGreen (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • If it said "The United Kingdom created the Confederate States of America, including South Carolina and Virginia," would you be asking why this is relevant? Earlier in the list, Atafu and Nukunono are explained, and now this is the earliest known date of their claim by the UK. Why were you confused? --Golbez (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would still be confusing. You would have to say the United Kingdom created the CSA out of x parts of the USA. Remember not everybody reading this is an expert. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • When the British claimed Atafu and Nukunono as part of the British Western Pacific Territories, it did not "create them out of x parts of the United States", because the United Kingdom did not recognize them as being possessions of the United States. Thus, the United States and the United Kingdom both considered themselves to be the owners of the same islands at the same time, and had parrallel administrations of their claims. This lasted until 1983, when the United States formally abandoned its claims to the islands and recognized them as belonging to the Government of Tokelau in the Treaty of Tokehega.XavierGreen (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That's all I can do for now, hope that's an actionable start. Mattximus (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm unsure what to do about the lede. Any suggestions?
  • The notes are more ... instructions/exceptions for the list. They belong at the top but perhaps could use a different name?
  • Thanks, not sure where that came from. Removed.
  • What in the notes section needs to be sourced? Apart from the definition of "unorganized/Indian" territory, which I'll work on, everything else seems to be either something that doesn't need sourcing, or is a negative, which are included to head off any confusions but themselves likely should not (and in some cases, could not) be sourced.
  • Any name change counts, especially since I referred to them specifically as the State of Pennsylvania in the opening entry.
Thank you for looking and for the review! --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to Oppose for now, there are serious MOS issues that would take quite a while to fix (not the least being a very short lead for a very long article, and an unorthodox note section). Also several points above remain, and I haven't even started reviewing the list. I'm happy to continue my review once the above changes are complete. It's an interesting article for sure, but it needs quite a bit of work to bring it up to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Trisha filmography

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been significantly reworked from its original state, and now I am convinced it is perfectly FL-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Please expand the alt text for the image. “age:34” is not exactly helpful for illustrating the image.
  • I clarify (music video "Meri Chunar Udd Udd Jaye") to (music video for "Meri Chunar Udd Udd Jaye") to make it clear that the music video is for a song and the music video is not named that.
Done: I wrote, the music video of Falguni Pathak's song "Meri Chunar Udd Udd Jaye". --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that you could combine the last two sentence of the lead’s first paragraph in a more succinct way rather than having two relatively short sentences that disrupt the paragraph’s flow.
Done: I wrote, The following year, she appeared in Manasellam as a terminally ill woman, which was a commercial failure. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • When was Saamy released? Please add a year. Same goes for Lesa Lesa.
Both were released in 2003. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Something about this phrase (landed Trisha new offers) sounds too colloquial and informal to me. I would revise it with stronger language.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • When was Aaytha Ezhuthu released? Please add a year? Same goes for Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana.
Done: AE was in 2004, and NN was in 2005. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You use the verb “appeared” a lot. I would recommend you use variation, specifically in the third paragraph.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead does not include any information on her 2016 films. Please expand to add this.
@Kailash29792: I leave this to you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Done: Please review. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Names of websites (ie. movies.fullhyderabad.com should not be in italics in references.)
Done: de-italicised. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have received this note in previous FACs and FLCs and even GANs, but make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use. Also, there are works/publishers in the references that are never linked (i.e. The Times of India) that should be linked to the appropriate page.
Done: Wikilinked every work and publisher in references. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wonderful work with this list. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me. I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Skr15081997
  • Link Syrian Christian
Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Excellent work on this filmography. --Skr15081997 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments Skr15081997. Any further comments? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to Support this nomination. Good job on this list. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Indian naval air squadrons

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk), Strike Eagle (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list. The list portraying the information about the air squadrons of the Indian Navy was created back in 2014, and has been significantly improved in November 2016. The article is well referenced with suitable citations from valid sources, and the images are appropriately licensed. The comprehensively summarizes the 21 naval air squadrons along with the aircraft used. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Link 'air squadrons' in the opening sentence.
  • Are short forms necessary in every instance?
Yes, they are. They are the part of the squadron names. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Are "SP's MAI" and "Brahmand" RS?
Yes, they are. SP's MAI is a fortnightly defence journal since 1964, and Brahmand is a defence magazine with a committed editorial board]. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Alt text missing from images

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Comments

  • List is an orphan, that needs to be fixed.
  • Image captions which are fragments do not need full stops, e.g. "Mikoyan MiG-29K in flight over Indian islands".
  • No need to link common geographical terms like Britain.
  • "In 1961–1971" odd phrasing, maybe "Between" or "From ... to"?
  • Super Constellation is piped to a redirect, just pipe it directly.
  • Same applies to Sea Harrier and Islander. Check others.
  • "Anti-Submarine Warfare", "Electronic Warfare" etc, over-capitalised.
  • Page ranges need pp. not p., e.g. see ref 31.
  • Category:Indian naval aviation is not required as Category:Aircraft squadrons of the Indian Navy has that covered.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Strike Eagle: comments have been outstanding here for more than two weeks. If I see no indication that either of you are willing to do anything about these comments, I'll close the nomination in the next 48 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I'm really sorry, I did not get the notification regarding these changes. Will address them soon. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There are 79 Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. This list is modelled on the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which are all FL.— Rod talk 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • The first sentence of para 2 repeats the first of para 1. I suggest having separate paragraphs on listing rules and government structure instead of mixing them in para 1.
  • Rearranged.— Rod talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The last part of para 1 is unreferenced.
  • Ref added.— Rod talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "North Somerset includes areas that were once part of Somerset before the creation of Avon in 1974." This will not make sense to people who do not know the history of Avon. I would delete as irrelevant.
  • Removed.— Rod talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "There are 79 Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset." Is there a Historic England list for North Somerset which could be given as a reference for this?
  • This is complicated. If you go to Advanced search & select North Somerset from the list at District/Unitary Authority/Borough and II* for Grade:, untick everything apart from "Listing" you will see the list (which now says 80 so they must have added one I will find) - I am unable to give a URL which will point directly to this search.— Rod talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The oldest are Norman churches. From the Middle Ages onward there are more churches and some manor houses with their ancillary buildings. The list includes several village or church crosses and monuments in churchyards." These comments are unreferenced.
  • I doubt I will be able to find a specific reference claim but if you sort the list by date or type you will see they are true.— Rod talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like the last paragraph expanded with more information about particularly interesting buildings.
  • I will look at expanding this, but they may have general statements like those mentioned in the previous comment which may be difficult to reference.— Rod talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No change needed but it seems to me surprising that no building is listed earlier than the Normans or later than 1902. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Anything earlier then Norman is likely to be Grade I & there aren't that many 20th century buildings listed yet (those that are tend to be Grade II).— Rod talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Ivy

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite never really receiving the attention they deserve, American indie pop band Ivy creates only the finest of music. I have worked on all of their articles over the past two years and have just completed this list (which I began working on in December 2016). I am submitting it to reviewed as a competitor in the 2017 WikiCup. I believe it satisfies the FL criteria and have no doubt that it will eventually become a featured list. Thanks to all who may help me achieve this. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would revise the first sentence to avoid the repetition of the phrase "has recorded".
  • I would rephrase the second sentence to as follows to make the flow a little bit stronger (Formed in 1994, the musical trio consists of Dominique Durand, Andy Chase, and Adam Schlesinger.)
  • I would clarify in the lead that Lately is an EP.
  • Could you clarify this part (a disappointment for their record label)? Was the record label disappointed in the sales or just the general product?
  • The phrase (including by the group) seems a little odd and forced into the sentence. I would recommend trying to find a way to more seamlessly incorporate this information into this sentence.
  • I would remove "all-covers" as you say "cover songs" later in the same sentence so it is a little repetitive. Do you think it would also be beneficial to include a link to cover version for the phrase cover songs?
  • Just a clarification question, but is there any current news on the band? Their last song was released in 2011 so I was just curious if they disbanded or retired? It may be helpful to include a brief sentence about this at the end if this information is available.
  • I really enjoy this band, and "Edge of the Ocean" is one of my favorite songs of all time. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Hope these comments help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I believe I addressed your concerns. Regarding any current news, their official site has pretty much been obsolete since 2012 and considering they've never been too popular, I can't find anything regarding their current status as a band. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to review this. Also thanks for the kind comments on my talk page. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; your final comment makes sense, and I assumed that this would be the case but I just wanted to make sure. It is a shame that this group is no longer recording music, but it is pretty nice to get as much as we got from a relatively obscure indie group. I support this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Oh, and "Edge of the Ocean" is a great song. Carbrera (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
Comments from AffeL
  • Support: The list looks really good and well written, can't seem to find any problems with it that sticks out. - AffeL (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support

  • "A pop album, two singles were released". Feels like a word is missing after the comma. If not, "A pop album and two singles were released" would be a better-written version of the sentence.
  • Very minor, but "Guestroom" at the start of the second paragraph could use commas before and after, as was done when Realistic was mentioned. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Giants2008 – thanks a bunch! I fixed the list accordingly. Much appreciated, Carbrera (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC).

Comments Looks good so far.

Done
  • Consider listing the photos in alphabetical order of the song that refer to, so that they more closely match the table, i.e. James Iha, then Dr. Robert, then Edwyn Collins, then Serge Gainsbourg, then Chris Collingwood.
Done
Done
  • The caption text in the table doesn't require a terminating period.
Done
  • "An Ordinary" needs to sort under O.
Done
  • The singles in the Album column aren't sorting alphabetically. Use of Template:Sort should fix that.
Done
  • "I Guess I'm Just a Little Too Sensitive", "I Hate December", "I've Got a Feeling" and "I've Got You Memorized" all need to be moved further down the list in order to be in the correct alphabetical order.
Done
  • Spaced hyphens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ).
Done
  • "liner notes" or "Liner notes"? You use both in the references.
Done

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors – Thank you so much! I believe I took care of everything. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after over 1,500 edits and over 500 references added I think I've finally brought it to FL quality. While this is a dynamic list, I firmly believe it contains as comprehensive a list of all notable persons who can be reliably sourced to have died from overdose or acute intoxication as is currently possible. In populating this list I have decided to be as inclusive as possible so as to not be accused of overlooking anybody. I anticipate several people on the list will be challenged, and have no issues with anyone being removed if their cause of death is deemed to not clearly meet the criteria. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just a quick comment, since this list is about people who died, I think it would benefit the article to have a small image gallery of some of the most famous people on this list, and remove the picture showing an injection of heroin. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Thanks for your comment. I'm not exactly sure what this gallery you would like look should look like. Do you mean a collection of images under the lead like at List of municipalities in Wyoming? Or having them running down the right hand side, like at the List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle? Or is there another way you think would work better? Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I prefer down the right side, however this does give users with small screens some issue if the table doesn't format correctly. A gallery would also be good. If this was "list of recreational drugs" then that picture of someone injecting heroin is perfect. However this is a list of people, not drugs, so you should have pictures of people, especially in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Have a look at this gallery at my sandbox. Is that what you're after? I figured it would be good to add some text info about the deaths. As per the discussion below, additional columns have been requested for this table. The longer 'Cause of death' texts are already taking up several lines on my 13-inch screen on it is. Adding those columns and a column of images down the right head side will make the table very annoying to read on smaller screens. I don't think that's a good idea, but i'm happy to ditch the current image and have a gallery of some kind. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah something like that looks good, and we should do a gallery as you are correct, smaller screens will have trouble. I do like how the table is now sortable, it is easy to see, for example, all authors who overdosed. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
A gallery of 10 of the more famous deaths has now been added. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I think (a) it ought to be sortable, by name (using {{sortname}}, life, profession; (b) it ought to have columns (which should also be sortable) for nationality and drug involved. As it is, the list can't really be interrogated for information - if I'm interested in seeing which musicians have died in this way, or who on the list has died from heroin overdose, I can't do this. BencherliteTalk 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: Thanks for your comment. The article is currently broken into subsections by letter. If I used this sortname template, I assume people would only be able to sort each letter at a time. Am I mistaken? Is this what you want? Or do you think I should scrap the alphabetised subsections altogether and just have one massive table? Freikorp (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer but you guessed what I was after - one large table. BencherliteTalk 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: Questions now that the table is sortable:
I've split the table to have seperate 'Born' and 'died' columns, instead of just 'Life & Death', so readers can search for both. Considering how much space is left, and how it may display on smaller screens, do you still think adding a 'Nationality' column is a good idea?
Do you think I should be more broad with profession titles? Like condensing 'Drummer' and 'Guitarist' to Musician? 'Writer' and 'Novelist' to just Writer? Etc etc. That way more people will appear under certain titles when the table is sorted by profession.
I don't think a column that specifies the drug used is going to be very helpful. A large number of entrants are listed as 'Unspecified', and in many other there are multiple drugs and they are listed in no particular order, i.e 'Cocaine, alcohol and barbiturates' 'Barbiturates, alcohol and marijuana' etc etc. Keeping the column as it is (Cause of death) isn't overly helped by being sortable either. There are too many variables. i.e causes of death 'Fell and bled to death while under the influence of alcohol' or 'Crews was legally drunk when he crashed a boat, killing himself and Steve Olin'. Some drugs will get sorted together, others will be spread all over. I think it should just be left as it is though, unless you have a better suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – at the moment, this list falls well short of our ??Featured list criteria in my opinion. Particularly with regards to the thoroughness of the referencing, and the sortability of the table. Ialso think that on a list of this size, the lead could be more substantial; specifically with regards to providing more global statistics, and simply a bit more background – is there anything about why this is such a common cause of death? Harrias talk 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • "deaths from drug overdoses raised 137% in the United States" – Surely this should be "deaths from drug overdoses rose 137% in the United States"?  Done
  • Are there any, more global, stats? The lead, and indeed the list, have a very US-centric feel.
Acknowledged about the lead. I'll work on this once I've addressed your other concerns. As far as the list itself being US-centric, I can assure you I have not deliberately given any preference to US deaths. I went through Category:Drug-related deaths and added every single person in that category that met the criteria (and that I was able to find a reliable source for) to the list. If you go through the sub-categories you will see there is a much higher rate of US people added to the category. I presume this is due to a combination of the English Wikipedia being mainly US-centric in itself, but also due to the fact that the US has higher rates of drug abuse than other developed nations.
@Harrias: I've added some new sources and expanded the lead to address this. Have a look. I've now made an attempt to address all of your concerns. Freikorp (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The Name column should sort by surname.
Ok, I've never played with a sortable table before until Bencherlite asked me to turn this list into one so I'm struggling with anythign table related. Is there a particular way to make it sortable by surname?
  • Per MOS:DTT, the table needs row and column scopes to be accessible.
Can you give me an example of this at another article? I don't understand.
  • For both of these, take a look at List of centuries scored on Test cricket debut for example.
  • {{sortname}} is used to sort by surname (for example, {{sortname|Charles|Bannerman}} and {{sortname|Harry|Graham|Harry Graham (cricketer)}}
  •  ! scope="row" | is used in the table to define the row scope, while  ! scope="col" | does the same for the column headers. Harrias talk 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Harrias. I tested the changes to the first 3 people in the list, see here: [1]. Is this done correctly? I can't figure out why the text went bold, so I think I've done something wrong. If I have, would you be able to do the first one properly so I know how to format all the rest? Feel free to revert it once your done if you want. Freikorp (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
What you did was fine; I've added "plainrowheaders" into the table code, which stops it make them bold. Harrias talk 09:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. :) I'll work on your lead concerns tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Make the Ref column unsortable.  Done
  • Similarly, some work should be done so that the unknown, or estimated dates sort roughly right.  Done
  • Some of the details for Fran Papasedero are in the wrong columns.  Done
  • Some are listed as being poisoned: where is the line drawn? Why is Socrates included, but not all the people in Category:People executed by lethal injection?
Socrates is one of the few deaths I didn't add, but as per my introduction I've tried to be as inclusive as possible until I get some feedback from others. Before I began my recent overhaul of this article the lead actually had the disclaimer for several years that deaths from lethal injection are not included, see here [2] . I've re-added a similar disclaimer to the current lead and have removed Socrates as he was the only person sentenced to execution via a drug on the list. I've actually been considering making a 'List of deaths from lethal injection', once I'm finished here and with another project I'm working on.
  • References: make sure all date formats match. Most are MMM DD, YYYY, but some are DD MMM YYYY.  Done
  • A number of the references are missing author details. (167, 170, 173 (AP), 174 (United Press), 181 just to list a few I glanced at; I assume there are lots more.) Harrias talk 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the ones you mentioned, minus the AP and UP ones. I've never previously been told to give author credit to AP or UP, even at FAC level. Are you absolutely certain this is a requirement? Personally I don't see much point but I'll do it if I have to. I'll start going through each source one by one and making sure they have author credit once you reply.
Not so bothered on the agency ones; you can use the |agency= parameter of the citation template, but as I say, you're right that it is less important than when there is a named author. Harrias talk 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've now added all named authors. Will work on the table stuff later. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Harrias. Thanks so much for your comments. I've addressed some concerns and made replies to others. I need some clarification on a couple things before I put serious effort into overhauling this. In particular I'm at a bit of a loss for most of the sortable table stuff, so if you could even point me in the direction of another editor who might be willing to help I would appreciate it. I've always had trouble with tables themselves. Freikorp (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Harrias. Just a reminder I've attempted to address all of your concerns now. Any further feedback is appreciated, Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Harrias: Just pinging you one last time as per my above comment. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The biggest problem is defining the scope.

  • Time period - the list has few entries from other than the 20th - 21st centuries. This is inevitable, since the concept of "drug overdose" is modern, and few would have applied it before the 20th century. The ancient items seem very speculative. Perhaps the few from history could be removed/split, and the scope specified further.
As I've written this almost entirely by myself, I've been largely waiting for feedback regarding scope. I have absolutely no problems with narrowing it to modern times, and adding information to the lead regarding this, if that will help obtain support. If you tell me exactly what you'd like to see here in order to address this concern I'll happily implement the changes. In the meantime I've removed the only ancient candidate, which means deaths run entirely from the 18th to 21st centuries.
  • "Cause of Death" is not the precise criterion implied by its medical/legal status, given the reluctance to apply "drug overdose" to those with high social status. How many heart attacks were ODs? How many accidents reported without referring to intoxication? This is shown in the use of "suspected" in many entries. I do not think this problem is fixable.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It certainly would be nicer if we could have the 'legal' cause of death as per everybody's death certificate, but as you point out this is not possible. We're making do with information that is publicly accessible. As the lead indicates, this is a list of people who can be "reliably sourced" to either meet the criteria or be suspected to. My intention is to build a list that is an accurate and comprehensive reflection of its lead. Obviously there are some people who did die from overdoses that would have had this information covered up, but I don't think that should prohibit this article from being promoted. I'm quite sure many celebrities would have concealed/be concealing their HIV status, but we still have a featured list of HIV-positive people. I can see many other examples of lists that may technically be incomplete, but still represent the best we can do with sources that meet WP:RS.
I don't mean that this list is not a worthy enterprise, only that the nature of the topic does not lend itself to achieving Featured status. The problem is that even limiting the scope to people with WP articles who died in the 20th century or later; I would not be surprised if for each drug-related death for which there is a WP:RS there was another not so reported, but covered up by a "sympathetic" doctor. Perception that cover-ups are infrequent is biased by recent history, now that tabloid/online journalism makes such discretion difficult to maintain. Perhaps this bias is already evident in the current list, which is skewed towards entertainers and sports celebrities. (I also agree, as stated above, Sigmund Freud's assisted suicide cannot remain on the list without opening up another can of worms.)--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. I'll wait to see what consensus forms regarding completeness. Personally I don't see this as a major problem, as the article has the dynamic list disclaimer and advertises itself only as a list of reliably sources overdoses, rather than all potential overdoses. Anyway I was anticipating euthanasia deaths complicating things, so I've just removed Sigmund Freud and all the other euthanasia deaths. Freikorp (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@WriterArtistDC: I've added a paragraph to the lead explaining some facts regarding why overdoses are a more recent phenomenon. Have a look and let me know if you think this addresses your concerns. There have been several improvements to the article since you last commented. Freikorp (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Quite strongly. While there are always nitpicks and each of us has preferences, this list is quite important. Very simply, there is no other list like it anywhere on the Internet. This is Wikipedia at its finest. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I think age would be much more interesting than birth year and death year. Perhaps include all three. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Ages have now been added. Freikorp (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments - I agree that age at time of death is interesting and should be in a column. My feeling is that Featured does not equal "perfect", and so that it is possible for this article to be as complete as possible to the knowledge and consensus of all reviewing it...and then it can be added to. I think it looks promising with some queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Drug overdose and intoxication are a significant cause of accidental death, - "causes" as they are not the same...?  Done
For example, the chance of death from opiate overdose is greatly increased when they are consumed in conjunction with alcohol - technically correct but looks weird with singular "opiate" and plural "they"  Done
drug chemical names like diazepam and tramadol are lower case.  Done
the result of drug overdoses or acute drug intoxication - plural/singular - align them  Done
deaths will be specified as 'suicide', 'accidental', 'undetermined', or otherwise. - "are specified"  Done
Thanks for your comments Casliber. I've addressed the lead concerns. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns. Now that two people have provided feedback that an age column is wanted, I'll make it happen sometime soon. Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Like the other reviewer above, I did wonder about the recentism of the page. Then I looked and was unable to find more ancient suicides (I presume you've looked). I think this can't just sit there unaddressed. Either we have some medieval/ancient deaths or we have some sourced reason for lack of same. This has me curious now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I can assure you I looked for ancient overdose sources. The only two I found were the two I have since removed from the article (Promachus of Macedon and Socrates, who probably shouldn't be counted anyway since it was an execution). Perhaps if I spent a lot more time searching I could find a handful of ancient 'poisoning' deaths that meet the criteria, but nevertheless I think deaths from overdoses are inherently linked to two recent developments in addition to tabloid/online journalism - the rise of the Pharmaceutical industry, and fallout from the ridiculously counter-productive War on drugs. I think this issue would be best addressed with some kind of source commenting on overdoses as the relatively recent phenomenon that they are as caused by these or other causes, but I've yet to find such a source. Freikorp (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I can understand why you look off Socrates (as hemlock is primarily a poison), but why did you remove the other one? Also drugs such as opium/laudanum/morphine and alcohol have been around since antiquity. I will try to look into this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It just looked too out of place. A single ancient alcohol poisoning and then the next chronological death being over 2000 years later.
Oh yeah I understand, there would have been plenty of alcohol and opium poisoning deaths between then and the 19th century (when this list effectively begins), but as the other editor pointed out such deaths would have either been covered up, and/or simply forgotten about without an effective media. I'll have a further look into a solution for this myself in the coming days. Thanks for your interest and willingness to help. I am very keen to implement any improvements to this article. Freikorp (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't have removed it just because it looked out of place. Good luck finding things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: I think I've made a pretty solid paragraph addressing the recentism. Have a look and tell me what you think. Freikorp (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looks a lot better. One outstanding problem is the note on tramadol, which comes from the opinion of one pathologist. There must be some stats somewhere we can use instead. I'd dispute the fact as well (about tramadol) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Found a few new stats and sources. Freikorp (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Great/thanks for that. Just realized one last thing - the coffee quote - maybe add "extremely" rare. I mean, we'd say deaths from bee stings and shark attacks are rare but are a hell of a lot commoner than deaths from caffeine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: Done. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay...in which case, tentative support (an ambitious and interesting list to put together. Good luck) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Peter Dinklage

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meet the criteria and Peter Dinklage is awesome... AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera
  • Under "Monte-Carlo Television Festival", you mention "Dinklage has been awarded once from one nomination" yet the table claims he was only nominated. I'd change the statement because it may lead the reader into thinking that Dinklage actually won. Other than that, a very a good list indeed. Carbrera (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
@Carbrera: Thank you. I have now fixed that sentence. - AffeL (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Per the above resolved comments and my suggestion, I will now support this list. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

Oppose. Every time I look at this list, I keep finding more and more issues. I just took a look and you didn't request a peer review before nominating this for featured list status. I think you really need to do that and perfect this list before you nominate it a second time. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What issues?.. and you don't have to to request a peer review before nomination something. Your "oppose" does not mean anything if you can't come up and present any real issues with this list. I have addressed all your comments btw, but it's clear that you are not willing to discuss for some reason. - AffeL (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You did address all of the comments I have posted so far but I kept finding more and more and concluded that you needed to work on this list more. It's not mandatory to have your article peer reviewed before nominating it but you do need to make sure it is up to FL standards and I think a peer review is a really good way to do that. Now if peer reviews really are defunct, that's a shame but I don't think the FL nomination process should be used as a substitute. Littlecarmen (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Your comment does not hold any value if you can't come up with any issues with this list and a valid reason for the "oppose". You can't just say that their are problems with this list, but I won't tell you what. - AffeL (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@AffeL: Alright, your comment on my nomination may be the most childish thing I have seen during my time on Wikipedia. I'm just going to strike my comments here and remove this page from my watchlist. Good luck with your nomination. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Peer review is defunct. Please add your comments here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: What do you mean it's defunct? Littlecarmen (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Barely functioning... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Australia Test cricket records

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedians, I present for review this list of Australian cricket records played in the oldest and greatest form of the game – Test cricket. Based on the Sri Lankan list which was promoted to featured status back in April 2010, this has just appeared on the Main Page in the DYK section. I look forward to your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, Ian. I've started to take a look at it, making some minor fixes. One question - declared totals show as 758–8d (for example). I've only ever seen scorecards show it as 758/8d, and as it's an Australian list, should it be 8/758d? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lugnuts, thanks very much for your comment. This format was a carry over from the Sri Lankan article. I have changed it as requested. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Lugnuts, significant work has gone into this list since you last commented. Would you mind please reviewing again. Thanks – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

  • Currently -> As of ...
  • "He also hold the highest fifth-wicket partnership with ..." -> He also holds ...
  • Given McGrath still holds the record for most wickets by a fast bowler in Tests, I think the fact warrants a mention in the lead.
  • Why isn't there a mention about captaincy records in the lead?
  • Great pick up Vensatry. I have added the captaincy records to both the lead and the body. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Per WP:ALT, you need to mention the names of the players in these lists - talking about File:1902AusTeam.jpg
  • Sorry Vensatry, I am at a loss of what you mean here. If you are implying that WP:ALT states that when there is a team photograph, the alt text should list each person in the photograph, well that simply not true. The purpose of alt text is to provide additional information to visual impaired people using screen readers. It should be short, clear and concise. In the image you have raised, it is a photograph of the 1902 Australian cricket team. The team set two records which still stand. The alt text reads "Australian cricket team that toured England in 1902". The caption then states what records the team set. I hope that I that cleared things up. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What does "=" signify in the table?
  • It means "equal" or "tied", eg equal second or tied fifth – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "scoring a duck" a record? Ditto with "Worst figures in an innings".
  • Not all records are positive, eg. Greatest and narrowest loss in the team records section. I have included these as it gives balance. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Page no(s). needed for PDF references
  • Some refs. are archived while others aren't.
  • Only those refs that do not appear in the Internet Archive are without an archived url. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review Vensatry. I will address these concerns shortly. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Vensatry, I have addressed each of your points above. I hope that is to your satisfaction. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Vensatry, do you have any further comments on this list? – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – Sorry, but I'm seeing a bunch of grammatical glitches so far. Having read most but not all of the list, this is what I've found:

  • Minor point, but the "also" in "A further two Australian partnership records for the second and the sixth wickets set by Bradman also still stand" is a redundant word (given the presence of "further") and could be removed to tighten the prose.
  • Comma needed after Glenn McGrath, I'd imagine.
  • Is "for" needed in "holds the record of the most wickets for taken by a fast bowler in Test cricket."? Actually, it sounds like "holds the record for" would be better.
  • Key: The highest wicket partnership link isn't working properly; you might need to check the capitalization.
  • Great pick up. Link fixed and reworded. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Team wins, losses, draws and ties: Add "in" after "resulting" at the start of the second paragraph.
  • Remove first "a" from "Australia has a never lost or drawn a match against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.
  • Done, also added refs to support these claims. – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It says here that England have competed in over 1,000 Test matches, while the lead says just under 1,000. Which is it? Also, this should be cited here.
  • Ah, my mistake! The lead is correct, it should be under. They have played 983 matches to date. I have corrected this and a ref has also been added. – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • 1902 photo caption: At the end, shouldn't "narrowest lost" be "narrowest loss"?
  • Yes, you are correct. Caption amended. – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Most centuries: Needs "a" before "score".
  • Same for the double century section.
  • Best (bowling) figures in a match: "to with finish with match figures of 19/90" needs copy-editing.
  • Worst figures in a match: Could use "the" before "second Test of the Ashes series".
  • Most dismissals in an innings: Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "22 wicket-keepers...". In this case, you could just spell out the number.
  • Most dismissals in a series: "Brad Haddin holds the Test cricket record for the most dismissal taken by wicket-keeper in a series." Needs "a" before "wicket-keeper", and "dismissal" should be plural.

Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Most matches as captain: "holds the record the most matched played as captain in Test cricket with 109." "matched" is a typo, and a word is needed after "record".
  • Partnership records: Middle two words of "In sport of cricket" could be removed to improve the sentence.
  • Highest partnerships by wicket: The Wicket column of the table isn't sorting properly. You'll need sort templates to prevent the 10th from being sorted with the 1st (a common issue in lists).
  • Another great pick up. Thanks Giants – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Giants, thank you very much for the review. I have addressed all of your comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Giants, I have added and amended some of the prose in the team and batting records sections. If you could please review and let me know if you have any further comments that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Inna

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I've never promoted an 'awards-list' to FL status so far, but I've put a lot of work into this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • Please provide an ALT description for the infobox image.
 Done
  • Be more descriptive than that with your ALT description. "A photograph of Inna" could refer to almost anything related to the singer, and your ALT needs to be more specific to be actually helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Done now!
  • I would remove the dynamic list template from the top of the page as I would assume that this could easily be completed as done with either awards/nominations pages.
 Done
  • I would rephrase the first sentence to the following (Romanian singer-songwriter and dancer Inna has received various awards and nominations.) to keep the focus on her awards.
 Done
I have altered this to include the "nominations" part as this list goes to both her awards and nominations, not just her wins. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest looking at the structure of the lead for similar lists that have already passed FLC, such as List of awards and nominations received by Adele. The second sentence from the first paragraph should be removed as it is more appropriate for her main article but not necessary for this lead. The same goes for her studies in political science. I would start with her unsuccessful audition for A.S.I.A.
 Done Tried to amend this
  • I would look through the lead again and revise the language. There are many examples of awkward wording and sentence construction. Looking at similar lists that have already passed FLC would be helpful with this. I would also suggest a c/e from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
 Done Tried to work on lead; I knew it's problematic ;)
I will do a more detailed prose review soon, but I would recommend trying to correct any prose issues prior to putting something up for FLC in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation.
 Done
This has not been done. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation to support the "the first time for Romania" bit. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the brief descriptions with each award section, you do not need to include the references to her wins and nominations as the references are already present in the tables. The references about the awards themselves should stay.
 Done I've only left refs for award galas without an own article or if there was any other info mentioned about the award that needed support from a ref.
@Cartoon network freak: You still need to include references for the definitions for the awards even if they have a Wikipedia article so please add those back per my original comment. The lead itself still needs a lot of work and revision and I will provide a more thorough review of its prose later in the day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Good job with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through it again. My primary concerns are with the lead, which has several prose and sentence construction issues that need to be corrected/revised. Hope this helps. The actual list itself seems really good. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for your review! Please let me know your follow-up thoughts ;) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: I will provide a more extensive review of the prose later in the day if that is okay with you as there still some problem areas in the lead that prevent me from fully support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would organize the lead chronologically to help make a cohesive narrative for the reader. Right now, the first paragraph has information about a 2011 award for a 2010 song. This should be moved down to one of the later paragraphs. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • I would spell out 13 in this context as it looks odd to have that be the only numeral in the first paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • In the start of the second paragraph, I would include information about her initial record deal if possible. See the Adele example I linked above to see what I mean by this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done I have no source to add this information; sorry :(
No worries. I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "native trio" is very odd. What do you mean by "native"? If you mean "Bulgarian", then just say that for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Remove "itself" in the phrase "the record itself" as it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Just say "singles" instead of "single releases". "Single releases" is unnecessarily long. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Could you go into more detail about the awards and nominations from her first album. You only devote a sentence to it, and I believe that it should be expanded. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done She only received a single nomination for the album at the RRA Awards, so there is in fact nothing to expand.
Makes sense, thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would put the phrase "her second studio album" in front of the album's name for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • I do not know what you mean by the transition "The same year" as you list two years (2010 and 2011) in the previous sentence. Do you mean 2010 or 2011 by this? Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Could you also expand on the awards and nominations she received for her second studio album? You only have a brief sentence about one award, and this should be expanded if possible to not give undue emphasis on a singular award. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Eliminate "for purchase" in the phrase "made available for purchase" as it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • Please include any information about the awards and nominations associated with the third and fourth albums in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done She only won awards with her third album
  • The sentence about "P.O.H.U.I." needs to be revised as it reads awkwardly to me. It also comes out of nowhere following the brief statement about the third and fourth studio albums so a transition would be helpful in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done Tried to do both things
  • I think you should include information about the awards and nominations for "P.O.H.U.I." in the lead, but provide a more comprehensive overview of its awards and nominations. You only include one nomination in the lead, but it was also up for other awards.
 Done Included the other award received
  • This question is not specifically relevant to this review, but do you think that "P.O.H.U.I." is notable enough to have its own article or at least a red link? Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I may make an article about it this weekend. It really is notable, you're right :)
Good luck with it. If you put it up for GAN, let me know and I will review it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would move the sentence "Diggy Down" closer to the sentence on its parent album to make the connection clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
  • In the lead, I would recommend including a sentence or two about the awards and nominations that the singer has receive outside of her music career, such as those for her style or her dancing, to provide a more comprehensive overview of the awards and nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done
@Cartoon network freak: I have added additional comments above. Also, remember to address my responses to my original comments. One of my main issues is that there is not enough of an overview of the actual awards and nominations in the lead. It lists the albums and includes one or two notes about its awards and/or nominations, but this needs to be expanded. Please refer to a FL on a similar topic and use that as an example for the expansion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: The lead is in a MUCH better shape now. Please check it out again! I'm going to add refs for the award definitions tomorrow. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the prompt responses. I have also made some edits/revisions to the lead as well. Ping me once you have added the references for the award definitions and I will look through it again and most likely support this nomination. Thank you for your patience while going through my rather long review. You have done an excellent job. I have to admit that I have never heard of this singer until reading through your work on here lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I've added the sources for the awards. Inna is not big in the US, she's only had a few Dance Airplay hits there ;) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Thank you for your patience with this review as I know it was rather long and drawn-out. I think the list, specifically the lead, has been improved a great deal and I could support this as a FL. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Resolved comments from TRM

Oppose with regret

  • Image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Romanian singer-songwriter Inna has received various awards and nominations. " maybe worth contextualising her career, e.g. let us know when she first became prominent, is she still active etc?
Not done The article initially included more about her bio, but the previous reviewer suggested that I should leave that out, e.g. I have inspired myself from this featured list. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It's simple enough to say "whose ongoing career started in xxxx with yyyy". That way everyone wins. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with a short/brief part being added about this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If Media Music awards aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, why should they be listed here?
Not done See below... Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Similarly, all the other awards which don't have a Wikipedia article, I'd question why they should be listed. Or alternatively red link them, and even better, create articles about them to demonstrate why they're notable enough for inclusion here.
Not done Wait... You confused me. Isn't this list here to include all the awards won by the respective singer? For example, this featured list has many awards without an own article, and nearly all the awards here keep a certain level of notability even without an own page. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Not if the awards aren't notable. Inna could have won hundreds of inconsequential awards that aren't handled in this list, what I'm saying shouldn't be that confusing, if an award isn't notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it, then why should it be notable enough for these lists. I would remove the non-notable awards from the Adele list, which I didn't review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Bob Sinclair is a dab link.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "ultimately lost in the favor of " not normal English, it would be "ultimately lost out to" or "ultimately lost in favor of", preferably the former.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "she was awarded with the Special International award." awarded with the award? Not brilliant English, maybe the first "awarded" could be "presented"?
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Split the refs by |30em, not |2.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My oppose is based on the non-notable awards issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you for your review! Check out my responses to your comments. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Finally done all your points (sorry for the delay!). There are still two awards that are notable but don't have an article, but the rest has been removed as suggested by you. Please ping be back! Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I see five, and how do I (or the readers) know that any such awards without articles are notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Is it ok now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

Resolved comments from Harrias talk
  • Just to pick up on a point from The Rambling Man above; I think more information about Inna is required in the lead. The Featured list criteria require "an engaging lead that introduces the subject". At the moment, the lead doesn't even tell me what sort of music she performs. Is she an opera singer?? Roughly how old was she when she started performing? Harrias talk 17:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Harrias: I'm currently waiting on the response of The Rambling Man. Is the lead ok now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That seems a more appropriate introduction, thanks. Harrias talk 10:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick oppose at the moment. Harrias talk 10:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Celtic F.C. players

Nominator(s): ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added sources for all appearance info, added photos and some narrative text to give some more context. ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • What makes the Vale of Leven website a reliable source? It looks self-published to me? - it seems to be run by a group of local historians in that area, the articles there seem to be of a fair quality. Not sure I can definitively confirm it as a reliable source, but is there anything to suggest the content there is unreliable? (ShugSty 25/4/17)
    • It has a button to "Contribute content" and no evidence of what WP:SOURCE asks for: "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is probably fine, but for a Featured article, I'd rather see a more robust source for this information, if possible. Harrias talk 10:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Done (ShugSty 1/5/17)

Forgive me if some of this goes over old ground.

  • The inclusion criteria are >100 games or "regarded as having played a significant role for the club". Can you defend the arbitrariness of the former and the apparent POV of the latter? The "100 apps" is a standard for lists for other clubs. I agree that the latter may be considered POV, hence the notes column with explanation & reference. (ShugSty 19/5/17)
  • Did you know that Jimmy McGrory is the record goalscorer in British football with 550 goals? I didn't. But there's no need to tell me on no fewer than three occasions. Arguably, in an article about Celtic records, not British ones, you could not mention it at all. Once will suffice. Uh? Ok, its highlighted in the lead paragraph and in the caption for the mugshot for him. And the third is in the notes column which highlights a player's notability (and includes the required reference). (ShugSty 19/5/17)
  • "Henrik Larsson has more appearances for Celtic than any other overseas player." Packie Bonner has more. Which seas are you including? In UK, overseas refers to outwith British Isles (GB + Ireland); I've wiki-linked overseas to British Isles if that helps (ShugSty 19/5/17) I've now rephrased to ".. player from outwith British Isles..." for further clarity (ShugSty 19/5/17)
  • "He effectively founded the Kelly dynasty of directors at Celtic, who by and large controlled the club until 1994" I can't see what the cited source says, but the "effectively" is an alarm bell for me. Either he did or didn't. And I'm not sure what "by and large" implies - could mean there were periods that the family weren't controlling the club, or could mean that the family didn't really control the club. Well, he didn't intentionally form a dynasty, simply several of his descendants went on to feature in the board over the next 90 odd years, hence "effectively". Also, the family didn't by themselves ever have full control of the club, but were very dominant. (ShugSty 19/5/17)
  • The mention of Scottish caps right at the end of the lead begs questions about most Scottish caps and most others. Uh?? Oh,a ctually, I get what you mean now. Pat Bonner won the most caps whilst at Celtic, whilst I think Paul McStay won the most Scottish caps. These facts are mentioned (and reffed) in another article, so yes, I'll add a sentence or two shortly (ShugSty 19/5/17) Done (ShugSty 19/5/17)
  • The captions are generally too long and too repetitive of the text. I'd add that I find the need for referencing in captions odd. The text that should be cited should be in body copy. Yep, I'll try and sort out (ShugSty 19/5/17) Trimmed the captions a bit, and moved the references elsewhere. (ShugSty 19/5/17)
  • Footnote 1 - what makes FitbaStats reliable and what's the link? Refer earlier response to Harrias (ShugSty 19/5/17) Apologies! It was another article's review I responded to for a similar question. Anyway, FitbaStats has been going since 2010 and I find it to be a superb reference for Scottish football stats. One of the co-founders (Bobby Sinnet) also is the author of two published books about Hibernian F.C. (ShugSty 19/5/17)

Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it has now been developed to a point where it is comprehensive on the subject at hand, is neatly organized, and well sourced. This list is for the highly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe television series franchise (itself part of a larger media franchise), and with the article most likely to keep growing as the series expand, now felt like a perfect time to nominate, given the hard work various editors along with myself have put in over the years to make the list it is currently. Please leave any comments or concerns, and I (or another highly involved editor of the list) will do our best to address them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Psst- you didn't transclude this nomination. --PresN 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: Thank you! Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments epic.

  • I would restrict the TOC, who uses it anyway, so we don't have all that whitespace immediately after the start of the article.
    • I don't think we should limit the TOC, because users should have the ability to jump to each introduction heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • DIsagree. Have you ever found one example of someone who uses the TOC? The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • WP:READERSFIRST. How can you make a blanket statement like "who uses it anyway" (which I assume was a questioning one) and think all readers do not use the TOC. I for one do on many occasions, so that there disproves your statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Could use some citations in the lead, e.g. " began airing on ABC during the 2013–14 television season"...
  • " in 2018." avoid easter egg links like this.
    • How so? If earlier in the sentence/paragraph, we link the network shows to the television season article, the logic would follow through for the cable/streaming shows. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Linking just the year is an easter egg. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Again, how so? Per WP:EASTEREGG, a reader will be expected to be taken to an article about [Year] in television for the year links, given context. It won't be a surprise for them. An EGG link in this case would be something like this: "Netflix [[2015 in American television|released]]..." Readers would not be expecting to end up at the 2015 in American television article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Clark GreggM [4][5]" loads of these, no spaces before refs please.
    • No spaces if you look in the wikicode. Byproduct of {{note label}} I believe, not our end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay, well that needs to be fixed before I could support this. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
        • How is the proper implementation of a template used on over 10,000 articles going to prevent the passing of this for FL? If you have an issue with what the template does, please take that up on the talk page of that template. But don't let that be a hinderance for this article when myself and the editors of this article don't have any control on what the template does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention ABC in the lead but not Netflix, yet there's a whole table of Netflix actors.
    • Netflix is mentioned in the lead, first paragraph: "Netflix's Marvel series began in 2015 with..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Some responses above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose clearly no appetite to work collegiately here. I was trying to do you a favour by reviewing it but I'll leave it to others now. Unwatching, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss each point with you, but you leaving the discussion after I've made two responses isn't working collegiately. We can't do that if only one of us are bringing something to the discussion, and because you felt I was unwilling to work with you is a weak reason to oppose the nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For the issue regarding the TOS, you could try following the same pattern done with List of Alien characters. I believe that would be a perfect compromise as it would keep the information already in the TOS, but make it leaner and take up less space than its current version.
  • @Favre1fan93: I would actually say that this is my only real concern about this list. I highly respect The Rambling Man, and he/she is a much more experienced user/reviewer than myself. For me, I do not take issue with the links to 2018 (just make sure you keep up-to-date on this) and I understand the issue with the wikicode and I do not take issue with that either as it is consistent throughout the entire list. I would just suggest changing up the TOS as done in List of Alien characters as that would be appear to be a good compromise to me if that makes any sense. I will support this once my only comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Aoba. I will consider the horizontal TOC implementation. I still don't feel having it vertical is an issue. And even if the horizontal one is implemented as with the Alien article, a {{clear}} would still be needed for the pictures used, which would still have whitespace (though yes, slightly smaller than currently). And implementing the horizontal TOC, though parenthesis are used to distinguish subsection, I feel it is harder to follow the flow of the article than in the vertical position. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Adamstom.97 Do you have any thoughts on using the horizontal TOC? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with all of Favre's comments so far, and hope everyone remembers that this is a discussion that everybody wants to be cooperative with. We just want the best result for the article. If we are talking about Template:horizontal TOC, I just did a test to see what it would look like and it seems to bunch all the links together in what seems like quite an unreadable way. I'm sure it would be appropriate to use this for some articles, but considering the nature of all the subheadings here (lots of long "Introduced in ... season X") I think we would be doing a huge disservice to our readers here, as I do think the TOC is used by many readers (I myself definitely jump to specific sections if that is where I want to go). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If there was a way to better control how the sections appeared in the TOC horizontally, I think I would be in more support of doing that. But looking over the documentation of Horizontal TOC, it doesn't seem to allow much adjustments. And I don't think {{TOC limit}} is an option either, because we only have level 2 headings, albeit a good amount of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the discussion. I completely understand your point about the TOC. I just wanted to try to help by offering some ideas. I will actually support this nomination. I actually did not have any major issues with the TOC as it stood originally (I could see the use of a TOC to readers). I am not sure how it looks on mobile as I primarily access Wikipedia through my laptop, but I think everything is fine for promotion, at least from perspective. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. I hope your nomination gets more traffic and feedback in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments Aoba. FYI, here is how the site looks on mobile, which you can always look at for any article, by clicking "Mobile view" all the way at the bottom of a desktop article. I'll try to look over your FAC as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response; I always wondering if there is a way to see the "Mobile view" of an article or a list so I greatly appreciate the link. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Argento Surfer
I think the image for Krysten Ritter stands out in a bad way for lighting and angle. Is there a good reason for using it over, say, File:Peabody's 'Marvel's Jessica Jones' Night (27139382503) (edited).jpg? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The file you linked to is a much newer upload and I personally have not checked in a while if new commons images existed that may be a better fit. I'll add in the one you suggested over what was there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Cool. I can support this nom. The TOC and template issues seem trivial to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and comment! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it summarizes all of the rail transport installations currently and previously located in properties run or licensed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (the largest theme park chain in the world by annual attendance) and every data item on the list is referenced. Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources look good, but I'm not a featured-nominations expert so someone would be better looking these over. However, I have two main issues:
Do you really need the lead image to be such a wide panoramic view? It might be better at the bottom of a section, like the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts#Walt Disney World section. You should add a lead image that doesn't need to be as wide. Like File:WDW MonorailRed ApproachingStation.jpg (not recommended) or File:Monorail Coral.jpg (slightly more recommended)
Also, the routemaps in the bottom of each section take up a whole lot of server space. It's fine to include routemaps—see Select Bus Service for an example of routemap implementation. But there are about 20 of them in this article. Putting the maps in the bottom of the section is better than putting them in the individual tables, but it's just that there are a lot of maps which, with the exception of {{Disneyland Resort Line}}, are located in the respective articles as well. (Also, {{Disneyland Resort Line}} and {{Disneyland Resort Line RDT}} look similar. I did see the TFD nomination, but I think it would be best to have one template that you can toggle based on the parameter.)
Overall though, everything else looks fine to me so far. Again, I'll have to take a look. epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I'm fine with changing the lead image if you think that's going to be a deal breaker. In a perfect world, I would choose an image that has more than one Disney rail line in the same shot (the Disneyland Railroad and the Disneyland Monorail System criss-cross each other near Tomorrowland Station and from there you can take a picture of both at once, for example), but since no such image is available on the Wikimedia Commons, I'll just change it to another WDW Monorail image for now. As far as the route maps go, there are sixteen total and according to my edit from last year when I added them all at once, they each take up ~55 bytes of memory in the article (i.e.: not that much). The main reason why I included them in the article is so you can compare and contrast them all side-by-side without having to click back-and-forth between the individual articles. I also went out of my way to make all of the route diagrams uniform in size and style (I am the original author for all of them except for the WDW Monorail and the Disneyland Resort Line) specifically so that they would display nicely in this article. Notice for instance how all of them are exactly twelve pictograms high (that's not an accident). Jackdude101 (Talk) 5:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jackdude101: Sounds good. The BS-maps can be easily modified to have one more blank line (just add a back-slash \ on its own line). Also, you can use {{Multiple image}} to add multiple images in the lead if you want to have both the monorail and railroad in the lead.
In regards to "server space," I'm not talking about how many bytes are in the string {{XYZ routemap}} if you actually add it to a page; I'm talking about the post-expand include size after all the templates are loaded. For example, the string {{Disneyland Monorail System}} is 30 bytes, but it may actually use up more CPU. Wikipedia has a restriction that when there are too many templates transcluded on a certain page, it will display a certain number of templates as normal until the limit is reached, then the remaining templates are displayed like wikilinks, like Template:Disneyland Monorail System instead of the actual template. That's what I'm concerned about—the fact that the routemaps may actually go over the template limit. This is not a major issue, but just something to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually discovered the route map template limit the hard way when I first added them. Originally, all of the Disney route diagrams were written using the old {{BS-map}} template and when all of them were included in the article, not all of them would display. So, I converted them all to the new {{Routemap}} template and now all of them display together correctly. The {{Routemap}} template appears to have resolved several of the techincal problems that the old {{BS-map}} template had. Jackdude101 (Talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Jackdude101 this nomination has been stalled for six weeks now, have you pinged a few people/projects to see if anyone would be prepared to review the list? If nothing forthcoming soon, we'll need to archive the nomination as unsuccessful at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I messaged several people and task forces just now. My apologies. I am not very familiar with the nomination process for featured list status and thought that it would be similar to the good article status process, where you simply have to wait a few months for someone to come by and review it. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It should be like that, but we tend allow nominations to persist for a few weeks without comments before archiving them for lack of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on my comments above, I support the Featured List distinction. I'm the only !voter here, so not sure if this means much. epicgenius (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Oppose (for now) Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but unfortunately I feel that it is not quite at FL quality.

  • My biggest issue is the lead, which is quite brief. Considering that at least three books have been written on this very subject, surely there must be more that you can say? Are there any interesting facts that you can give about the trains? Which was the first railway to be opened? Who builds them? Which ones are free and which require fares? That fact about how Disney's monorail system was the first of its kind in the US is definitely worthy of being mentioned in the lead. When was the monorail given Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark status? Have any of the other Disney railways been given this status? Which railways get the most passengers each year? Are the railways based on Disney characters generally more popular than their counterparts? Which tracks are the longest or shortest? I'm not saying that you have to include any or all of this material, but I do think that it's close to the sort of information that could be included in the intro to make the article more comprehensive.  Done
    • Length-wise, that's certainly an improvement, but I'm now concerned that the lead doesn't have the professional standards of writing that we'd expect from a featured list. Almost all of the prose that has been added is simply "Some railways have [certain quality], such as [railway x] in [theme park x], [railway y] in [theme park y] and [railway z] in [theme park z]." It just doesn't make for an engaging lead. If you vary the prose a bit, the article will be more enjoyable to read. For example, you could have something like this:

The Disney Corporation owns six resorts across five countries, all of which utilize railroad transportation within their grounds. The first such railroads were built in Disneyland Resort, the first Disney theme park. They were opened on July 17, 1955, by Billy Q. Importantman, who remarked at the time: "These railways are for the ages!" Three railroads were opened: the steam-powered Disneyland Railroad, the gas-powered Casey Jr. Circus Train and the working animals of Main Street, USA. Following the expansion of Disneyland in [year], a monorail was built by [engineering company] to connect the theme park to the general resort area. Opened in June 1959, it was the first operational monorail system in the United States, and was subsequently named an Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark by [organization] in [year].

Disney's second theme park, Walt Disney World, opened 16 years later, in 1971. For their new resort, Disney commissioned Baldwin Locomotive Works to build the railways in Walt Disney World, at a cost of $X million. Like Disneyland, Walt Disney World opened with three railways that included steam-powered locomotives and working animals. Two further lines were subsequently opened in the park: the Fort Wilderness Railroad in 1974 and the Wildlife Express Train in 1998. The Fort Wilderness Railroad was plagued with poor designs and operational problems, and was closed after six years. Speaking about the train in 1981, Gary K. Engineer remarked: "Our mistake was letting my six-year-old son design it."

This obviously isn't how you MUST write the lead, I just want to give you an example of the sort of prose that might be closer to FL quality. This article might benefit from a thorough peer review. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  Done
@A Thousand Doors: I put pen to paper to perfect the prose. The lead was condensed in the process. Let me know whether you believe this is an improvement. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:DTT, the tables need row scopes and column scopes. Let me know if you'd like me to talk you through how to add these.  Done
    • You're pretty much there, you just have to replace the uses of Class=wikitable with Class="wikitable plainrowheaders" (not for the route diagrams tables, of course). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  Done
  • Per WP:OVERLINK, countries (e.g. United States) need not be linked to.  Done

List of NASCAR race wins by Jeff Gordon

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mondit created the article, while I cleaned it up a bit, added a lead, and cited all the wins through ESPN's website. Tried to model this after the Featured Lists of List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. All feedback is welcome. This is my first FLC so forgive me if I have a couple of questions along the way. Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jackdude101
  • One of the first things I noticed was that none of your references have archive links. I don't think it's a requirement to get an article upgraded to featured status, but if the websites that you are referencing go down in the future, or if the website admins rearrange the website's content and put the relevant data in a different place, it could lead to a lot of dead links, which could lead to an article's featured status being revoked. This could be an especially significant problem if the ESPN website, from which most of your references originate, rearranges its data. Archive links in your references will prevent this from happening, as it will "freeze" your reference the way it was when you retrieved it. In case you don't know, creating archive links is super easy. Just copy the url and paste it into archive.org/web, then copy the new archive link it spits out and include it in your reference using "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=". Other that that, your article looks good overall. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jackdude101: Thanks! I am familiar with this process and will take your suggestions into consideration. ESPN still has articles from over a decade ago that still have workable links, but it's certainly something I'll keep an eye on. Of course, many websites have these race results available; I just used ESPN to be consistent with the other two featured lists. Thanks! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to any potential reviewers: I will be on vacation from April 15-24 and will likely be unable to respond to comments until I return. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Hopefully you're not on vacation yet so you can have a look at these:

  • "Gordon won at least one pole in 23 consecutive seasons, making this a NASCAR record." The "making this" is wordiness that doesn't add anything to the sentence, so you can just cut it to make the writing tighter.
  • Sprint Cup Series: A comma would be useful before "leaving Kentucky Speedway the only track where he failed to win." Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Those were the only issues I had with the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Great work, I don't have any more issues. Harrias talk 10:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress

Nominator(s): TsangeTalk 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this article to become a featured list as after a lot of work I feel that it now meets Wikipedia's FL criteria. In terms of the article's layout and style I have attempted to make it mirror that of the article Academy Award for Best Actress. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the table reference column contains a reference for both film nominations and individual references for the character names. TsangeTalk 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997
  • This link is dead since 17 March.
  • "given in honour of an actress" --> "given to honour an actress"
  • "for her role in the in"
  • "were-bye" --> "whereby"
  • Maybe we can have "annually at the Hong Kong Film Awards (HKFA) is an award" in the lead so the readers know what "HKFA" mentioned in the 2nd para means.
  • "scoring process in where 55%"
  • I think it would be good if there's a citation for the 2nd para.
  • Since the awards are presented for roles in Hong Kong films it would be good if 1981/1982 link to the particular year's Hong Kong films.
  • Are you sure that all subjects of the redlinks in the list are notable enough that Wikipedia will have articles on them someday?
  • I think the "See Also" can be removed as all the links under it are given in the templates at the end of the page.
  • The list should be sortable.
  • The Straits Times is a newspaper so it should be italicized in the citations.
  • I don't think that accessdates are necessary in {{cite book}} templates.
  • In cases where the cited article's title is in Chinese adding it's English translation would be helpful. Use |trans_title= in the citation templates.
I will leave more comments after the above ones are resolved. --Skr15081997 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Skr15081997: Okay I think I've fixed these issues and have limited the number of redlinks to just winning films or those that have notability in the West. Tsange (Talk) 21:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • werebye should be whereby
  • In the infobox the links– 1981 in film and 1982 in film should be List of Hong Kong films of 1981 and List of Hong Kong films of 1982.
  • The Refs column needn't be sorted instead do that for the films column.
  • Also it would be good to use {{Sort}} for the names of characters and actresses and film titles beginning with an article.
  • Titles used in citations shouldn't be all caps. We can change them to normal form.
  • There's inconsistency in the citations, for example, one citation uses hkfaa.com and a few others use Official website of Hong Kong Film Awards though they are citing the same website. Same for South China Morning Post, The New York Times and a few others.
  • Rotten Tomatoes is a website so there's no need to italicize it.
Please ensure that the citations are consistent. Newspapers and magazines should be italicized but not the web publishers. You can check other film-related FLs for guidance. I am really interested in this list and I will leave a few more comments once the above ones are resolved. --Skr15081997 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Skr15081997: Done with these issues, also to prevent duplicate book references I created a bibliography section. Tsange (Talk) 13:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You've done excellent work on the lead and the table. I have gone through the citations and there are a few issues:

  • Instead of Official website of Hong Kong Film Awards. HKFA, the {{cite web}} template can simply have Hong Kong Film Awards in the |publisher= parameter.
  • Time Out is a magazine so it should be italicized.
  • You've used IMDb as a source but that's not a RS.
  • Are you sure HKMDB, Cultural-china.com & Love HK Film are reliable enough for FLs?
  • Hong Kong Cinemagic, Indie Wire, Hollywood.com, China Internet Information Center(China.org.in), All-China Women's Federation (Women of China), Screen Anarchy, Screen Daily, Smithsonian Institution can be linked
  • It's good that you have created a separate section for books but one full book citation is till there as #ref 51.
  • Senses of Cinema should be linked and italicized.
  • At one place you use Time but at other Time (magazine)
  • MTV shouldn't be italicized.
  • What makes nmplus.hk reliable?
  • I think the |page= parameter can be removed from the book citations.

That's it for me. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


@Skr15081997: Issues have been fixed, however regarding the reliability of the sources I have outlined some reasons why they may be considered reliable.Tsange (Talk) 11:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

HKMDB - This website has been widely referenced and recommended by numerous published books including

  • The Hong Kong Filmography, 1977-1997 by John Charles
  • Once upon a Time in China: A Guide to Hong Kong, Chinese, and Taiwanese Cinema by Jeff Yang
  • The Cinema of Tsui Hark by Lisa Morton

Love HK Film - The site's principle editor is part of the Hong Kong Film Critics Society and the resource has been cited by sources such as the South China Morning Post, the Singapore Straits Times, Time Out and Film Comment.[4]

Cultural-china.com - Changed the reference to a BBC source instead

nmplus.hk- NMPlus is part of New Media Group, a publishing company on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange

Support: I have made a few edits to the page (diff). I'm Ok with HKMDB (the John Charles book was published by McFarland). After seeing the arguments I'm convinced that the sources are reliable enough. Good job on this list. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • 'Hong Kong film' should be linked to Cinema of Hong Kong
  • "The 1st Hong Kong Film Awards ceremony was held in 1982, with no formal nomination procedure established the award was given to Kara Hui for her role in My Young Auntie." A semi-colon is missing somewhere.
  • Inverted comma's are missing from some instances in the second para.
  • HKMDB --> Hong Kong Movie DataBase.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Issues have been fixed. Tsange (Talk) 15:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Littlecarmen

  • "After the first award ceremony a" Add a comma after "ceremony".
  • "Firstly prospective nominees are marked with a weight of 50% each from HKFA voters and a hundred professional adjudicators contributing towards a final score with which the top five nominees advance to the second round of voting." Add commas after "firstly" and "adjudicators".
  • "Since its inception 78 actresses" Add a comma after "inception".
  • "thereafter the winner is chosen from a list of nominees from the chosen category" should be its own sentence. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Littlecarmen: Issues have been fixed. Tsange (Talk) 15:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a comma after "thereafter". Littlecarmen (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of tallest buildings in Singapore

Notified: SGpedians' notice board

There are certain issues raised for this featured list. Such as the list is no longer being updated, contain an excessive number of citations and have some irrelevant citations. The list is also messed up such as some of them is not centred, and there are also a citation needed tag. This list differs a lot than when this was nominated as FL. TanKimSeng (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with all the criticisms. The number of citations does not seem excessive as there are only 128 in total and no more than two for any building. One picture not centred and one citation needed are minor and easily fixable. The list is being updated with new buildings, but it is not clear how consistently, and there are references to buildings due to be completed in 2012 and 2013. There is also a statement of the building which is "currently" tallest without a date. The article is below FL but it should not be too difficult to fix the problems if anyone wants to take it on, so I would think it is too early to delist. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I do agree this page needs a lot of work. Tallest under construction section has a broken table, and is completely out of date (all buildings were supposed to be complete 4 years ago). I suppose we can just get rid of this section all together. Table is missing 2 coordinates, 1 needs formatting, 1 image needs formatting, ranking is broken for sorting purposes (it goes 1, then 10, then 11), statements like " 123rd-tallest in the world" have long been inaccurate, some notes have centered justification, others right. Sentences like "This lists ranks Singapore skyscrapers" is no longer good style for featured lists, and is used several times. "The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." should be deleted, and the column called "year completed"... The first link I clicked was a dead link not sure about others. I vote for delist, but the page is salvageable if someone has the time and effort to do so. Mattximus (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=782759495"
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