Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



List of Kate Winslet performances

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Kate Winslet's biography is now a featured article. Here's hoping her list of performances makes the cut too. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Support now that the above issues have been resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

YouTube Awards

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The YouTube Awards was an annual promotion that was run twice by YouTube. I have been working on this list for the last few months, and I hope that it now meets the FL criteria. If promoted, this would be, as far as I can tell, the first featured list about an awards ceremony recognising online content (the Appy Awards is probably be the nearest so far), so I hope that it sets some sort of a precedent. I have ignored one or two rules while writing the article, and I welcome any feedback about it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa
  1. I wouldn't characterize the awards as "annual" in the first sentence, considering they only occurred twice. Instead, I'd say they occurred twice, in 2007 and 2008.
  2. "Fastest-growing" is one of those qualifiers that are always dubious – even when reliably sourced – because it can be defined in a number of ways and doesn't necessarily represent anything special except being new (relevant XKCD comic). I'd remove it entirely.
  3. A growth by 297 percent is a fourfold increase, not a threefold one.
  4. "As a result, in part, of its growth and success, in March 2007 YouTube launched [...]" is clunky.
  5. "a dedicated webpage" – this is enough; don't spell out the weblink (the same goes for the 2008 section).
  6. "Ben Fritz of Variety felt that this made the process "transparent"." – go with "said" and remove the WP:SCAREQUOTES.
  7. Per WP:ELLIST, lists should not be composed of external links. I do see the value in having these links, but I'm not sure if this can be considered acceptable use of WP:External links (in general, not just as it pertains to WP:ELLIST). I'll leave that assessment to someone more experienced in these matters, but I do want to raise the issue.
  8. The times of day are unnecessary (and formatted inconsistently).
  9. Leave Britney Alone! redirects to Chris Crocker.
  10. The Reception section deals almost exclusively with the 2007 awards. Surely there's more to say about the reception to the 2008 awards than a single sentence?
  11. I feel like information about why there were no 2009 awards is dearly missing.
  12. In general, a lot of the prose is of the "person X said Y" variety. To my eye, it's in WP:QUOTEFARM territory.

For now, I don't think the list passes WP:FLCR 3(a) for the reasons outlined in points 10 and 11, nor WP:FLCR 1 for the reasons outlined in point 12 (and others, but point 12 is the biggest problem right now). TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror

Nominator(s): Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have modelled this list on List of awards and nominations received by American Horror Story and the other pages listed at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Awards and nominations received by television series, and I believe the list is now complete, consistently formatted and meets the other FL criteria. Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa – resolved TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSABILITY reasons.
    I'm always confused about when the caption alone is sufficient, and what to put as alt text. Should the alt text be describing the physical features of the people, or just say "image of ___"? Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    What the alt text should be depends on the image and why it's used. In these cases when it's a photograph of a person used solely because it's a photograph of that person to go along with the text that mentions that person in a different context than the photograph was taken, I'd just go with "A photograph of [person]". In an article about a film character, where there's a screenshot from the film which shows the character, I'd be more inclined to describe what the character looks like, rather than "[actor] as [character]". TompaDompa (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    That makes complete sense. Thanks! Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Two of the references in the reference list give error messages.
  • Per WP:FLCR 5(a), there should be a minimal amount of WP:Redlinks. There are a tad too many for my taste. Just remove the links.
    Sorry, but I don't think four links (five including repetition) is unreasonable under 5(a). Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "along with the special" would be better as "as did the special".
  • "while the following two series" would be better as "whereas the following two series".
  • "Each episode is standalone; there are 19 episodes in the show's first four series, and a fifth series has been commissioned." The use of a semicolon here is odd as the clauses are completely unrelated, content-wise. See if you can move the standalone part elsewhere in the WP:LEAD
  • "Black Mirror has received positive reception from critics" should not be followed by a comma.
  • I would remove the quote that describes the show and just leave "the show explores the side-effects of technology".
  • "The following table lists [...]" is clunky. Try summarizing the contents of the table instead (e.g. "XX [entries] have [met the inclusion criteria for the table]").
  • The "people" table would be helped by a column that describes who these people are in relation to the show (actor, writer, etc.) and perhaps one for which episode(s) they received the nominations/awards.
    I think an episodes column would feel redundant with the above section, and be a bit unwieldy. I've added a "Role" column, though. Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Something is amiss with the IGN Awards table, where the rightmost column seems to be formatted incorrectly.
  • The link in reference 22 (as of my writing this) should be archived as I have a feeling that it might get dead within a year or so.
  • The link in reference 71 (as of my writing this) is dead.

I might go through the list more thoroughly at a later date, but this should at least be a start. TompaDompa (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've responded inline to some points, and believe I've addressed the rest (in this edit). Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Two more things from the WP:LEAD:

  • It should be clarified that the Award ceremony for "USS Callister" has not yet taken place. The verb tense ("has been nominated" rather than "was nominated") is a bit too subtle to make this clear (I'll admit that at first, I thought the changing tenses were a mistake).
  • The last sentence has three commas which could be reduced to one by rephrasing it to "[...], winning two of each."

I haven't looked much at the contents of the list or the sources, but I assume that the facts and sourcing are in order. TompaDompa (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed those issues in this edit. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to support this now that my issues have been satisfactorily resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  • These links should be fixed.
    Other than the redirect one, not sure what the problems were—the links all work for me. I've archived them anyway. Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Link science fiction in the opening sentence.
  • Link the publishers in their first instance, just like its in ref 1 to 10.
    I've linked work/publisher in all instances (they're an exception to MOS:DUPLINK). Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all your comments. Let me know if there's anything more you think needs to be done. Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A list of cardinals who participated in the papal conclave of 2013 that elected Pope Francis. Overhauled over the last five days or so, partly structurally based on List of living cardinals (a previous featured list of mine), I believe that it now looks slick enough to pass the FLC process. Comments and suggestions welcome, as always. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Cardinals don’t "represent" countries. That’s easily misunderstood. A little rewrite perhaps.
One way of looking at the conclave not addressed is curia vs non-curia. I realize the subject/data needs to be handled with care since some people move in and out, but I think the reader deserves to have it addressed.
I’m puzzled at the attention given the cardinals from the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’d bury the names in a note and then combine this graf and the one following. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. Reworded to "originate[d] from".
  2. I suppose that's a viable addition to the article; where exactly would you suggest placing it? The section under "Cardinal electors" is currently purely from a geographical point of view, although a sentence about curial/residential cardinal electors could be placed at the top of the section.
  3. Names in {{efn}} as suggested; paragraphs combined.
@Bmclaughlin9: No. 2. above for your consideration, others responded; thanks for the feedback. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a single sentence in the summary either before or after (probably before) identifying the oldest and youngest. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bmclaughlin9: Added as suggested (along with another sentence about creating popes). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • Four of the cardinal electors were from Eastern Catholic Churches: Antonios Naguib (Coptic), Béchara Boutros Raï (Maronite), George Alencherry(Syro-Malabar) and Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankara). – Does this belong in the WP:LEAD?
  • On 13 March 2013, they elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires as pope, who took the papal name Francis. – this needs copyediting for grammar and clarity.
  • precedence is determined by the date of the consistory in which they were created – this is pretty opaque for readers not familiar with the subject. Papal consistory should be linked and the sentence should probably be rephrased with something like "elevated to the rank of cardinal".
  • The reader gets no explanation as to why the precedence is important or how it affects the proceedings or the outcome.
  • the senior cardinal bishop, the senior cardinal priest, the senior cardinal deacon and the junior cardinal deacon are assigned specific roles in a conclave. – what specific roles are those?
  • I would suggest replacing the asterisk for the cardinal elected pope with a symbol that allows for WP:ALT text, such as {{dagger}}, {{double-dagger}}, or {{hash-tag}}.
  • The "Rank" for the cardinals not in attendance needs to be fixed, because it can be interpreted in different ways. I see three different options:
    • Remove the hypothetical ranks altogether.
    • Explicitly write which two cardinals in attendance the ones not in attendance would've ranked between.
    • Move the cardinals not in attendance to the main table, mark them with a colour and symbol, leave their rank blank, and add a non-integer sort value to place them between the two they would've ranked between.
  • Countries are grouped into continents according to the regions of the United Nations geoscheme; for the Americas, North America comprises the Northern America, the Central America and the Caribbean subregions, while South America comprises the remaining subregion of the same name. seems unnecessary to me.
  • If cardinals don't represent the countries they originate from, there shouldn't be flags per MOS:FLAG (and even if they do, I don't see what the flags add).
  • For the sake of completeness, a table of the cardinals who were not eligible would be nice (I am aware that it was deleted as a separate list article). I noticed that the Dean of the College of Cardinals, who is mentioned in the text, would be in that list.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. Well, this note should be ideally made somewhere; the lead seems a good enough place to locate it, next to the general numbers of cardinal electors. Being buried in a footnote, it shouldn't be too intrusive as it currently stands.
  2. Reworded slightly; this should hopefully read better.
  3. Linked consistory (I thought that I did!) and modified slightly to "created cardinals". I would prefer to keep the standard terminology in this regard; its meaning should be apparent.
  4. Addressed, adding how precedence affects conclave proceedings.
  5. Some (two) examples of specific roles provided, without going too far into intricate detail.
  6. The asterisk seems to have worked perfectly fine on my previous featured list nominations. I don't think that this would necessarily cause accessibility problems; I'm not particularly fond on the insertion templates, anyway. What do you think?
  7. Ranks removed.
  8. Fair enough; removed.
  9. Even if they don't formally represent their countries, they're certainly still representative of them to a certain extent; placing some emphasis on nationality / country of origin doesn't seem out of place. This also matches the lower section, where flags are directly used in relation to countries in the table of cardinal electors by country.
@TompaDompa: Some responses and replies above. Thanks for your review. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
1. I'd place the note directly following For cardinal bishops who are Eastern Catholic patriarchs, in the body of the text. That seems like a more natural placement to me.
2. The new wording introduced a dangling participle. I'd rephrase it as "On 13 March 2013, they elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires; Bergoglio took the papal name Francis."
6. I am decidedly not an expert in these matters. I just figured a screen reader would read it as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ asterisk" (whereas I would prefer it to be read as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ elected pope").
8: It's still there, no?
TompaDompa (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

List of songs written by Harry Styles

Nominator(s): ElizaOscar (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is complete. well referenced, and useful as it demonstrates that he is a true "songwriter" and no other article exists that compiles his songs that have been recorded by other artists. I have modelled it after this featured list. Also, I know some may take issue with the BMI refs that link to a search bar instead of the specific song but that is because I have not found a way to permanently archive (ASCAP doesn't allow this either) or even directly link to any of the songs on the BMI database. Anyone familiar with this problem and knows how to solve this? Thanks in advance for reviewing the article! ElizaOscar (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment the various BMI refs just link to the front page of that organisation's website, so don't source anything. If it isn't possible to link directly to the entry for the song and users need to perform some sort of search on the site, then you need to tell them that in the reference -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Question I'm not sure which parameter to use to add this in the citation? ElizaOscar (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
      • The format parameter would work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I've removed the link to the blank BMI page and added BMI Work number. ElizaOscar (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Another comment - the artist column should sort by surname; currently it sorts by first name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yet another comment - it may be a dumb question, but if the songwriting credits for one song have not been released, how do we know that Styles wrote it........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It's informed assumption I guess, he actually does say in the video [1] I've cited (which I got from here [2]): "I wrote a couple of songs that didn't end up on the album, I'm going to play one of those now and this is called Medicine". I'm assuming he co-wrote it with other people since he wrote every other song on the album with almost the same group of writers. ElizaOscar (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Saved this article from deletion, took it to WP:DYK, and now I think it is ready for WP:FLC. Please bear with me, this is my first nomination in a long time, so if I missed something simple, I apologize. Thanks for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: I believe in QPQ at FLC. I will review 3 noms for every one I nominate (1, 2, 3). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured list after some extensive cleanup since it was noted in the (ultimately unsuccessful) Featured list nomination for the corresponding Deadpool list that there are currently no featured lists for box office records and I can frankly say that none of the five such lists were in any shape to be featured. I think this is something that should be remedied considering that there are numerous WP:Featured lists for accolades received by films, and going by the WP:Featured list criteria I believe this list is now ready to be nominated. TompaDompa (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment on a section heading: "United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta" - why on earth are these three countries bundled together? It makes about as much sense as having "US, Canada and Portugal"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I agree that it is somewhat odd (though not as odd as your comparison would make it seem – Malta only gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1964). However, for box office purposes these three countries are regarded as a single market in much the same way as the United States and Canada are (see Box Office Mojo). TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I looked through the sources cited in that section and didn't see Malta mentioned, so I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I had missed the FLC for the article mentioned (I never watched Deadpool) but agree with them and may even want to nominate these for AFD. "Highest non-opening week Tuesday gross"? This is as trivial as it gets. "Highest December opening day gross": This is pretty granular, not really a record. Sure, boxofficemojo compiles these trivial statistics and Deadline Hollywood reports them but we get it, the movie sold a lot of tickets everywhere. I suppose you could put a bit more in the Box Office section of the main article but I do not believe this is an encyclopedic topic and oppose. Reywas92Talk 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Reywas92: If the problem is that individual entries are trivial or too granular, that can be fixed by removing those entries – the problem with the Deadpool list was that there would barely be anything left after doing so. If the problem is that the topic is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, you should be able to be more specific than that – does it fail WP:NOT? Is box office performance inherently unencyclopedic? Is a film's box office reception less encyclopedic than its critical reception? TompaDompa (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say a separate article of these statistics is as unencyclopedic as a separate article for its reviews. We can leave details about specific reviews to Rotten Tomatoes and details about specific box office records to Box Office Mojo, and summarize the highlights in the main article. If we get rid of the granular stats, Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Box_office has more than enough details that cover/duplicate the rest and to have a fork of all these records is purely trivia. Reywas92Talk 05:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The proper analogy here is not individual reviews for the film, but accolades received by it (of which there are—as noted above—numerous WP:Featured lists). Reviews would be analogous to markets, or perhaps weekends. TompaDompa (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007

  • Support I think this looks much better. I may give it a quick copyedit if I have time, but for now I am comfortable with the list. I believe it meets all the criteria. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your input! TompaDompa (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Chief Ministers of West Bengal

Nominator(s): —indopug (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Four years since the previous FLC was archived, I've brought it back here. I've addressed all the comments raised then, and have significantly revamped the article in the process. During my research I've found similar lists of West Bengal's chief ministers across the Internet, but they are all strewn with errors—including those on government websites! So I believe this is the most accurate article on the topic, and worthy of Featured status. I'm happy to address any comments you have. Thank you!—indopug (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • These links should be fixed.
  • Make sure all the images have alt text.
  • You can provide a reference for the last sentence of second para.
  • You can place the 6th ref at the end of the sentence, it looks better that way.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher, thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all, except I can't figure out how to link to properly. I haven't even been able to archive the page successfully. Help from anybody who knows this stuff is appreciated.—indopug (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have archived some of the refs and I'd suggest you to replace that problematic link. The rest looks fine. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and for adding the archive links. Yes, I'll do something about that link.—indopug (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • Does the reference at the end of the first paragraph verify the entire paragraph?
  • Yes.
  • Reworded
  • "starting with Prafulla Chandra Ghosh of the Indian National Congress." – I don't think it's immediately obvious to the reader that the Indian National Congress is a political party (as opposed to a legislative body). I'd also introduce the abbreviation "INC" here, so it can be used further down the page.
  • Fair enough, done.
  • "fellow Congressman" – I'd rephrase this using "from the same party" or something similar.
  • Changed to party-mate.
  • "of the Congress" – there are three different parties in the list that are called "XYZ Congress", so this should be clarified.
  • "an Indian record until 2018" – add who surpassed it and the relevant details. It might be necessary to rephrase the sentence with that information added.
  • "A parenthetical number indicates that the incumbent has previously held office." – I'd rephrase this as "A number in parentheses indicates that the minister had held the same office previously."
  • "While the tenures have been primarily sourced to a list on the West Bengal Legislative Assembly website, obvious errors (mainly around the 1969–71 period) have been corrected with the help of a historical essay from the same website." – I would like you to explain this to me in a bit more detail before I'm comfortable supporting this for WP:Featured list status.
  • "the 90-member rump" – "remnant" is better than "rump".
  • The footnote for Bidhan Chandra Roy should be placed after his constituency, not his name (since it deals specifically with his constituency).
  • "According to some sources, Sen acted as interim chief minister" – I would add the word "also" before "acted".
  • "President's rule may be imposed [...]" – I feel like this footnote should instead begin "Under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, President's rule may be imposed [...]"
  • "Initially for over a year" – this is a bit clunky. Try rephrasing it.
  • "[...] ministers from Trinamool and the Congress. After Trinamool quit the United Progressive Alliance in September 2012, Congress members [...]" – use "INC" instead of "Congress" to avoid confusing readers unfamiliar with India's political parties (since there are, as noted above, multiple parties with "Congress" in their names).
  • The link in reference 5 (as of my writing this) is dead.

TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nominator(s): Tone 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This list has been previously nominated together with List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro which later became a FL. As I was not supposed to nominate two articles at the same time, this one was closed in order to be re-nominated later. I believe all issues that were raised during the Montenegro nomination have been fixed, so this one should be ready for a review. Tone 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • CommentsWeak oppose
    • Is the word "succeed" the right verb to use?
    • Regarding Stećci Medieval Tombstones Graveyards, I am confused. I was trying to decipher the last three sentences, which took several minutes. I hope someone else may suggest a better version.
    • I couldn't find in the reference provided that 20 out of 28 sites are located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the main page, it says 22 sites, but it's not referenced either.
      • I am not saying this is wrong, I am saying this is not referenced. Change the reference to the one where it says or lists 20 sites of Stecci in Bosnia.
    • How do you sort the "UNESCO data"? I can't figure out the order.
      • On second thought, I believe we need a footnote stating that this column sorts by the first criterion number because it's not obvious at all.
    • Same thing with the "sites" column in the tentative section. What is the sorting order?
      • There is a location column already for people to sort by location, why is this column sorting by location as well?

--Cheetah (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, BH technically succeeded the convention because Yugoslavia had previously signed it. The Stecci article has a table with all of them listed and 20 are in BH so that page's lead appears to be wrong. I believe the UNESCO data sorts by the first criterion number but that's not a good way to sort something; I'd make it unsortable. The tentative site name sorting order is by the key word or place name, which seems reasonable to me. I don't see any issues and Support Reywas92Talk 03:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I see you answered the comments already, thank you. Yes, the sorting issue has been discussed before, what we have at the moment seems like a good compromise. --Tone 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • " Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded the convention". I see that this has been discussed above, but it does not make sense. Maybe " Bosnia and Herzegovina inherited Yugoslavia's accession to the convention".
    • Could be. I'll leave this decision to native speakers.
  • "shared with Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro" "shared with" does not sound right to me. How about "is partly in"
    • This is the standard way we are using in all World Heritage lists, but again, I'm open to changing it.
  • "Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar" This says that an area of the city has been designated, but the description says it is only the bridge itself.
    • Added a sentence.
  • "the Geniza (a graveyard for damaged books)" The article on Geniza says worn out, not damaged.
    • Good point, fixed.
  • With mixed sites, you only give details of its significance under one criterion. You should give both.
    • Not really sure what you mean here. Mixed sites typically have some significance regarding the setting and the human impact. I think this is always mentioned to some level. The fact is, though, that the tentative sites sometimes have not fully-fleshed nominations, as this is only a step in the process.
  • I meant that the description should explain how the site meets both the cultural and natural criteria, but as I see that the sources do not always explain both I will drop this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not helpful to give the criteria as i to x without explanation. I think you should either delete or add a table explaining them.
    • Again, this is something we use in all articles. But I get your point - I added a link to the list of the criteria. Thanks! --Tone 15:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A good article, but it needs a bit more work. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Quick comment "In the following table" should be removed as it is redundant, but that whole sentence is better as a footnote or endnote than an introductory sentence. Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We've played with this sentence in the previous nomination but ultimately decided it is better if it stays as it is. Not sure. --Tone 10:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
A while ago it was determined that featured lists should not have tautological sentences such as "this is a list of", "this table has", "in the following table", etc. The review below on the black mirror episodes has an identical recommendation by another user which generally applies here:
""The following table lists [...]" is clunky. Try summarizing the contents of the table instead (e.g. "XX [entries] have [met the inclusion criteria for the table]")." Mattximus (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  • In the following table, the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural. – this should be rewritten as something along the lines of "UNESCO lists sites under ten criteria; each entry must meet at least one of the criteria. Criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." along with a citation (I'd suggest this link as the source).
  • In the first table, I'd suggest splitting the "UNESCO data" column in two: one for the reference number, and one for the criteria.
  • The reader is almost certainly not familiar with the specific UNESCO criteria, so I'd try to put more emphasis on cultural vs. natural rather than the individual criteria met in the tables.
  • Stećci (sing. stećak) are – use {{abbr|sing.|singular}} for sing..
  • What does (N.I.) mean?
  • "Vjetrenica" is misspelled as "Vjeternica" in the description.
  • "orogenesis" should be linked.
  • "Perućica" is misspelled as "Peručica" in the description.
  • "ossuary" should be linked.
  • The "See also" section should be above the "References" section.

TompaDompa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Godflesh

Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the information at hand is comprehensive, cited, and relayed in an easy to understand manner. I want to make Godflesh a good topic, but I don't have a great deal of experience with lists. This page, List of songs recorded by Godflesh, and, if it passes, Godflesh discography, will help make that topic come to life. Thanks in advance, everyone. CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa
  • All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  • Godflesh have recorded at least three songs with unknown titles that have never (and likely will never) be released. – I'd remove this.
  • Godflesh released the influential albums, Streetcleaner (1989) and Pure (1992) – remove "influential" per WP:PUFFERY and remove the comma.
  • and were then courted by a major label in Columbia Records – "major label" is WP:PUFFERY.
  • Reference 19 is a duplicate of reference 6 (this link).
  • The following chart lists all of the band's recorded songs that saw release. is unnecessary and should be removed.
  • Remixes should sort below the original versions, not above them.
  • This song is a rerecording of "Wound" from Tiny Tears. – I'd say "the unreleased EP Tiny Tears".
  • I don't like "Demos, live songs and other remixes" being collapsed by default – I almost missed it entirely!
  • The footnote for "Demos, live songs and other remixes" should be converted to regular prose below that heading.
  • the distinction between a Broadrick remix and a Godflesh remix is often unclear since there is little effective difference. The ones listed below are explicitly labeled with the Godflesh title or are inextricably tied to Godflesh. – what does "inextricably tied" mean in this context?
  • I think "Demos, live songs and other remixes" should be three tables rather than one.

TompaDompa (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thank you, I'll fix these shortly when I get home. I have a few question: when I divide "Demos, live songs and other remixes" into three tables, would you recommend that those be collapsed or expanded? On Streetcleaner and Pure being refereed to as influential, is it still puffery if I cite them as such? I have several more references I could add supporting that. On remixes sorting below original songs, should I have them aligned like that by default and allow alphabetical sorting to rearrange them, or should I force them to be alphabetically lower even though they mostly appear alphabetically higher? Thanks again CelestialWeevil (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Norm Smith Medal

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The Norm Smith Medal is a prestigious award in the Australian Football League (AFL), given to the best player in the annual AFL Grand Final to decide the season's premiership (i.e. "championship", "title-winner" etc.). As well as meeting the FL criteria, I believe this list would help lift the standard of similar AFL-related lists, as currently within the AFL WikiProject there is only one featured list (out of 350+ total). I am determined to help increase the amount of featured content relating to AFL, so any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated — Allied45 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments – I only have a couple of nit-picks after reading through the list.

  • "and again in 1991 where it was played at Waverley Park." "where" should be "when" since this refers to a year, not a place.
  • In reference 31, the p. should be pp., since it is a multiple-page cite. Changing the page= parameter of the cite template to pages= will fix this for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Both resolved (also corrected reference 34, which had the same issue), thanks for looking over the list for me Giants2008! – Allied45 (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book is an award category by GLAAD that honors comic books (and occasionally comic strips or graphic novels) for their depiction of LGBT characters and themes. Originally a non-competitive category during the first two times the award was given, it finally became competetive in 1997 with four nominees. This was expanded to five in '99, and then to ten in 2017. I'm nominating this article because I think that, besides meeting the criteria, is an interesting article that could help people find interesting LGBT-themed comics to read. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Is the whole of the third paragraph sourced by that one ref at the end?
      • Yep.
    • Don't like the single-sentence paragraph at the end of the lead - can this be merged with an earlier paragraph?
      • Done.
    • 1995 row has "No award was given this in category" (sic)
      • Yeah. What's wrong with that? No award was given during that year or the two before.
        • Look at the exact wording - two words are clearly the wrong way round.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Oh, son of a bitch. I'm so sorry. I didn't even notice it. Fixed. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I would prefer to have a single table, not separate ones by decade
      • @ChrisTheDude: Yeah, the seperate table were so it'd be easier to edit. Combined them.
      • @ChrisTheDude: You might want to have a look at MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. These kinds of column headers are semantically ambiguous to screen readers, and should be avoided in order to make content accessible. Splitting a table like this is recommended in WCAG 2.0. —Ringbang (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh blimey, I can never get my head around accessibility. How about one table with no subheadings (they probaby aren't really needed).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
          • The advantage to that approach is that all data in a column can be sorted together; this is a very nice function. On the other hand, sections allow for introductory text to explain, summarise, or add to the information in the table. This is a desirable feature that we want to allow for and encourage.
            Also, the unified table creates a usability problem. Without a ToC, navigation becomes about scrolling; sometimes too much scrolling. This is especially true on mobile, since neither the web app nor the mobile app supports sorting by column. The number of table rows increases every year, so the amount of scrolling required would keep increasing. Scrolling through a huge table with no visual break is not a very pleasant user experience. As much as I like the unified column sorting, I don't believe that the UX problems it creates are worth it. —Ringbang (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Think that's it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa
  • See if you can't find an image or two to add to the page. It would improve the visual appeal of the page significantly.
  • The WP:LEAD could use more citations. Most of the second paragraph (except for the parts about being non-competitive vs. competitive) and the entirety of the fourth paragraph get a pass as they summarize the tables (i.e. it's already cited in the body per MOS:LEADCITE), but the rest should have citations to reliable sources.
  • Outstanding Comic Book is one of only four categories in which GLAAD may select up to ten nominees rather than five. – I'd add an WP:Explanatory footnote listing the other three.
  • wasn't should be "was not" per MOS:CONTRACTION.
  • The 2nd through 13th GLAAD Media Awards are WP:Redlinks. This is a problem per WP:FLCR 5(a). For now, I'd just remove the links (and add them back if/when the articles are created).
  • Where there are several citations in a row, it looks better if they're in numerical order.
  • There is a mix of reference styles. I'd convert reference 3 and 10 to match the rest of the list and remove the "Bibliography" section entirely.

TompaDompa (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Campeche

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my latest nomination in my quest to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (22 states and provinces so far...). This one is very similar to Colima and Aguascalientes and thus I tried to incorporate any changes to those pages into this one. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Kent Wildlife Trust

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts, and is in the same format as Essex Wildlife Trust and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, which are FLs. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments - I've only looked at the lead thus far, this is what I have.....
  • "Medway is a separate unitary authority." - I would clarify here that Medway geographically lies within Kent, otherwise the reader might wonder why this is even mentioned.
  • "The coastline is alternately flat and cliff-lilyned." - think that last word is spelt wrong :-)
  • "KWT manages fifty-four nature reserves, and twenty-four are Sites of Special Scientific Interest, two are National Nature Reserves......" - I would change the "and" to "of which"
I will look at the list itself later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks ChrisTheDude. All done. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Support - the only thing I spotted was a missing full stop, which I added myself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments I just have a few minor comments, it's otherwise very good as usual. You can link invaded Britain, Chalk downland and Fen. Also consider rephrasing " out of which 53 are breeding species". All birds are breeding species, but perhaps only 53 breed in this Wildlife Trust. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support nice work as usual! Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Astronomical symbols

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Jackson videography

Nominator(s): Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Comments from Akhiljaxxn

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

Comments from Allied45

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

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

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

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

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

List of songs recorded by No Doubt

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating 'List of songs recorded by No Doubt' for featured list status because the list is complete, thoroughly sourced, and well written. Thanks in advanced to anyone who takes the time to review this nomination. Grazie! Carbrera (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC).

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would revise the ALT text for the image to be a little more specific about what the picture is showing. Also, the text is not entirely accurate as No Doubt is not performing in the photo.
  • For the lead’s first paragraph, I would link “compilations” to the article for compilation abum to specify what you mean by this.
  • I would split this sentence (In response to the commercial disappointment of their debut and being dropped from Interscope Records, the group produced The Beacon Street Collection (1995) by themselves and took influence from punk music, which differentiated the record from the "synth and new wave influences" of No Doubt.) into two as it contains a lot of information and is rather long.
  • I am a question about this sentence (Four singles were released, including "New", "Ex-Girlfriend", "Simple Kind of Life", and "Bathwater".). You say that four albums were released from the album and then proceed to list all of them. I am not sure the word “including” is correct in this context, as it implies (at least to me) that there are other singles and the following list is a just a few of them.
  • For this sentence (the songs featured on Return of Saturn are complex), what do you mean by “complex”?
  • For this part (originally sung by Talk Talk), I would use “recorded” instead of “sung”.
  • Do you think that you should include a sentence about Dreamcar at the end of the lead’s last paragraph?
  • Do you think that you should specify that No Doubt went on a hiatus primarily due to Stefani focusing on her solo career?
  • I would revise this image caption (Joe Escalante wrote the Christmas song "Oi to the World", which No Doubt recorded a cover of.) to (No Doubt recorded a cover of the Christmas song “Oi to the World”, which was written by Joe Escalante.”). I am not a fan of the last portion of the original caption (i.e. how it ends on “of”.).
  • Could you elaborate on this sentence (The group also has writing credits on several other albums.)? Do you mean that they wrote songs that were later recorded and performed by other singers? I am a little confused by this part (apologies if this is really obvious). Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


  • My only major problem with this article is the sourcing. I know that I made this same argument when you nominated List of songs recorded by Oh Land, but, outside of the liner notes, there are only five references, and three are to the same publisher. Three publishers (Allmusic; Billboard; BMG) is fewer than I would expect to see in a featured list. Are there any other sources that you could mine for information? For example, The LA Times discusses how No Doubt's songs revolve around love and heartbreak, and how Gwen Stefani's lyrics channel a female perspective. musicOMH describes the band's songs as "playful". MTV explains how a lot of No Doubt's songs are about Gwen Stefani's on-off relationship with Tony Kanal. There are almost certainly other sources that you may consider more appropriate.
  • I agree that this is important. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Caption in the lead image isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating period.
  • "has recorded material for". Not exactly a dealbreaker for me, but by my count there are 112 songs listed in this article, so we could probably afford to be slightly more precise than just "material" in the opening sentence, e.g. "has recorded over 100 songs for"
  • "on other artists' respective albums"
  • "After forming as a group in 1986"
  • "influences of No Doubt." -> "influences of their debut." Again, not a massive deal here, but, as currently written, this sentence could easily be confusing for anyone who, say, uses a screen reader.
  • Per MOS:NBSP, stick a non-breaking space within million numbers, i.e. 16 million -> 16&nbsp;million
  • "Tragic Kingdom has sold 16 million copies worldwide". As of when?
  • "is considered one". Considered by whom? If it's a uncontroversially one of the best-selling albums of all time in the US, then you can get rid of "considered".
  • Did they spend three years working on Push and Shove? This confused me.
  • The second paragraph ideally needs a citation at the end of it.
  • "Rock Steady" needs to be below "A Rock Steady Vibe", and "New" needs to be below "New Friend" when the page first loads (because sorting them by name will put them in this order).
  • Album titles beginning with "The" need to sort under the first letter of their second word, i.e. B, R and S.

I realise that I've given a lot of criticism here, so, if you'd like to get your own back on me, my current open FLC is YouTube Awards. If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kanye West

Nominator(s): AlfonsoTheEditor (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is one of the most comprehensive musician awards pages, and has been completely updated since demotion from featured lists. AlfonsoTheEditor (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC) AlfonsoTheEditor

Figured someone ought to finally kick this one off :-)
  • "previously aforementioned fields" - the word "previously" is completely redundant/unnecessary here, as that what's the "afore" part of aforementioned means
  • "The same year cumulated" - "cumulated" makes no sense at all here. I think you may have meant "culminated", but that isn't appropriate either, as it means "ended" and the album came out in February. Just say "In the same year he released.....". I'd also suggest joining the next sentence on to this one.....
  • In para 2 "Diamonds...." should be in quote marks as it's a song title
  • "Winning in four out of the five rap categories, as well as becoming the first solo artist to have his first three studio albums be nominated for Album of the Year." - this sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. It should start with something like "the album won in four...."
  • "collaborative album Watch The Throne (2011) with Jay-Z, earned" - no reason for that comma to be there
  • "He repeated the feat a year later, when he joint lead" - "led" spelt wrongly
  • "The albums merchandise released released via" - missing apostrophe in "album's" and word duplicated
That's what I found in the lead. I will look at the tables later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Making a start on the tables:
  • ASCAP London table is missing a ) after McCartney
  • BET Hip Hop table is missing a space before the ( in 2015
  • Billboard Mid-Year table: "performances of the first half of year." => "performances of the first half of the year."
  • "The Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop Awards honoured the most popular albums" - have they been discontinued, or is the past tense a typo?
  • Looks like it was a typo (and also not the correct American English spelling). Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Danish Music Awards (DMA) is a Danish award show organised by the IFPI Denmark in 1989" - that makes it sound like it only took place once, in 1989. Maybe replace "organised" with "established"?
  • "The ECHO Music Awards were organised in 1992 by German Phonoakademie" - again, replace "organised"
  • "The Esky Music Awards were awarded annually by Esquire magazine" - again, is the use of past tense correct?
  • I think this one is correct—the awards seem to be defunct. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Footwear News Achievement Awards established in 1986" => "The Footwear News Achievement Awards, established in 1986"
  • "that honor the footwear industry’s best shoes" => "that honor the industry’s best shoes" (avoid having the word three times in one sentence)
  • "The Fonogram Hungarian Music Awards was founded in 1992" => "The Fonogram Hungarian Music Awards were founded in 1992"
  • "The award is presented by Mahasz" => "The awards are presented by Mahasz"
  • "and are considered the industry's highest music honor" => "and are considered the music industry's highest honor"
  • "The Groovevolt Music and Fashion Awards were held annually by" - again, is past tense correct?
  • This one looks to be correct. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The MOBO Awards (an acronym for "Music of Black Origin") first presented in 1996, " => "The MOBO Awards (an acronym for "Music of Black Origin"), first presented in 1996,"
  • "The Readers Choice Award Awards" - that isn't the correct name, surely........?
  • "The MP3 Music Award" - MP3 Music or MP3Music (as the heading shows).......?
  • The version with a space is correct. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The MTV Asia Awards was the Asian equivalent of the MTV EMA." - what is the EMA? It hasn't been mentioned at this point, so it seems odd to say that something else is the equivalent of it....
  • I assume the point was that the EMAs are more well-known than the Asia Awards, but I fear this is quite a Eurocentric perspective so I've just removed it. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "to award the music videos from European and international artists" - there seem to be some words missing here. They don't award the videos, they award prizes (or whatever) for the videos
  • Also, as some of the winners/nominees are artists rather than their videos specifically, the awards can't just be given for videos, surely.........?
  • Changed to "to recognise excellence in music videos from European and international artists". Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "to award the music videos from Japanese and international artists" - same as before - they don't award the videos
  • "The MTV Video Play Awards see MTV international recognizes" => "The MTV Video Play Awards see MTV international recognize"
  • "The NME Awards are annual music awards show" => "The NME Awards are an annual music awards show"
  • "The NRJ Music Awards are an annual award held by the radio station NRJ held since 2000" - don't need the word "held" twice
  • People's Choice table is missing a closing " on ET
  • "The winner was voted by the British audiences" => "The winner was voted by the British public"
  • "The winner was voted for by the British public" Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The UK Festival Awards acknowledge the achievements of organisers and suppliers" - although it is a UK award, the article needs to be in US English, so "organise" should be "organize"
  • Also fixed some other British English spellings. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The UK Music Video Awards is an annual award ceremony founded in 2008 to recognise creativity, technical excellence and innovation in music videos" - same here - recognize
  • "The winners were declared on their official site "Virgin Media"" - don't think this is needed.
  • Wikilink Virgin Media
  • "A Webby Award is an award" - why does this one start like that rather than something like "The Webby Awards are...."?
  • World Music Awards table - the apostrophe in World's is missing on many rows
  • Need to be consistent in the use of plural or singular eg you have "The XM Nation Music Awards was", but in other cases you say "The [such and such] awards were"........
  • Why the empty notes section?
  • Ref 150 seems to have a citation required tag as a ref?????
Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone addressing these nine day-old concerns? The nominator hasn't edited at all for more than two weeks...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I'm neither the nominator nor someone who has previously edited the article, but it would be a shame for this to fail FLC so I think I can take over the nominator's role. I've addressed your concerns (responding inline to some individual points)—let me know if there's anything more you think needs to be done. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: what are your thoughts on the list now? @Anyone else: more reviews would be very helpful! Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2011

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone is familiar with these lists by now. Thirteen have been promoted in recent months, so here's the next one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

One simple question: Is it really necessary to link Billboard in every single ref? I guess everybody knows what Billboard is.--Lirim | T 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that works/publishers should be linked in every ref because the order of them could change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Having said that, I've noticed that in some/most/all of the other lists that have been promoted to FL, I haven't linked it every time. So I guess I'm not wedded to them all being linked. I am not fussed either way.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There's no hard rule about it beyond consistency- some people link every time because ref order is not fixed (as you state); some link only the "first" time (and generally don't try to keep that up to date...); some don't link publishers at all. --PresN 01:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • Something about this part (which had held the top spot since the chart dated December 18, 2010.) reads strangely to me. I think that something along the lines of (which had held the top spot on the chart since December 18, 2010). Something about the word choice (“dated”) seems a little off to me.
  • For this part (This gave McEntire the 25th number-one country single), I would revise it to (It was McEntire’s 25th number-one country single) to avoid starting a sentence with “This”.

You always do such great work with these lists. I only have two relatively minor comments for this list. It definitely inspires me to go back to do a music-related list sometime in the future. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your kind words. I have fixed the issues which you raised, hopefully to your satisfaction. I will try to look at your FAC in the next day or two.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ranbir Kapoor filmography

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Back to the FLC process after a big gap with another filmography list of an Indian film actor. I hope some of you take the time out to review this. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would add ALT text to the main image.
  • For this part (In 2010 Kapoor played a character based), there should be a comma between “2010” and “Kapoor”.
  • For this sentence (In Imtiaz Ali's musical Rockstar(2011) he played an aspiring singer, and in Anurag Basu's comedy-drama Barfi!(2012) he starred as a joyful deaf and mute man.), there should be two commas after the “in…” phrases.
  • For this part (earned over ₹2.95 billion (US$44 million), I would wikilink the currency.
  • I would add a reference to this sentence (In addition to acting in films, Kapoor has co-hosted four Filmfare Award ceremonies.) since everything else in the lead is referenced.
I have removed this bit from the lead, and added a sentence about his recent release. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this list! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for reviewing this. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

  • These links should be fixed.
None of them seem to have an issue when I open this, and the references have been archived anyway. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wasn't Raajneeti predominantly based on Mahabharat with some scenes lifted from The Godfather?
That's right, and his character was deemed to be an amalgamation of Arjuna and Michael Corleone. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the word 'highly' should be removed for the sake of neutrality.
Reworded. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that in the first two para's, his success is only measured on how his films have fared commercially. Something on how his roles were received critically.
Added a line about Barfi! and Rockstar. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • At ref 28, News18 --> CNN-News18.
Changed. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher, thanks for the review. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment SupportThe only thing I would suggest is that the Music video table doesn't need to be sortable since it consists of only one entry. Otherwise, I can't spot any other problems with this list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Giants2008 agreed, done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Capital Bra discography

Nominator(s): Lirim | T 23:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this discography that I completely revised, expanded, and neatened up. I hope it meats the FL requirements. Lirim | T 23:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude | talk
"Capital Bra was awarded for sales of 400,000 records in Germany" - are there some words missing here? What was he awarded?
"of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" could enter the charts an number seventy-six in Germany" => "of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts at number seventy-six in Germany"
Related to that, it is standard to write chart positions as numbers, not words
In the first sentence of paragraph 3, refs need to go after punctuation, not before
"The album debuted on number three" => "The album debuted at number three"
"all of which debuted at number one of German single charts" => "all of which debuted at number one on the German single chart"
No need for the Austria column in the "other charted songs" table if no songs charted there
Note 1: "Capital Bra started his career under the pseudonym "Capital". His first studio album and a couple of single have been released under the name Capital" - singles should be plural, also is it possible to be more specific than "a couple"?
Notes 2 and 3 - CD should be in capitals
Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: – I hope I corrected all your concerns. --Lirim | T 08:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You still need to fix "of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" could enter the charts an number 76"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: – Fixed :) --Lirim | T 08:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I made a few minor tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:: – Thank you --Lirim | T 08:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)
  • As you may have seen, I have done some edits on the tables on my own in accordance with the style of my discography Inna discography, which became a FL some time ago. Check them out and feel free to revert anything you feel like I've done wrong.
  • Capital Bra was awarded with two gold certifications for sales of 400,000 records in Germany. → Please remove this alltogether, because you're mentioning it throughout the rest of the lead
  • Please combine the lead paragraph with the second one
  • In 2016, Capital Bra released his first studio album → To avoid word repetition: "In 2016, he premiered his first studio album"
  • on the German GfK Entertainment Charts and number 61 on the Austrian Album charts → Remove the links and reword to: "...on the German and at number 61 on the Austrian album charts."
  • which debuted at number 1 in Austria, 2 in Germany and 5 in Switzerland. It spawned four singles, of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts, at number 76 in Germany → which peaked within the top five in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, spawning four singles of which "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts at number 76 in Germany.
  • In May of the same year, he released his second EP Ibrakadabra, which peaked at number 77 on the Swiss Album charts → In the May of the same year, he distributed his second EP Ibrakadabra to minor commercial success in Switzerland. (avoiding word repetition by listing chart positions for every release)
  • which was released in September of the same year → which was released three months later
  • The album spawned six singles → change "The album" to "The record" to avoid the repetition of "album"
  • including the gold-certified singles "Nur noch Gucci" and "Olé olé" → including "Nur noch Gucci" and "Olé olé" which were certified gold in Germany
  • I copy-edited the lead's last three lines by myself
  • Remove streaming audio as the format for all his albums; I haven't seen this format listed on any discography and don't think it is particularly relevant
  • "AUF!KEINEN!FALL!" needs to be reworded to "Auf!Keinen!Fall!" due to WP:SHOUTING
  • @Lirim.Z: This is first set of comments. More to come eventually. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: First of all, thank you for your time and for the small corrections. I hope I corrected all your concerns.--Lirim

With all my issues solved, I can now proudly support this for promotion. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Thank you very much. Lirim | Talk 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes

Nominator(s): Deidaramonroe (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. Deidaramonroe (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa
  • "It follows the story of Madoka Kaname" – who is she? I'd suggest adding a few words before the name to describe her characteristics (maybe age, occupation, nationality – whatever is relevant to know).
  • "During early planning stage" – missing definite article.
  • "decided to not adapt" – I would swap the second and third word for better flow.
  • "He then contacted Gen Urobuchi to work on the project as a scriptwriter and Ume Aoki as a character designer." – I would suggest rephrasing this to "Gen Urobuchi and Ume Aoki then joined the project as scriptwriter and character designer, respectively." The production history should not receive undue focus in the WP:LEAD.
  • "The first ten episodes aired on MBS, TBS and CBC" – I would add a few words to clarify that these are television channels (right?). Assuming they are all Japanese, I would mention that too.
  • "a week after broadcast" – I would change "a" to "one".
  • "due to the quake" – "quake" is too informal. Use "earthquake".
  • "each volume containing a bonus CD" – this is unnecessary since it's described in more detail in the next paragraph.
  • Where several references directly follow each other, it looks better if they appear in numerical order.
  • "while the ending theme" – "and" is better than "while" since we're not trying to contrast the two.
  • "Kalafina, both of which were released" – I'd change the comma to a semicolon and remove "of which".
  • "were released on February 16, 2011" – released how, which format?
  • "limited edition" should have a hyphen when used attributively.
  • "with a third film containing an original story set after the series released in October 2013" – I'd change "with" to "and" and add "was" before "released".
  • The table should not be sortable.
  • "No." should be No. (i.e. {{abbr|No.|Number}}).
  • The episode descriptions contain a lot of sentences with three or more commas. It is usually preferable to rewrite the sentences to avoid this, though not critical.
  • "enroll into" – I've never heard this phrasing. I've always heard "enroll in".
  • Explain and/or link "familiar" at first appearance.
  • "their attempted suicide" – I would rephrase it as "the attempted mass suicide".
  • "doesn't" should be "does not" per MOS:CONTRACTION.
  • "the term 'magical girl' only makes sense for it to be a prelude to whomever has yet to become a 'witch'." – this should be rephrased. I had to read it a couple of times to be able to parse it correctly, and it's still kind of odd.
  • "Thus the process is only feasible with humans, especially adolescent girls." – this seems like a non sequitur to me, but maybe that has more to do with the series than the summary.
  • "Lacking confidence in herself, having been in hospital for the past six months" – I'd change this to either "[...] herself as she had been [...]" or "[...] herself, and having been [...]" depending on which is more accurate.
  • Replace "PE" with "physical education", "gym class", or a synonym. I'd also consider linking the term you choose for those who may only be familiar with some other term for it.
  • "The girls head to the beach" – I would name the girls.
  • In the Home video releases section, all hyphens except the ones in "Mini-poster", "Double-side", and "4-page" should be replaced with en dashes.
  • Some of the references lack access dates (and other parameters).

Because I am not familiar with the series, I can offer only these style-related suggestions for improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Civilization media

Nominator(s): PresN 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In my last stop in my series of FLs on video game developers/publishers, List of games by Firaxis Games (FLC below), I noted that they've focused pretty exclusively on the Civilization series since 2005. That, combined with the lack of a dedicated "media" list for such a long-running and expansive franchise, meant that I thought I could pull together such a list with rows pulled from the Firaxis list as a base. And so, here we are: 27 years of games, board games, books, and albums, for a franchise that didn't invent the 4X genre but is nevertheless considered the definitive version of it. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

Great work on the article. Here are some comments:

  • In the opening sentence, would simply saying "Civilization is a franchise composed primarily" suffice? This removes the repetition of "media" later on.
  • Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the rest, and the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. This is a bit of a mouthful in my opinion. How about changing it to one of these?
    • Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the sequels. Consequently, the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization
    • Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the sequels, with the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs including his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization.
  • Additionally, what does "formal titles" mean here? If it means the official titling of the series, then wouldn't this work better? the formal titles of the series, consisting of the core games and spin-offs, including his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. (this does not change the meaning of the next sentences, too)
  • Why does the article mention the months things took place in only twice? As a reader, I see no benefit from knowing that they took place in November of 2004 and 2005.

When these issues get resolved or I receive clarification (i.e. your proposal changes the meaning), I'll happily support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Dropped 'media' and the months, and reworked that messy sentence into two: Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of its sequels. The official titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. Thanks for reviewing!--PresN 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I have a comment about this sentence (Business changes resulting from the consolidation of the company in 1996 with Spectrum HoloByte, which bought MicroProse in 1993, resulted in Meier leaving the company to found Firaxis Games in 1996.). Is there a way to avoid using the words “resulting” and “resulted” in the same sentence?
  • I am confused by this part (Music album CDs). Shouldn’t it be either albums or CDs? I have never heard the phrase album CDs before, and I am not sure if the “music” part is necessary.
  • You currently have Linux linked in the “Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri” portion of the table. Shouldn’t Linux be wikilinked on the first instance in the body article (i.e. in the “Sid Meier's Civilization V” portion of the table). If you are wikilinking items that appear in multiple tables, then should they both be linked? I am just confused on the linking for this one.

These are my only comments; once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. It makes me want to play some Civilization lol. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Adjusted the sentence, made it "Music CDs", and move the linux link to the first instance. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help/input with my current FAC? Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – About the only thing I can even nit-pick is that I'd put a comma after "as well as a spin-off title" in the second paragraph. Otherwise this article looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • The WP:ALT text for the logo doesn't match the image file.
  • digital albums have been sold for Civilization VI and its expansion, and Civilization: Beyond Earth and its expansion would be clearer if the second "and" were replaced with "as well as for".
  • I don't like the table layouts where entries are built more vertically than horizontally. I'd rather see additional pieces of information relating to the same entry presented in additional columns than in additional rows. In the first table, for example, I would split the "Details" column into a "Release years by system" column and a "Notes" column rather than keep it the way it is now (although I might split it into even more columns than that). The current layout looks disorganized, even though it isn't.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Fixed the first two. As to the row format, a few things: 1) it's a template used by 200+ lists, including several FLs, so I'm disinclined to change/replace it on a whim, but more importantly 2) I hacked together a version of it where the notes is a new column instead of a new subrow, and tested it here. I actually find that much more visually confusing than the present version, and on smaller screen resolutions (aka <= 1200 pixels wide) it still stretches vertically in the way you disliked, but with the columns squashed. I'll keep playing with it, but right now I'm not going to change the template for this list. --PresN 01:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I see your point about smaller screen resolutions. Would it be possible to structure the recurring information (such as developer and publisher, genre for the second table, number of pages for the books, duration and number of tracks for the music) in a way similar to the way "Release years by system" currently is? I think it would look a lot more structured if there were what might loosely be called "headings" for recurring types of information rather than just identical placement in an otherwise featureless bulleted list. TompaDompa (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Daniil Trifonov discography

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

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

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

Some suggestions:

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

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

@Francis Schonken: Thank you for your suggestions. As for the {{As of}}; most discography articles do not include it, even for artists who still have active recording careers (see WP:FL; Artist discographies). I will be sure to update the article when new releases arrive! :-) Also, after I nominated this article, User:EditorE added peak chart positions in the table; while a tremendously positive addition, it made the tables severely unreadible on smaller screens. I simply moved those to a separate table, and now, after some other tweaks, the tables are now very legible! I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright (it's somewhat subjective in any case) and did some tweaking on the remainder. Please let me know what you think! Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Daniil Trifonov discography#Compilations is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Video releases is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Live albums is a sortable table with three entries: to me this doesn't make much sense either. In Daniil Trifonov discography#Studio albums the table has seven entries, but since the bulk of the content is in unsortable columns one has to wonder whether the sortable table format makes any sense here too. For those four sections I'd drop the table format altogether (if the two-table suggestion I made above finds no approval).
Re. "I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright" – OK, but this clashes with my "I'd like somewhat more prose on reception" suggestion. I suggested more prose on that topic, not less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Lutheran denominations

Nominator(s): Bnng (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Between February and April of this year, I significantly expanded this list, more than octupling the size of the list (at least in terms of the byte size). The most significant improvements I made were 1) organizing the denominations into tables, 2) adding the year each denomination was founded, 3) adding the current membership of each denomination, 4) adding references (the list previously had four references; it now has 295), and 5) adding denominations that were not previously included in this list. This list should now include practically every active Lutheran denomination in the world.

Looking at the FL criteria in detail, I believe this list meets them all:

1. Prose - The list includes only a few short paragraphs of prose, but I believe these meet professional standards.
2. Lead - Short and to the point, but I believe it does define the scope of the list.
3. Comprehensiveness - I have done my best to include every active Lutheran denomination in the world. If it isn't completely comprehensive, it should be extremely close.
4. Structure - The division by international affiliation (LWF, ILC, CELC, and unaffiliated) has been in place since the list was first created. I think this division makes sense and makes the list easier to navigate. The ability to sort denominations by country, name, founding year, and membership should also aid in navigation.
5. Style - The list does have a number of red links, but after looking at a few other FLs, it seems that this is not necessarily a deal-breaker. Also, I intend over the next several (6–12?) months to create a series of "Lutheranism in (country)" articles, and to link each of the redlinked denominations to those articles. See Lutheranism in Angola for an example.
6. Stability - The only major changes in the past several years have been my edits expanding the list.

Although I think the list looks fairly good as-is, I would obviously be happy to make any changes others feel are necessary. Bnng (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


  • I would give a date for the numbers. "As of January 2018" or something like that. Just giving numbers for a religion without giving a date is somewhat useless.
  • why did you use two "--" and not just one "–" (en-dash) or "—" (em-dash)?--Lirim | T 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, and my apologies for getting back to you so late; this past week has been a busy one for me. I have added a note to each of the tables indicating that the membership numbers are the most recently available numbers as of April 2018. Some of the sources I used didn't include a date, but I'm reasonably confident none of the numbers are more than a decade old, and I know most are less than three years old.
As for using "--" rather than an en- or em-dash, I believe I copied that from another FL. If you think an en- or em-dash would look better, I can certainly change it. Just let me know which you would prefer. Bnng (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The list looks fine, but I wonder if it could be improved by merging the tables and using 3-color backgrounds instead. Also, a world map could be nice, coloring where each of the 3 players is present. Also, a mini-section summarizing the 3+1 headers could also be better, so that way you can compare the 3 organizations a bit. Nergaal (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I initially thought about putting all the denominations into one large table, but I ultimately decided against it, for a few reasons. First, there are currently eleven church bodies that are members of both the LWF and the ILC (and that number is steadily growing), which would complicate a simple colorization scheme like the one you proposed. (Thanks for mentioning that idea, though; after reading it, I realized I forgot to add a footnote to those church bodies, indicating their dual membership.) Second, using a colorization scheme to indicate membership would not allow the readers to sort the church bodies by membership, which seems like a drawback. One way around this problem, and an idea I toyed with for awhile, would be to add separate columns to indicate membership in the LWF, ILC, CELC, and possibly also the World Council of Churches. This would show the dual membership arrangements very clearly and would allow the readers to sort the table by membership if they wanted, which are definite pluses. The downside is that it would make the table more complicated and a bit messy, and might make them too wide for easy reading on most computer screens. The current split into four separate groupings (in place since the list was first created) seems to me like a good compromise between navigability and conciseness. That said, if you or anyone else can think of a way to combine these tables in a way that avoids those pitfalls, I would love to hear it. I don't really like the fact that several denominations are duplicated in two separate tables.
I like the idea of including a map, and I'd be willing to put one together, but I'm not sure exactly how I would do it. In addition to the problem of denominations with dual memberships, many countries also have multiple denominations, some affiliated with the LWF, some with the ILC, some with the CELC, and some unaffiliated. I'm not sure how I'd include them all in a single map. I'm also limited by the fact that this is about the most complicated map I'd be able to create on my own.
Finally, I think your idea of adding a short section comparing the various groupings is a good one, and I will try to put together something to that effect either tonight or tomorrow. Bnng (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • As noted above, there are a lot of WP:Redlinks. This is a deal-breaker to me. For now, I think the best solution is to remove the links.
  • I'd suggest using a centered en dash (<center>–</center>) for missing information rather than "--".
  • There are a lot of empty cells. I looked at a few of the sources, and it should be possible to give at least approximate years (e.g. "c. 1984", "1982–1986", or "1980s") for many of them. I don't know about the membership numbers, but it might be possible to give approximate figures for some of them too.
  • The visual appeal would be greatly helped by some kind of image or images. A map would of course be ideal, but an image of Martin Luther would be a pretty good start.
  • There's plenty of room the expand the WP:LEAD. I'd suggest explaining more about the LWF, ILC, and CELC as a start.
  • Instead of footnotes, I'd suggest adding a column called "Notes" to improve readability. This would make the table wider, but the improved readability is more important in my opinion.
  • The "Ref" column should be "Refs", using the {{abbr}} template.
  • I noticed some discrepancies. The text says that the LWF includes 145 church bodies. I count 141 entries in the list. Likewise, the text says that the ILC includes 38 church bodies, whereas I count 39 entries. Finally, the text says that CELC includes 32 church bodies, but I count 22 entries in the list.
  • The number of members for the LWF should be mentioned in the text preceding its table (as is done for the other two, as well as in the WP:LEAD).
  • Avoid using the "This list [...]" phrasing, as it is clunky. Instead, try summarizing the contents (e.g. "There are XX affiliated and YY unaffiliated denominations, not including groups that have been merged into other groups (e.g. Hauge Synod), nor groups that have become defunct (e.g. Eielsen Synod)."
  • The word "million" should be preceded by a non-breaking space (74&nbsp;million instead of 74 million). This turns up a few times.
  • The sorting by year is broken for the entries with "c." values. I'd suggest using {{Sort}} or {{Hidden sort key}} to solve this.
  • A few of the references need to be fixed. A list (which unfortunately contains false positives as well) can be found here.

This should be possible to bring up to WP:Featured list standard (the topic is definitely suitable), but right now there's a long way to go, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Sunrisers Hyderabad cricketers

Nominator(s): Sagavaj (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this contains entire statistics of players who played for Sunrisers Hyderabad and I have created this list from scratch and would like it to become a featured list. Sagavaj (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Remove the Telugu title of the team, per WP:INDICSCRIPT.
  • I'd suggest you to place the references at the end of the sentences.
  • Alt text missing of Sangakkara's image.
  • Last three references should be properly formatted.
  • Replace Twitter with a better source.
  • Be consistent with the way you write the date and accessdates.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Howdy. I have addressed all the issues presented above. Cheers. Sagavaj (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I was asked for a review on my talk page, but I'm finding a bunch of grammar and prose issues in the lead (too many to list individually). My opinion is that the article needs a copy-edit before I'd be comfortable saying that it meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Since I was asked on my talk page for a few examples, I'll provide several here. Please don't think that these are all of the problems, but rather as examples indicating the need for copy-editing:
  • "The Sunrisers Hyderabad is a franchise cricket team...". First, the first word doesn't work grammatically and should be removed. Second, bold links are discouraged by the Manual of Style, so I suggest taking out the bolding.
  • "The team made their maiden appearance in the IPL playoffs in its first season in 2013 and had continuously reached since 2016 season." The last bit isn't well-written. Is it supposed to be "and has continuously reached the playoffs since the 2016 season."?
  • "and experienced the biggest gain in percentage in past year among the IPL franchises." This needs another "the" before "past year".
  • "Shikhar Dhawan has the most number of appearances for the SRH...". "number of" is redundant phrasing; "most appearances" is shorter and tighter writing, so I say go with that version. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "The SunRisers Hyderabad (often abbreviated as SRH) are a franchise [...] which plays" - team referred to as both singular and plural in the same sentence, which is it?
      • Rephrased
    • "The team made their [...]maiden IPL playoffs appearance in their first season in 2013 and has continuously" - same again
      • Corrected "has" to "have"
    • "last-time during the 2018 season" => "most recently during the 2018 season"
      • Changed to "most recently"
    • "according to the Duff & Phelps" => "according to Duff & Phelps"
      • Removed "the"
    • "The team has played its home matches in the 55,000-capacity Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium in Hyderabad, since its inception." - no reason for the comma before "since"
      • Removed ","
    • "to achieve an individual run total in excess of 2000 runs" - in the previous sentence there is a comma in a four-digit number but not here - be consistent
      • Changed to 2,000
    • "Warner achieved the record highest number of runs in a single match" - no need to say both "record" and "highest" as the record is obviously the highest figure by definition
      • Removed "record"
    • "players who bowled over 20 overs for the team" => "players who bowled more than 20 overs for the team"
      • Rephrased
    • "Shikhar Dhawan has played the most matches. He is also second leading run-getter for SRH." => "Shikhar Dhawan has played the most matches. He is also the leading run-getter for SRH."
      • Corrected. Changed from second leading run-getter to leading run-getter
    • "Bhuvneshwar Kumar is leading wicket-taker for SRH." => "Bhuvneshwar Kumar is the leading wicket-taker for SRH."
      • Added "the"
    • "Amit Mishra took first hat-trick for SRH." => "Amit Mishra took the first hat-trick for SRH."
      • Removed photo for poor quality purposes
    • The photo captions simply refer to the team as "SRH", whereas the text uses "the SRH" - be consistent
      • Added "the"
    • The table "is initially listed alphabetically by their last name" - this clearly isn't true, because Anand Rajan and Ankit Sharma listed under A. Listing them under A may be correct (I am not very familiar with Indian naming customs) but you shouldn't claim that the list is sorted by players' last name if some are sorted based on their first name............
      • Rearranged the table
    • "But, they had to replace Sangakkara with Cameron White as captain in the middle of ongoing IPL season owing to the former's poor form" - can't start a sentence with "but" - I suggest you join this onto the previous sentence.
      • Rephrased first sentence and joined second with the first
    • Also "in the middle of ongoing IPL season owing to the former's poor form" isn't grammatically correct and should probably just be "during the season owing to the former's poor form"
      • Rephrased
    • "They changed their captain for the fifth time in three seasons appointing David Warner for 2015 season" => "....for the 2015 season"
      • Added "the"
    • Same thing later in the sentence when referring to 2016
      • Added "the"
    • And in the following sentence when referring to 2018 :-)
      • Added "the"
    • "These statistics are correct as of 2018 Indian Premier League." => "These statistics are correct as of the 2018 Indian Premier League."
      • Rephrased
    • "The BBI was not provided for players who didn't take wickets for SRH." => "....who did not take wickets". Also, is it SRH or "the" SRH?
      • Added "the"
  • Quite a lot here, hope it helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Sagavaj (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Giants2008: : I corrected most of the mistakes pointed by you guys. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks a lot. Sagavaj (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have updated my comments and used strikethrough markup for the resolved ones. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: Resolved the rest. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs

Nominator(s): exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was originally submitted 13 years ago in 2005, and only failed due to some minor, since-fixed issues. This list has gone far beyond that and is a very comprehensive and useful index of some of the Sun's nearest neighbors in the Milky Way. Plus, with the release of Gaia DR2, it's most likely 100% complete to the scope described in the lead. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

60-second scan review: The lead has a bunch of grammar problems and is just kind of messy; it really needs to use much more plain language to explain why the definition of "within 5 parsecs" can be fuzzy. I mean, you don't link parsec, go off on arc-seconds and stellar paralax without saying what it is or what it means in this context, it's not until the 3rd paragraph that you say how many stars are in the area even though that's half the point of the list, you start off with "the following two lists which a) they're tables, not lists and b) lists haven't started out like that for over a decade, you don't need to predefine what your sections are going to be about.
Having only recently seen List of nearest exoplanets finally make it through FLC with a lot of back-and-forth on the lead: A large amount of the readership of a list about "what are the nearest stars" is going to have only a passing understanding of astromic terms. The lead needs to be written in a way that guides these readers in to the big points (how many stars/systems, why we count stars that aren't within 5 parsecs but look like their future motion takes them inside the line, etc.) and briefly explains the technical details that go into making those determinations.
As to the 1st table, 2 fast changes: drop the system/star "number" columns because it clutters things up without clearly adding anything, and make the first three columns 'system name'/'star name'/'distance', not 'distance'/'system name'/'star name'. Distance is a property of the star/system, the star is not a property of the distance. Oh, and you can't use just color to distinguish something per WP:ACCESS because color-blind/blind/sight-limited readers can't get it. For stellar type it seems to be decorative and gives the same information as the text in the cell, but the brown/blue coloring isn't. (also, it's not clear what it means even if you can see it- please use a key, like at List of nearest exoplanets. --PresN 02:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Also: please add the FLC template onto the list's talk page, or else this FLC will not close correctly when it ends. --PresN 03:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I can probably manage to fix all that by tomorrow. Stay tuned? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I've left this at the article's Talk page as well, but I object to removing the rank "#" column. I think it provides needed context. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall:@PresN: Okay, I updated it to the best of my ability/judgement based on your inputs. To add a few things, I support removing the number as it is somewhat redundant to the distance. It could give context, but I feel it is not particularly significant. Additionally, I attempted to clarify some of the definitions and explanations in the lead (please tell me how I did on that) although I feel that the distinction of a list/table and the exact phrasing of the lead is getting slightly into semantics and doesn't affect the actual quality or readability of the article in any major way. Furthermore, while the spectral types are indeed redundant and therefore don't present a significant loss for colorblind users, as someone familiar with color blindness, brown, light beige, and light blue should be distinct enough from one another as to be easily distinct from one another to even 100% color blind people. Again, please let me know if my additions and concerns are reasonable & justified or not. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd support renaming that column to something other than "#" (possibly "Rank"? Or "No."?) but I don't support removing it entirely. Also, it looks like the list has been switched to "small text" (e.g. "font-size:90%), probably in attempt to "fit it to a screen", but that should not be avoided as much as possible on WP:ACCESSIBILITY grounds – it is "allowed" in this particular case, as per WP:FONTSIZE, but in general it's not a good idea. In fact, in general, I suspect this entire table is problematic on WP:ACCESS grounds – I'm not sure there's a way to fix that, in this case... --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • In the first line you give parsecs first and then light years first. You should be consistent. This shows up when you switch back to parsecs in the second paragraph, with the result that you give two different criteria for stars close in the past, 5 light years and then 4.9. Below you say 5.1.
  • You do not define astronomically near past or future in the lead. This should be given.
  • "The second table additionally lists stars" Additionally to what? If to the first list then the word is superfluous and confusing.
  • "Determining which stars fall within the stated range relies on accurate astrometric measurements of their parallax and total proper motions" Presumably proper motion etc only applies to predictions, not to the first list.
  • "only nine exceed 6.5 apparent magnitude, meaning only about 12% of these objects can be observed with the naked eye" I assume you mean that 6.5 is the limit for normal vision, but you should clarify this.
  • "first-magnitude stars" You link to List of brightest stars which does not define first-magnitude.
  • "Gaia DR2 astrometric results" What is Gaia DR2? You also mention 13.8G, and on a quick look I do not see a definition of G in the linked article.
  • If predictions thousands of years ahead are not accurate, what is the point of giving them for 15 million years?
  • " 694 solar-like or cooler stars " What is the point of the qualification "or cooler stars". Why exclude hotter ones?
  • The last paragraph of the lead is not strictly relevant but would be interesting if it did not have so many unnecessary technical details which mean nothing to the layman.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean it as an excuse or a valid reason, but most of your issues are due to nothing but the inevitably convoluted editing and conflicting views of a large number who have written the article, which I am almost scared to touch for fear of reawakening one or both sides. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The article will not pass FLC unless you are WP:Bold and fix problems. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that other people have been involved in writing it, but this is your FLC- take a deep breath, rewrite the whole lead without worrying about what other people have done before, and then let other editors make tweaks if they want. If they fundamentally disagree with any changes, then they can be discussed/adjusted. --PresN 15:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I remember this having a short table showing THE closest star in the past and future. Can this be added back in? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Exoplanetaryscience: Are you still engaging with this nomination? --PresN 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'd gotten onto some other projects and had somewhat forgotten about this. Will see what I can do! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@PresN: sorry again about the further delay, I am currently on vacation so am unable to do anything about it, and should have realized I wouldn’t be available earlier. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Azerbaijan international footballers

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked to improve the article and believe it now meets the FL criteria. I have based the page on my recently promoted List of Wales international footballers page. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - the only thing I can see is an issue around the use of "all-time". When the words are used in a phrase like "the all-time top goalscorer" then it needs a hyphen, but in something like "the top goalscorer of all time" then it doesn't. Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I get what you mean, I've made some amendments to the page to hopefully fix the issue. Thanks for your review. Kosack (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The caption on the lead image doesn't need a hyphen.............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot that one was there. Fixed. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 10:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a former FL which was demoted because of the fact that it was highly outdated. However, that is not the case now and I believe that the list should again be promoted to FL status. Bharatiya29 10:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - "The second list includes all those players who were brought by DD but they did not play any match. They are also initially listed alphabetically by their last name" - I can't see any such table...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed Bharatiya29 13:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Fix these links.
  • Is "CricketArchive" a RS?
It is used as a source in many featured cricket lists and articles. I don't see any reason to not consider it a RS.
  • I would suggest you to delink Delhi in the opening sentence, per WP:OLINK.
 Done Bharatiya29 08:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

List of certified albums in Romania

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of work into it, and I think it meets the required criteria. The lead may seem very short and trimmed, but I can't see any solution on solving this problem (if it will be considered a 'problem' for FLC). We don't have plenty of supportive links on the internet to expand the lead, and if I would expand it by citing e.g. artists with the most certifications, this could be easily considered unnecessary or even WP:OR. As for the "N/A" here and there, I believe it's still in good limits, as some things just weren't announced and I needed to note that somehow. I would appreciate some comments. Best of regards Face-smile.svg; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mattximus

  • Featured lists no longer begin with "The following is a list of..." as this is tautological. You can also expand the lead by defining what each category means. Mattximus (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Hi there! I've reworked the lead sentence and added two lines about what each certification stands for. Hope I could solve your concerns. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

Resolved comments from Lirim | T
  • Can you maybe give a table, showing how the certification levels were lowered over the years, like here?--Lirim | T 17:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: Hi there! I've been looking forward to do something like that, but I soon realized after hours of research that no such data has ever been published online. It's clear that the certification levels have changed in time, but UPFR never made statements about when exactly they changed or to which number they were each lowered. Thus, I sadly can't do such a table on my own, as the information is missing and because it would be running at the risk to be classified as original research. Is this a major issue? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It's somewhat of an issue, but you could point out that there isn't reliable information on the certification levels.--Lirim | T 21:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: I added a note on the subject matter; I hope that was what you were meaning. Btw, I saw you're German (Ich bin nicht deutsch, lebe aber in Deutschland :)) Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: The list seems complete, I checked some sources with google translate and they looked alright. The lead is good, not to many pictures, the table looks alright too. No problems, good list.--Lirim | T 21:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)
  • There's a few points in the lead which do not read quite right to a native English speaker. I have re-written it below and suggest you use this:
Since the early 1990s, over 70 albums have been certified in Romania in accordance with the certification levels set up by the Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (UPFR).[2][3][A] These have been repeatedly lowered due to decreasing album sales in Romania primarily resulting from heavy music piracy; this led to fewer certifications being handed out from the late 2000s onwards compared to previous years.[4][5] To date, Cleopatra Stratan's La vârsta de trei ani (2006) is Romania's highest-certified record with a triple diamond award for 150,000 units sold.[1][3] Andra and Sandel Mihai were also awarded a diamond certification for selling 60,000 copies of their 2007 album De la frate la soră.[6] Over the years, further certifications have been handed out: gold (ranging from 2,000 to 100,000 units sold), double gold, platinum (ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 units sold), double platinum (100,000 copies), triple platinum and quadruple platinum. More to come when I have a bit more time......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed! Thanks for the suggestion and waiting for more... Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The only other thing I can notice at the moment is in the photo captions. in the top two, it should be "Holograf (lead singer Dan Bittman pictured)" rather than "Holograf (pictured lead singer Dan Bittman)". And in the Ellie Goulding caption you don't need to put "(pictured)" at all because there's nobody else in the picture so it's obvious that it's her........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed this as well! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I missed one unnecessary "(pictured)" so just removed that myself. All other concerns addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Comments from A Thousand Doors

  • Support This article has improved significantly over the last few weeks, and I now feel that it is worthy of the bronze star. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal

  • There is no reason to have so many N/A in the table. Took me 3 minutes to fill in like 5 of them. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your edits! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

  • "When considering an album's certification level, the UPFR considers both its unit sales and its sales price." – I would like the WP:LEAD to note whether this is typical or atypical for album certifications (compared to other organizations).
  • "Romania's highest-certified record is La vârsta de trei ani by the Moldovan singer Cleopatra Stratan, which was awarded a triple diamond certification" – an explicit ranking of the different certifications should be provided. I recognize that there is an implicit (and incomplete) one two sentences down, but I'm looking for an explicit and exhaustive one.
  • The plural of "crisis" is "crises".
  • I'm not a big fan of the WP:Redlinks, but since there are links to the Romanian Wikipedia I guess it's okay.
  • I don't think the list can be considered comprehensive per WP:FLCR 3(a) with this many cells empty. A thorough attempt to add the currently missing information should be undertaken before this is promoted to WP:Featured list status.

TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Coahuila

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This list is modeled cloesly after two successful Mexican municipality nominations Colima and Aguascalientes, keeping similar format and sourcing. I believe it meets featured list requirements but I am very open to any suggestions for improvement. This list is part of a greater goal of creating a featured quality list for all municipalities, adding to my previous 18 promoted lists of municipalities of North America all using standardized formatting, making them look more consistent and encyclopedic. Thanks for helping me on this project. Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • On the surface this works for me since I'm more familiar with first past the post terminology as well, however the source uses "plurality" and there are technically a few kinds of plurality that are not first past the post, and I'm not 100% certain that it is first past the post in local Mexican elections.
  • It is not an issue for this article but it is curious that the Mexican lists are in Category:Lists of municipalities, but not the US and Canadian ones.
  • They appear to just use topic boxes instead (which I actually prefer), whereas this one uses both (I personally find the category link at the bottom to be a bit redundant and ugly compared to topic boxes). I kept it since I had no good reason to remove some other user's work.
  • I find both useful and always use them. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll keep both for all of these lists of Mexican Municipalities. Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The dagger for state capital should be on the municipal seat, not the municipality.
  • It's the whole municipality that is the "state capital", the seat is the site of government for that municipality, which likely but not necessarily overlap.
  • For consistency, you should give the date of the name change of Guerrero, as you do with the other ones. Done
  • In note 4, you only give the second half of the book title.
  • Interesting find! I did some digging and it looks like google books has the title wrong, here is the official title: [4]
  • Thanks for your review! If any of my replies are not satisfactory, I'm happy to revisit and make appropriate changes. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • Google results suggest that "Northeast Mexico" is not consistently capitalized like that and should therefore be rendered "northeast Mexico" per MOS:COMPASS.
    I'm happy to make this change, but I'm basing it on the Spanish proper name for the region, which according to MOS:COMPASS, means it should be capitalized. I really don't care either way, however here is my source: [5]
    I think you meant to link [6], but no matter. I'm persuaded. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A recurring issue is that of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. The land area is almost certainly not known to 1/1000 square kilometer precision, even if the source gives a figure with that many decimals. Even if it were, it would be very overkill to have that precision here. I suggest rounding to integer values for the area. The population is trickier, but again the figures given by the source are almost certainly overprecise. I don't quite know how to solve this in the table since the figures are used for calculations (perhaps write something in the header cell about the source being the official count?), but in the text I would simply write "The largest municipality by population is the state capital Saltillo, with over 800 thousand residents, while the smallest is Abasolo with one thousand residents."
  • You brought up a very interesting problem with rounding areas! The land area *is* known to that precision according to INEGI, but the problem with rounding high precision area numbers is that you can't simply go up to 1 when it's 0.5-0.999, because areas actually *decrease* when resolution is lowered. This is counter intuitive, but consider a circle that is perfect. Ok that's 1. Now consider a circle with many little protrusions, it's now greater than 1, say 1.005. When you round you are returning it to the circle, which is 1, but actually mathematically rounding would bring it up to 1.01! Unfortunately, this would now fall under original research if we report a number different than whatever the statistics bureau reports.
  • I stand by my original point. Per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. I don't see that as being the case here. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • However the act of rounding areas is actually generating *new* information, essentially made up by me, which is against WP:OR. It's not like rounding the population, which would not generate new information, just lose precision (and follows MOS:UNCERTAINTY)). For example 815 people could be rounded to 820 no problem, the 0 is your unknown. Do you want me to round area of 865 to 870? 860? The truth would probably be closer to 860, but the math brings it to 870. So I would arbitrarily have to pick one of those two numbers. Would you recommend I just always round down? Like 879 to 870? That would actually be more accurate, but again, OR. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would simply use the parameter in the conversion template which determines the number of decimals and set it to 0. I don't find the argument that conventional rounding would constitute WP:OR particularly persuasive. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is actually a wiki page describing this problem! Maybe it does a better job of explaining why this is OR than I did. It is found here Coastline paradox although it's focused just on coastline (2D) the same principal applies to area (3D).
  • I am familiar with the coastline paradox, but that applies to the spatial resolution of the measurement (i.e. the method used), whereas this is a question of the precision of the final figure. An analogy using basic arithmetic would be rounding figures before adding them up (which would constitute WP:OR) vs. rounding the final sum (which would not). TompaDompa (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Guerrero was originally incorporated as Rio Grande, changing its name March 18, 1834" – missing "on" before the date. Done
  • "On August 7, 1827, the name of the town was changed from San Fernando to Villa de Rosas, and then to Rosas in October 4, 1857, and finally to Zaragoza on February 27, 1868." – "in" should be "on". Done
  • I'm not a big fan of the gallery. I don't suppose the images could be placed on the side as the middle one is very wide, but I would at least move the gallery to below the table rather than above it. I would then also move the last paragraph of the lead to the "Municipalities" section as sort of an intro to the table.
    As for the gallery, I agree with you that it's nicer when it's down the side (which is how I originally had them), however after many of these reviews, the gallery is placed where it is due to accessibility issues brought up involving small screens/low resolution.
    Is WP:ACCESIBILITY affected by moving it below the table? If it is I guess the table will have to stay where it is, but I don't see why that would be the case. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It is possible to place at the bottom, but I'm just following the format of all of these other pages. It would be weird if this is the only page out of 114 list of municipalities in North America to have it at the bottom. But you are right it would still follow WP:ACCESIBILITY but just be really strange compared to all the others. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

TompaDompa (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent review TompaDompa! I've done the easy ones, but asked your opinion on the more controversial changes. The capitalization I really don't care about so if you have strong views after seeing the Spanish reasoning I'll just change it. The area though is trickier as I mention above. Mattximus (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi TRM, with no activity from Ikhtiar H since the nomination was posted, I have addressed all these issues. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: ^^ --PresN 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


  • "to take a five-wicket haul at the ground during an One Day International match". Since you gave the abbreviated version earlier, the shorthand ODI can be used here.
  • The shorthand WODI is used in the photo caption. As it isn't explained in the lead, I suggest adding the abbreviation to the lead or writing this one out in full in the caption. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Giants2008, with no activity from Ikhtiar H since the nomination was posted, I have addressed the above comments. Sagavaj (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Support – Everything looks good after the fixes. Thanks for stepping in on behalf of the nominator. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I made one tiny grammatical tweak myself, but that was all I found -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • I'm guessing "The other was Bangladesh's lost to India [...]" is supposed to read "The other was Bangladesh's loss to India [...]".
  • "The current Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan" – whether he's the current captain seems less relevant than whether he was the captain at the time, so I'd rephrase it without "current" (which also has the added benefit of not getting dated).
  • It would seem more natural to me to write which country won in the "Result" column (e.g. "Bangladesh won") rather than the result for the team for which the five-wicket haul was taken. I notice that the other WP:Featured lists for five-wicket hauls at specific locations do it the former way (for player-specific lists, the latter would seem more natural, however).
  • The image quality for the photograph of Shakib Al Hasan is not great. It should be possible to find a better image.

I'm afraid I can't judge anything that requires an understanding of cricket itself, but I will say that the linking of esoteric terms/jargon to articles that explain what it all means is exemplary. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC); --Cheetah (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

  • The title should be List of FIFA World Cup top goalscorers like List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers and most other lists
    • I personally dislike having "List of X" if just "X" works fine. I prefer tighter titles. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd think most lists could work with "X", but we really ought to go with consistency and WP:LISTNAME; I'd guess most the plural form sounds odd to most since so few articles do it that way.
        • I personally prefer without "List of" simply because it works well without it. If other reviewers think otherwise I'd be fine with moving it. Nergaal (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Why does the table in the lead say >50, ≈100, etc? Shouldn't be too difficult to have an exact number.
    • There are exact numbers, but some sources imply there are say 55 footballers, other say 54. Since under 5 goals FIFA does not seem to have a good official record, it's not very clear which source is accurate. For that, and since those numbers tend to change quite a bit every world cup, I thought it's an overly detailed number to give versus how reliable it is. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fine then, though is List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers validate one of those sources, at least for the 4 goals?
There is a single ref that seem to give the exact number for 4 and I think it's precise enough to be reliable. Initially the number for 4 was precise, but just for the sake of consistency with the other sub-5 (not listed in this table) I removed it. I'll plug it back in. Nergaal (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "In total, 60 footballers came from UEFA (Europe), 26 from CONMEBOL (South America), and only 4 players came from elsewhere:" is not parallel.
Good catch
The second "came" should be removed to be fully parallel since it was left out in the second part.
Changed. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "more goals at all the games played at the World Cup as Stábile" -> "thank Stabile"
  • "in 1970, and broke" no comma necessary.
  • "and 1970, and Jürgen", same, unless you put a comma before "with"
  • "A total of" is extraneous.
Agree, but I dislike starting sentences with numbers, seems weird to me. Any idea how not to start with a number and not use extraneous words? Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it sounds perfectly fine just to spell the number out but you could do "Across the 20 tournaments, 29 different footballers..." Note 6 also uses it midsentence, especially unnecessary with "overall" right afterward. Note 7 says "Seven different players", but I don't think seven of the same players is possible. Reywas92Talk 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Switched it. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Except for 2010, all the top goalscorers won the Golden Boot." 2010 is a year, not a goalscorer. Reywas92Talk 18:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Changed it. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Reywas92: Thanks for all the feedback. I fixed most of them and left some replies to the others; let me know what you think. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Article is getting updated significantly with the 64 matches occurring right now. I was hoping to have this done before, but since it didn't get much feedback, maybe suspend it? Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This list is great.--Lirim | T 22:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - according to the description on the image file, the picture alleged to be of Stabile is not in fact him at all - can you clarify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed that picture altogether now. It did look a bit too high res to me when I put it, so it being a reenactment makes sense. Nergaal (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


  • "More than 2,500" instead of "Over 2,500".
  • " over 1,200 footballers have " same again.
  • "only 97 of which scored at least five goals" -> "of which just 97 have scored at least five."
  • Is the article title correct? This is about goals scored in the World Cup finals right, not about goals scored in World Cup qualifiers?
Why wouldn't it be? WC finals/tournament is almost always shortened to WC, while for qualifications you always spell out the qualifications part. Nergaal (talk)
  • "in 1954", "in 1970" etc, should be linked to the tournaments, and rephrased thus: "in the 1954 tournament" and/or "in the 1970 finals" or similar.
  • "at the 1974 final" there's an article for this.
  • " single World Cup game" is piped to a redirect.
  • "The top 90 goalscorers" why top 90?
That was the number before 2018. Updated it. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Lots of unnecessary repetition, e.g. "goalscorers .. scoring", "goals scored ... with 13 goals".
I tried to trim a bit of those usages. I hope the remaining sentences still make sense. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Bold shouldn't be used as a distinguishing feature as some screen readers don't acknowledge it. Use symbols etc.
  • "Players with at least 5 goals at the FIFA World Cup tournaments[6] [7]" no space between refs.
  • "Number of goalscorers[4][5][3]" refs in numerical order.
  • You link some "international goals" articles or sections of bios, but not all (e.g. Rudi Voller), why?
Added for those that have an actual table of WC goals. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is "goals per game" recognised in reliable sources to be significant in World Cup finals goalscorers?
FIFA has "PLAYERS WITH THE BEST AVERAGE OF GOALS PER MATCH" Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Leônidas is piped to a redirect back to itself.
  • "1974 – Second round" is piped to a redirect.
I don't understand this. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Australia play "soccer" not "football" in their pipe.
  • Tables need row and col scopes for ACCESS.
  • "Players marked with ↑ are still playing for their national teams in the 2018 tournament." is this relevant?
Updated. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "(he scored one additional goal in 1934" 1934 is an easter egg link, should be "in the 1934 tournament".
  • "but are now credited" but is now.
  • " as 7 players scored" -> seven.
  • Where does, for example this show me that Mandzukic scored five goals in eight games? It seems that FIFA haven't updated for 2018 so anyone listed in your table with a 2018 tournament appearance/goal is currently inadequately referenced.
Yes, people have updated the 2018 numbers (i.e. there are 97 players now with 5+ goals from 90 before). It is unclear to me how to reference the most recent tournament and keep things standardized before FIFA does their updates. The current numbers should be correct, and I tagged the player entries with 2018 numbers. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
All 2018 players have the issue of not having "matches played" number updated in the FIFA database. I can't think of an elegant solution to deal with this other than tag along all 2018 players with ↑ and manually add some refs that will eventually become redundant once FIFA decides to update their numbers; or leave the tag and say those numbers are updated after 2018 but links might not. Any ideas? Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If ref 119 was published in 2008, it can't verify 2010, 2014 and 2018.
I think I fixed this. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 119 also seems to not reference all the alternative FIFA awards, e.g. where does it confirm that Flórián Albert was Best Young Player?
Added. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's enough for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed most comments. Will come back later to wrap up the last couple ones. Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I think I took care of all the comments. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nergaal has indicated that they have retired from the project, so unless this nomination is adopted within the next few days, I'll archive it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note, Nergaal has now been indef blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. List loooks great. TompaDompa (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of public art in the City of Westminster

Notified: WikiProject Public Art/London

This list has now been split up into 20 sub-lists, as it had exceeded the limit for the number of templates transcluded. Ham II (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delist: I support User:Ham II and their work, and appreciate having the sublists. ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist I preferred them all together, but as of now this is more of a procedural delist. Mattximus (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

List of United States graduate business school rankings

Notified: TonyTheTiger, WikiProject Business

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails multiple FL criteria points. The lead is too short and not engaging at all. Comprehensiveness is in question because there are rankings from 2011 and we are in 2018. Also there are schools listed here with no rankings next to them. A picture or two would be a nice addition. Cheetah (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Delist Tags for 7 and 5 years and out of date. The abbrevations in the table header should either reference a formal legend or use the {{Abbr}} template. The ranking techniques section is too long. Prose could really use a copyedit to tighten up and streamline some paragraphs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Delist also the table sort is broken, and could be better designed in general. Text needs to be rewritten in some parts "The ranking of business schools has been discussed in articles".... Mattximus (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)

Notified: Sceptre, Doctor Who WikiProject, Television WikiProject

This probably falls into the category of a procedural nomination. Some time ago the Doctor Who serials list was split in two, and both articles currently have the FL star. I brought this up on FLC talk a while back. That discussion produced a general consensus that only the list with the 1963–1989 serials should remain an FL (pending a recommended review), and that this list should have its star removed since it is more likely to have unreferenced additions and other issues than the one with the older serials. However, WP:FL only includes this list, not the 1963–1989 one, which is the opposite of what the FLC talk page discussion recommended. My opinion is that this list doesn't meet the criteria anywway, as the lead doesn't appear to have much to do with the modern series, among other issues. I'll create a nomination for the community to review, but I recommend a speedy delist here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Delist As the splitter of the article to the 1963–1989 and 2005–present articles, I support the removal of the FL status. When the article was a FL, it was a completely separate list of episodes from the season articles anyways, not transcluded from those articles. I believe that it could be renominated, but as for now, it doesn't conform to the guidelines. -- AlexTW 03:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree with assessment above, also contains outdated language such as "The following table..." etc. Mattximus (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - hate to sound dumb, but if it can be fixed and then renominated, why not fix now? then you don't have to delist it in the first place. This is what bothers me about wiki. People see something wrong with an article, and the first thought is "let's do some 'procedural nomination'" rather than "let's fix it" 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:559E:E7AC:647D:719C (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The procedural delist nomination isn't about not wanting to do work on an article that needs work; if you read the linked discussion it's that when the original list was promoted it included almost none of the seasons that are in this list, so when it got split into 2 it was decided that the star stayed only with the pre-2005 list, while this one would need a new FLC. --PresN 15:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional - There I've made a start by removing two paragraphs from the intro that only cover the 63-89 article. ore info could be trimmed of course, but I've leave discussion of exactly how much to re-explain to the article talk page. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:559E:E7AC:647D:719C (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional 2 - and guess what, someone reverted it. Another of my wiki gripes - an IP tries to help out, and it's assumed to be vandalism. Oh well, go through your "procedural nomination" then, rather than actually trying to improve wikipedia. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:559E:E7AC:647D:719C (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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