Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Contents

Nominations

List of municipalities in Rhode Island

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am continuing my attempt at standardising all list of municipalities. Specifically, and with the help of many others, my goal is to have high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 14th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities of Rhode Island.

I have modeled this list off of other recently promoted lists such as Montana and Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Shruti Haasan filmography

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This was never planned. It started off as a small pet project kind-of work intended as a constructive birthday present to User:Ssven2 and remains to be one. But, after finding it potential enough, i am nominating the filmography of this actress for FL status. All constructive comments welcome. Pavanjandhyala 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash
  • She appears only in Telugu, Hindi and Tamil films, so I think "predominantly" is not required. I also suggest you sort the languages in the first sentence in this same order, based on how many films she has acted in each language.
Removed the word.
  • Although Tamilians don't typically use surnames, I think Shruti uses "Haasan" as such, since it is not a patronymic (just like Rangan is not Baradwaj's surname, but he still uses it as such). But please consult someone before making the change.
Forgot this; i referred to her as Haasan in Srimanthudu too!
  • In Hey Ram, she plays Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's daughter. But I am not sure if the character is Maniben Patel, or if she was named at all since I haven't seen the film. Do please ask someone on what value to fill in the "Role" column.
Not really sure that she has had a notable appearance in the film. The source mentions her as Vallabhbhai Patel's daughter, though.
  • Perhaps you could wikilink South Indian cinema since non-Indians may not be aware that Tamil and Telugu cinema are a part of it.
Done.
  • This ref is missing the publisher/work field.
Good catch. Fixed.
Couldn't do that due to poor internet facilities. Updated it properly now.
  • Please see that the refs in the table show her characters' names.
Crosschecked them. Except for Hey Ram, at the moment, all set.
  • Sabaash Naidu is titled Shabhash Kundu in Hindi, so you may have to split the cell (see Oopiri/Thozha in Tamannaah filmography). Also, do please see if the trilingual is still set for release in 2017 since I've been hearing rumours about it's delay.
Thanks for the info; i was unaware of that. Well, the sources say 2017 and we can wait.
  • You could put {{TBA}} in the cells for those roles that... I guess I don't have to say this.
Got it. Done.

Overall, I'd say this is damn impressive of you to expand the article in just a few days and already make it FLC worthy. Once my comments are addressed, this FLC will have my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: All addressed. Look forward for your response and further additional comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala 13:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my comments. Before I can give this my support, I must ask are you okay with the fact that Ssven has centered all her character names? Because I'm not. But if that is not prohibited in FLs, I'm not gonna oppose it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Removed them. Pavanjandhyala 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The reason for centering all the names was that in her future films, where her roles are not yet known hence "TBA"", they were all centered, which seemed a bit off, but that's just me. So I figured why not center the roles for her previous films? Hence I centered them. I apologise if I had done anything that I shouldn't have.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
No apology is required. :) But do remember that the TBA is a template-text and we cannot base the remaining contents on its structure because the TBA shall not last long. Pavanjandhyala 10:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Support: Impressive work Pavan. Hope this passes FL within this month. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I too hope so. Pavanjandhyala 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I do not believe that the character names in the table should be centered. It looks odd as it is the part of the table that is centered, and I have not seen a table for a FL for an actor's filmography set up in this way before. It should be an easy fix.
Removed them.
  • I would suggest altering the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph to make it flow better with the rest of the paragraph. I have never heard of this person or seen her films before so right now, the sentence appears like a random fact thrown into the beginning of the paragraph without any context of its importance or relevance. It seems from the chart that this is her first film credit, but I would make the context clearer for an uninformed reader like myself.
I hope that the new additions would serve the purpose.
  • In the sentence about the film Luck, please specify who she played as a part of the dual role. The sentence appears incomplete by just saying she played a dual role and ending the sentence there.
As per the source, she played a woman who wants to avenge her twin sister's death. I've mentioned the same.
  • The word "fetched" seems a little too informal and I would suggest revising it with a stronger word.
Opted for earned here. Hope that should be fine.
  • Something about the phrasing "failed at the box office" also seems a little too informal to me. I would say instead "were commercially unsuccessful" or something along those lines.
Rephrased as suggested.
  • I am not a fan of the construction "managed to x" and I would suggest removing it completely in the two instance you use and just say "achieved" and "gain" to be more direct and less editorial.
Rephrased as suggested.
  • The lead seems to be completely focused on the commercial success of the films and the actor's awards and nominations. You only mention the actual performance through the brief reference to a "dual role" in the first paragraph. Would it be possible to include more information about some of the characters she played?
I made it for Premam. For the rest, i didn't find any proper description of those roles (some of those are too harebrained).
  • @Pavanjandhyala: Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for the participation. Looking forward for further constructive comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala 03:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Pavanjandhyala 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I couldn't find any issues with the sources, and seeing that comments have already been left here I wouldn't have anything else to add. JAGUAR  14:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jaguar. Pavanjandhyala 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. :) Pavanjandhyala 05:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Good enough to be an FL. Congrats on your good work, Pavan.Krish | Talk 14:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Krish. Pavanjandhyala 14:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Source review

I am not too familiar with this project but all citations have consistent dates and archives. I think one reference needs a link (riff) but everything else is reliable. I will give it a support. By,I would appreciate if you could give me a hand with the prose review in my FAC, D.Gray-man.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Checked all the references now. Thank you so much for the review. And, i am sorry; i can't help you as i am really weak at prose. Pavanjandhyala 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 49–72)

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This list is about the second part of Part II of the manga Naruto. I ask the coordinator if I could have this up, and they approved after it has been two weeks since my first nomination. I hope this can get it's support. MCMLXXXIX 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

All references are archived. However, the first citation needs a link to Masashi Kishimoto and a "trans_title" for non-Japanese speakers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Done MCMLXXXIX 14:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Then article passes it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I would suggesting an image to lead as done in the FL for List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 28–48). Maybe the cover of volume 49 would be suitable? This is more up to your personal preference so feel free to tell me if you prefer not to have an image at the top.
  • @1989: Everything else looks great. I will support it once my comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Wonderful job with this list! If possible, could you also provide some feedback for my FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Eddie891 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great, can't find anything major wrong with it that sticks out. Could you if you have time have a look at my FAC? - AffeL (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment lots of rapid supports, I'll do a review of this in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Inna

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

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

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

List of Celtic F.C. players

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

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

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors

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

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

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

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cambridgeshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest of my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as other FL lists of SSSIs such as Buckinghamshire and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Passing comment: All Latin species names should be italicized. Example: Juncus inflexus should be Juncus inflexus. Mattximus (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Done thanks. 09:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

58th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1986 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya 2wei

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this list is about the second season of the anime series Prisma Illya. The season itself is based on the first half of Prisma Illya 2wei, the second series of the Prisma Illya manga. It includes information about its announcement, production, airing, theme songs, home video releases and a few reviews. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because IMO, it's suitable to be one. I have made major tweaks to it so that could be the case. If you notice something wrong, please bring it to my attention. Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • References 26, 29, 12, 24, 18, 25, 17, 30, 19, 20, 22, 15, 5, 23, 21, 14, 42, 43, 13, 46, 60, 62, and 64 are dead and either need to be archived or replaced with new links.
  • The image at the top needs an ALT description.
  • Is this sentence really necessary (Viz had stated the English dub would be released sometime in the near future.) as the release date for the English dub is stated in the next sentence?
  • You use the phrase “made and broadcast” twice in close proximity; I would suggest having some more variety for this.

@1989: Great job with this list. I will support this after my comments are addressed. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done MCMLXXXIX 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FAC? Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Quick question, did you just give the source review? MCMLXXXIX 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @1989: Unfortunately, I do not think that I am experienced enough to do a source review. I also think it would be better to get a new perspective and have a separate user not already involved in the review do it instead. I can say that the Bibliography needs to be revised to remove the error message pertaining to the "|duplicate_archiveurl=" and the "|duplicate_archivedate=". Also, make sure not to SHOUT in your reference titles (putting reference names in ALL CAPS) as done in References 1, 2, 5, and 6. I apologize for not being more help on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done That duplicate thing, I don't know what happened there. I noticed bot edits were made after my changes for some reason. Thanks for your feedback. MCMLXXXIX 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Anytime! The same thing has happened to me several times in the past so I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2

Some parts appear to be referenced like "Episodes 1 through 53 were broadcast in 4:3 standard definition fullscreen, while episodes 54 onward were aired in 16:9 widescreen." and some tables that mention the DVDs like the ones from UK. I'm pretty sure "amazon.co.uk" could be used.Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • By the way, one comment. The list lacks a small premise that could be used in the lead like "It follows the ninja teenager Naruto Uzumaki and his allies in their fights against the criminal organization Akatsuki who wish to obtain nine creatures known as the "Tailed Beasts ".Tintor2 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done MCMLXXXIX 01:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Source review by ProtoDrake
  • Maybe not necessary, but an FA requires all links to be archived, so I think it would be wise to archive them. It will take some time, so it's not urgent to this review.
  • All the XtraVision links are registering as dead on Checklinks.
  • The Amazon links all redirect. They need updating.
  • Refs 3, 9, 10 and 13 lack publishers. Several other links also lack links for publisher/work that have articles on Wikipedia.

That's what I can find and see immediately. I'll do a more thorough look through at a later date once the major issues are dealt with. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

After looking through and rechecking with Checklinks, I think that (provided the archiving does happen eventually) I'll Pass this on the source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments by AffeL

Support. Everything looks good, I can't seem to find any problems with this article other than to archive all the sources. - AffeL (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @AffeL: Thanks! I also have an FAC request open. Could you review it when you get a chance? MCMLXXXIX 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I've come a bit late, but I don't see any problems with this so it should be good to go. JAGUAR  14:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: is there a reason why the sources for the English air dates end on November 5, 2011? Eddie891 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Eddie891: That was the last episode that aired on Disney XD. MCMLXXXIX 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OK then, Support Eddie891 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: The list looks good. I used to watch Naruto a lot, but lost track of it along the way during the initial stages of Naruto Shippuden.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment loads of quick supports, I'll do a review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Eve episodes

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The following is a list of episodes for Eve, an American television sitcom that revolves around two sets of male and female friends attempting to navigate relationships with the opposite sex. I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this list. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989
  • The lead looks good. I have no comments for that.
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see only a few episodes that claim the viewership. If you can't find the ones that are missing, that's fine.
  • Unfortunately, I cannot find the ratings for the other episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The summaries of the episodes are pretty short. Maybe expand them?
  • I have attempted to expand some of the summaries, but unfortunately, I could not do that much as I have never actually watched a single episode of this show. I mostly relied on the episode summaries that were already in the list before I expanded it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

MCMLXXXIX 23:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @1989: I have responded to your comments. Thank you for your input! I greatly appreciate it, and look forward to hearing back from you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support @Aoba47: Fair enough. Good work. When you have the chance, could you review my FLC? MCMLXXXIX 00:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @1989: Thank you for your support and I will provide comments for your FLC by the end of tomorrow if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:Tintor2

The article looks in really good shape but I wonder why there is no information about the home media release of the series. Is it not applied in this project's guidelines? Anyways, that's the only issue I found besides adding references to every season's introduction. Wikipedia's summaries are written as neutral as possible so I don't why you need help from another source. Ping when you reply me.Tintor2 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your comments! I have included information about the home media release of the series in the last sentence of the lead. It was never released on DVD or Blu-ray (most likely due to either lack of demand, the amount of copyrighted music, or a combination of both) and it only received a digital release through iTunes and Amazon.com. This information cannot really be represented in a table as done with physical home media releases, and I am not sure if it would be worth it to create a separate section that would only be repeating a sentence already found in the lead (the iTunes and Amazon releases are just the episodes and do not include any special features or anything else noteworthy). I have removed the references from the summaries per your comment. I need to read through Wikipedia's policies on summaries in the near future. Thank you again and I apologize for the long response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll support it. Good work Tintor2 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tintor2: Hello again! I apologize for the random message/ping, but I was wondering if you could do a source review for this. It should be relatively straight-forward, but I understand if you do not have the time. I am just curious as this has been sitting here for a little bit of time and I would like to get some forward progress done on it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Source review.

All sources appear to be reliable and are archived in case we lose the original. I'll support but doesn't the final one lack a wikilink for "TV Art". Then again I'm not too familar with the project. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from User:AffeL

Support. The article looks great. I can't seem to find any problems with it. - AffeL (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @AffeL: Thank you for your response and I look forward to working with you further in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera

  • On Reference #1, fix the publication link so it is no longer a redirect. Other than that I support this candidate. Carbrera (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
  • @Carbrera: Thank you for your comment. I have corrected the publication link. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Just providing a note to the FLC coordinators that I think this is ready for promotion as it has a source review and comments. Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do a review of the list in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; I apologize for the inconvenience and pinging you >< Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
No apology necessary. I'll get to reviewing this as soon as I can, hopefully within the next 24 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Here is a comprehensive rundown of all of his work in film and television. As always look forward to all the constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I have made some minors edits (addition of some commas) with these edits. Feel free to revert them if you disagree with them.
  • Reference 12 is dead and either needs to be archived or replaced with a different source.
  • The image in the "Television" subsection needs an ALT description. I am also not certain if that image is entirely necessary. The placement of the image has some interference with the gallery (it is cutting through the section) and it doesn't add much to the list as the image at the topic gives the reader an understanding of what Hitchcock looks like and this second image is a little repetitive.
  • Is the "Gallery" section really necessary? I haven't seen a section like that for other filmographies and I would suggest removing it according to WP:IG as I find it a little shoehorned into the list.

@Cowlibob: Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Please ping me when you are finished with my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Support: Since the nominator has appeared to have addressed all of my comments, I will support this nomination. Great work with this! Good luck with this list. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Ssven2
  • "In 1935 Hitchcock directed spy thriller The 39 Steps" — Shouldn't it be "In 1935 Hitchcock directed the spy thriller The 39 Steps"?
  • You can mention a little bit about how he went around the production code in Notorious (Grant's kissing scene with Bergman).
  • "The show made him a household name" — Wasn't he famous before that?
@Cowlibob: That's about it from me. Good work on the filmography of my most favourite director.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Thanks for having a look. I think I've fixed the above. He's one of my favourites as well, you could probably make a pretty strong top five Hollywood films of all time just from ones he's directed.Cowlibob (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: I support this nomination. Good luck with your FLC. As for top five Hitchcock films, here it is: Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Notorious and Strangers on a Train. You can even include Rebecca, Dial M for Murder, The Lady Vanishes, North by Northwest and Suspicion too.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
  • Is Hitchcock's birth and death date really necessary here? I don't know, just asking.
  • Dubbed the "Master of Suspense" - by whom? Or you could write something like Popularly known as the "Master of Suspense".
  • I believe genres don't have to be linked unless they are uncommon terms.
  • He collaborated with Grace Kelly on three films - we typically don't begin paragraphs with pronouns.
  • In 1960 he directed Psycho the biggest commercial success of his career - there has to be a comma after Psycho.
  • In the table I don't think we have to mention if a film was a remake of another. This applies to The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956).
  • "Murder!" redirects to "Murder! (1930 film)". Was it deliberately linked like that in case the article were to be moved to not include (1930 film) in its title?
  • In the ref column, the refs must be arranged vertically, not horizontally. They make the table look cleaner that way.
  • After running Checklinks, I saw that all links were working, while two are classified as "Uncategorized redirects". You may archive references to avoid WP:LINKROT. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Thanks for the review. I have sorted the above comments I think. I mention birth and death dates for articles on deceased people as I think it's standard practice for such article. It probably helps to tell the time period they worked in. eg. Laurence Olivier on stage and screen, John Gielgud, roles and awards, and Gene Kelly filmography. Cowlibob (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess I need not say anymore; this has my Support, and I hope it passes FLC. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Jimknut

Introduction

  • Only the years of Hitch's birth and death are needed. Save the months and days for the main article on him.
  • The word "thriller" appears 11 times. Isn't this a little bit of "overkill"?

Filmography

  • It could be noted that The Blackguard's German title, Die Prinzessin und der Geiger translates into English as "The Princess and the Violinist".
  • It could be noted that The Pleasure Garden's German title, Irrgarten der Leidenschaft translates into English as "Maze of Passion".
  • The numerous statements of "uncredited cameo appearance" are extremely monotonous. They are also unnecessary as Hitchcock's cameo appearances are already documented on another page.
  • How about adding some more interesting notes? Examples: Rebecca won the Academy Award for Best Picture, Hitch was nominated for Best director, Spellbound has a brief color sequence, Dial M For Murder is in 3-D, and (if applicable) what films were filmed in color and widescreen (named the process, such as Technicolor, CinemaScope, etc.)?

Television section

  • As Hitchcock's television work was all in the United States, the column marked "Channel" should be changed to "Network".
  • The second listed show, The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, redirects to List of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour episodes.
  • The series Startime is incorrectly listed as Ford Startime.
  • It could be noted that the episode of Startime that Hitch directed, " "Incident at a Corner", was his only work for TV that was in color. Jimknut (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Dhanush filmography

Nominator(s): Kailash29792, Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While the ROW sees Dhanush merely as a Kolaveri boy, he's more than just a singer in the Tamil Film Industry. I've modeled this list based on the existing ones and believe it meets the criteria. Look forward to comments and suggestions Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Include an ALT description for the image.
Done Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "debutant director"? It makes me think of debutante, but I do not think you mean that so I am not sure what this word "debutant" means.
Debutant is masculine, while debutante is feminine. Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I still find that to be an extremely odd word choice as I have never ran across that word at all before, but I guess it is fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Be careful about using the following phrase and its variations too much (commercially successful) as it can make this appear too much like a list rather than a cohesive narrative. I would add some variation and be mindful of this.
Fixed, hopefully. Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You use the following transition (The same year) twice in close proximity in the third paragraph of the lead so I would change one of them for variety.
Rephrased Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • While it is interesting, is the information about "Why This Kolaveri Di" necessary for a list about his film career? It would seem more appropriate for the article about him or a list directly about his music, but is it appropriate for this list?
You make a good point, but the song was an integral part of the film in which he starred. So I don't think it's out of place. Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If you feel that it is important, then it is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry:@Kailash29792: Great work with the list. Overall, everything looks to be in shape. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Vensatry:@Kailash29792: Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

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

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

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

List of NASCAR race wins by Jeff Gordon

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

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

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

Suriya filmography

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Suriya is currently one of Tamil cinema's most versatile and successful actors with a large fanbase (who vandalise the majority of his articles). Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The addition of the fact that he appeared with Vijayakanth in the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph is a little odd to me. What makes this stand out from his other co-stars in the other two films being listed? Why is this important for a reader to know? As someone who has no idea who either of these two people are, the importance of this mention is not made clear to me. If you feel that it is absolutely necessary to keep this fact in the list, then I would move it outside the parenthesis for the year and find a way to fit it into the sentence more seamlessly.
  • The phrase "Bala's second collaboration" is a little off as it literally means the director's collaboration with something that is not entirely made clear. Instead, I would say something along the lines of "Suriya's second collaboration with Bala" or "Bala's second collaboration with Suriya".
  • I am not sure about the (in which he played twins) construction. If you want to include this information, then I would recommend putting this information a little more seamlessly into the sentence.
  • The "In this" transition in the lead's final sentence is a little awkward. I would remove it and rephrase the beginning phrase "one of the year's highest-grossing Tamil films" as that can be a stronger beginning phrase/transition.
@Ssven2: Great job with this list! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved all your comments.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Support: Great work with this list! I can definitely support this nomination. Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
  • I think "Ref." looks more formal than "Ref(s)". What do you think?
That's because in case more than one reference is added to support the content in the table I have written it as "Ref(s)" instead of "Ref".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • All the refs in the table can be centered (type |style="text-align:center;"| before each ref).
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Could it be mentioned somewhere that Rakta Charitra was a two-part film? I have not heard of a single-edited version (the Tamil dub Ratha Sarithiram covers mainly the second part).
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, you describe Suriya as playing only one role in 7aum Arivu - Damo. You could vaguely mention he also played Aravind (perhaps you could write "...and his fictional descendant".)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could add info about Suriya's voiceover in the Tamil version of The Ghazi Attack.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see that Aoba47 agrees with my comments. Otherwise it's very much FLC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Your comments seem appropriate, and I agree with them. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: I have resolved your comments.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • I suggest you should trim the last sentence from the lead.
  • Is it important to mention that he dubbed for Guru? Since it was a hindi film and dubbed versions aren't of much significance.
  • Is the video in ref 49 and 64 from a RS?
  • "In 2005, Suriya starred in three Tamil films:" Is it necessary to mention 'tamil films', since he primarily works in them?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Resolved [1] and [4]. As for [2], he is credited with the dubbing for Junior B. In case of [3], refs 49 and 64 are the only ones available. I have even shown the time where he appears. Cinema Junction is a well-known YouTube channel, just doesn't have a Wiki Article. The MSK video is official BTW.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not satisfied with #2. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: Usually dubbing is done by less prominent actors. A currently leading actor dubbing for a dubbed version is significant as far as Tamil cinema is concerned. It did create some buzz during its release as seen from 1.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Seconding Editor 2050, I think its better to remove his dubbing credit. It can be mentioned if its a billingual film not otherwise. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: I have resolved Editor 2050's comments. I have created a separate list of his other crew positions a la Kamal Haasan filmography and Vikram filmography. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Editor 2050
  • Sorry, just wanted to say that I'm also against the inclusion of his dubbing credit - it's like telling someone that Arvind Swamy played Simba in Lion King or Silambarasan played Jamal Malik in Slumdog Millionaire - maybe it should be left in the text or have a totally different "other credits" section/table like how it is on Vikram's filmography.
  • Again - "distributor" - I am sure Suriya has distributed several of his film's before - he usually takes the Telugu rights home too. Again, potentially remove it or put it in an another table.
  • In fact, could the table purely just be for acting roles? I am sure that is what most visitors to his article hope to see. The remainder could be inserted in a separate table?
  • Also Pasanga 2 was a guest appearance/extended cameo, I guess.
  • Manmadhan Ambu could say "Special appearance in the song Oyyale (?)" - Does he appear for anything else, I cannot remember?
  • The age old question - are Rakta Charitra and Rakht Charitra two different films? Is this the best way to list it?
  • Should we get rid of the award credits and put them in an article elsewhere?

Editor 2050 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Editor 2050: Rakta Charitra is a two-part film with the same name. I have created a separate list of his films as actor and his other credits. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, Support. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Editor 2050. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man
Comments from Cowlibob
  • Why was his cinematic debut successful? Was it commercially successful and or his performance praised?
  • Ref 12, 13, 14 need ndashes.
  • Ref 6 says that Nandha received critical acclaim not that he specifically received praise. Although you could mention that he won the Tamil Nadu state award for Nandha which is in ref 7.
  • Need a ref for Suriya being praised for both Kaakha Kaakha and Pithamagan.
  • Ref 10 gives me a 403 error "You are banned from this site".
  • Not clear which ref supports that his performance in 24 was praised. Ref 28 mentions it being one of the highest grossing of the year and ref 27 seems to be about the film getting minutes cut from its runtime prior to release.

Cowlibob (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comments have been resolved, Cowlibob.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The Act of Killing

Nominator(s): — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...

It's a critically acclaimed film with real world impact -- and some of that impact has been directly connected to award nominations/critical success. I started the list a few years ago and, after coming across a couple other "List of accolades..." FLs recently, I felt up to the work. Granted, it wound up being a bit more time than I anticipated, going back to find other nominations, adding data, navigating a whole lot of 4-year-old broken festival/awards sites, but I think it's in good condition now. After reworking and expanding the lead, I feel fairly confident that it's FL material. I haven't been through this process before, though, so I look forward to your feedback. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would rephrase the follow sentence (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, but promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) to (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, who were promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) as the "but" sentence construction is a little odd in this context at least to me.
  • I am a little confused by the phrase "film justifications". Maybe specify whose justifications are being filmed?
  • In the final sentence of the lead's second paragraph, I think something should be added before the final quote to fully explain how the film is different than a "historical account".
@Rhododendrites: Everything looks good; once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments.
  • I'm not sure I understand the first point. The "...at the time, who..." doesn't sit quite right with me. The but is to contrast the roles of petty criminal and a quasi-official position of power on a death squad. Sort of like "They were nobodies at the time, but came to have a lot of power." What about rearranging as "The film's primary subjects had been petty criminals, but during the purge they came to lead a powerful death squad."?
  • That make sense to me. For some reason in my initial reading, I did not quite understand what you were referencing so I apologize for that. I think your rearrangement is stronger and I would recommending using that instead if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point. Changed to "Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck..."
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded from "According to Oppenheimer, the film is not a historical account of the killings themselves, but rather 'about a regime...'" to "The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to Oppenheimer, it is 'about a regime...'". Is this along the lines of what you mean? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That makes more sense to me. I was a little bit confused on the original wording on how this was separate from a historical account (as I have never seen or even heard of this film as terrible as that probably sounds). Thank you for the rewording/revision. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Support: Great work with this list! I can tell you put a lot of time and energy into this and it was a very compelling read (which is very difficult to do for a list of all things). I can definitely support this, and good luck with the rest of the review. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? I apologize for being so bold to ask for your input so feel free to say no if you do not have the time or energy. Good luck with this and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob
  • The lead is far too long and detailed. This is a subarticle. It is an interesting read but much of the information is better placed in the main film article. These type of lists tend to follow a pattern of 1st para= what the film is about, people involved in the making of the film. 2nd para= where it premiered, release schedule, box office, reception by critics. 3rd para=performance at the major awards e.g. Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs followed by its performance at more minor awards such as Guild Awards, Critics Associations, Critics' Choice or Independent Spirit Awards.
  • The table requires rowscopes and colscopes for accessibility
  • Online Film and Television Awards has no date for the ceremony
  • The recipients needs to sort by last name. The Act of Killing should also sort by Act.
  • Reference publishers needs work. Only newspapers or magazines or online versions of these should be italicised. Not all the references have adequate information. They should bare minimum have url, title, publisher, accessdate, date (if present), author (if present). The publisher should also be linked at first mention.

Cowlibob (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Thanks for your feedback.
  • Scopes Yes check.svg Done
  • Sortnames Yes check.svg Done
  • Before I go back through all of the citations, could you clarify what you mean by "reference publishers"? The publisher parameter? I almost never use it unless "work" doesn't speak for itself. Is this a mistake? I do add all of the fields you list where possible (but with work instead of publisher).
Use work for things like the film newspaper "The Hollywood Reporter" who are published by an organisation (Prometheus Global Media), and publisher for things like "Chicago Film Critics Association" as they are the publisher. Cowlibob (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done? Tweaked a bunch of refs here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I could not find a reliable source for the Online Film and Television Awards date, unfortunately. I may take another look tomorrow, but I do remember checking for secondary as well as archived primary sources without luck. Frankly thought about removing it but for the existence of a stand-alone article...
I've nominated the article for AFD as I don't think it is a notable awarding body. I see that your PROD was deleted by another user who said they'd improve it but then didn't add any further references.
I went ahead and removed it from the list. It will likely be deleted, and the date was bugging me, too. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding the lead, I won't disagree that it could be tightened, but "far too long and detailed" is surprising to me. My sense, reading it back now, is that starting off the "what it's about" paragraph with historical background gets us off on the wrong foot in terms of "too long and detailed". :) I have trimmed a little bit of the lead detail, combined a couple of the paragraphs, and added premiere and box office information. The main article definitely needs work (I hope to come back to it soonish), and that may also lend to an assessment of excess detail here, but to the extent that's a factor (if at all), I would argue that's a problem with the main article rather than this.
  • I would think that what information is relevant for the lead would require some flexibility between types of films. Box office figures for a Hollywood film may contribute to a film's sense of success and therefore could be said to be relevant to a list of accolades. But I don't think that e.g. box office numbers are important to the subject's notability, omitted from almost all sources on the subject aside from those which publish such data routinely. The numbers are fine for a documentary, but not impressive and seemingly irrelevant to its accolades. On the other hand, this film has been significant in the way it has had an affect on the world outside of cinema -- as in, that's among the things it's most notable for, and the reason for many of the accolades. For that reason, if we're tightening the lead, I would prefer to omit details like box office and premiere location that don't connect to the accolades in favor of including a fuller summary of why it's received the attention it has. I don't know if I'm communicating that well, so my apologies if this comes off as defensive/difficult. I'm new to the process, so may not be familiar with some typical factors that are otherwise taken for granted. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
You're clearly very passionate about this important film but I only comment to improve articles so don't take it as an "attack" on your work that is not my purpose. The lead does look better. I agree the parent article requires a significant amount of work and much of this would be useful to include in the main article as well. I think "current" is not needed the social significance sentence."As the institutions and people responsible...", this implies they are still in power, are the perpetrators still in government, I thought Suharto was overthrown in the 1990s? The review aggregator sentence could be reworded "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator surveyed 137 reviews and judged 96% to be positive". No need to include the consensus. The Metacritic one could also be reworded. The sentence which begins "Most...." could be reworded to "The Act of Killing garnered awards and nominations primarily in the Best Documentary category and for Oppenheimer's direction."Cowlibob (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't feel attacked and appreciate lending your experience with FLs to this. I just want to challenge if I disagree or learn more if I don't understand. :) I removed "current", though it may be good to add, in some way, that the scope isn't the social significance in general but the social significance in the present (i.e. not concerned with what happened between 1966 and when the film was shot). I also changed the "As the institutions..." line to say "As many of the institutions.." to be a bit safer without getting into details (I'd have a bit more research/sourcing to do to clarify the timeline sufficiently otherwise, and it would further elongate the lead). I went ahead and reworded the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic lines (the latter along the lines of the former), though I do have to say I prefer to see the %/score first (not that I feel strongly about it). Also reworded the "Most awards..." line. Wasn't sure if you intended to end the sentence after "for Oppenheimer's direction", leaving off mention of the other awards, Sorensen, etc., so left those in for now. Thanks again. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress

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

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

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. Back in November 2016, the list has passed a thorough A-class review from Military history. All the information is cited, and all the sources used are meet WP:RS. The list was constructed on par with List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F), List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army etc. which are featured lists. So I think there won't be much trouble regarding the FLC criteria. I welcome suggestions for the same. By the way, the list is about the recipients for the Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Alt text is missing from the images.
  • Delink 'India' in the opening sentence, since WP:OLINK says that 'the names of major geographic features shouldn't be linked.
  • Indo-Pakistani conflicts --> Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
  • In the second para, the words "..of India" is repetitive. You can remove it in one of the instance.
  • Indian Army is linked twice in the lead.
  • Times of India --> The Times of India
  • Are "Factly", "Topyaps" and "knowingindia.gov.in" RS?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Many thanks for the review. All the issues raised have been fixed. Regarding the last one, http://knowindia.gov.in is an official site from the Government of India, the domain ".gov.in" makes that clear. Factly is strictly constrained by an editorial board, so this can be accepted. Also the content from Topyaps is tailored, the about us section on the site make it clear. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced by Topyaps, you can replace it with a much reliable source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: Done, good catch. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

List of songs written by Tove Lo

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on it for the past days and I think it meets the criteria for a FL. Tove Lo is a Swedish singer and songwriter who has not only written songs for herself but for other artists too, and this list features all of those songs, and it is referenced with sources such as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Broadcast Music, Inc.. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • All of the images need an ALT description. Yes check.svg Done
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some instances where you say "Lo" instead of "Lov" so double-check to make sure you correct this.  Comment: The nickname of the artist is "Tove Lo", not "Tove Lov". I understand, it is kind of confusing!
  • Oops, sorry for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know who Lov offered "Love Ballad" to (you identify the person as "an artist" and I was just curious if we know exactly who this person is)? If not, then it is fine as it currently stands.  Comment: Sadly, no. Lo never revealed the name of the artist.
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paparazzzi: Very strong list! I just have two rather minor comments and one clarification question. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments! Thank you so much for the review Face-grin.svg. Regards! --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this! Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Ok, I'm going to take a look at your FLC. Regards Face-grin.svg. Paparazzzi (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Modest Mouse discography

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 05:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Modest Mouse. Underground darlings turned mainstream juggernauts, these guys are an all-time top 5 artist for me. I'm quite proud of the work I've put into this article/list over the past week or so, and I'm hoping that at this point it's worthy of the FL star. This was my first attempt with working on a discography, so any feedback is appreciated. Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 05:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • @Dylan620: The information in the lead that is not supported by the rest of the list (for instance, the first sentence of the lead’s second paragraph and the sentences about the band earning a cult following, getting mainstream exposure, etc.) requires citations. I would suggest going through the lead and adding references for any these types of sentences. This is the main and only issue that I have with the list. Once this is addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Aoba47, thank you for the feedback. I'll see what I can do to address this concern within the next few days. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 13:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response, and take as long as you need. Just ping me when you are through with your revisions and I will look through the list again. Aoba47 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Link Music recording sales certification for "certified".
  • Avoid the use of # to mean "number".
  • Some elements of the lead need references, such as "the only Modest Mouse album to feature former The Smiths guitarist Johnny Marr as a member of the band.".
  • Where are the release dates referenced for each entry and which territory(ies) is the date pertinent to?
  • Look at other discogs to see the way to note what an en-dash in the table means, i.e. not charting or not released in that territory.
  • Where is live album referenced?
  • Where are reissues referenced?
  • Where are the singles referenced?
  • Check for MOS:DASH fails in the reference titles, i.e. avoid spaced hyphens in favour of spaced en-dashes.

A lot to do here to meet the standards of other discog FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@TRM: Points 1, 2, and 9 have just been taken care of; I will see what I can do about points 3 through 8 in the coming days. I have a question about point 4, though. Many of the singles and all of the reissues do not have their own articles, so providing references for those makes sense, but why should the existence of the live album need to be proven by a reference when one can just click on the article for it? Of course I'll still try and dig up a reference if necessary, but I just wanted to have this cleared up. --Dylan620's public alt (I'm all ears) 20:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Featured lists/articles usually do not rely on blue links for referencing, after all Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The added benefit of bringing sources into the article (even if it's just a copy and paste from the blue linked article) is that this list will standalone and no matter what happens to the linked articles (e.g. editors removing information, links going dead etc), this list will be independent of such problems. And it's not just the existence of the blue linked articles, it's their release dates, their territories etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And for completeness, I clicked on the live album. There's an orange maintenance tag at the top of the article. That's why we should never rely on Wikipedia to source our articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah okay, that makes perfect sense. I'll see what I can do as quickly as real life will allow. Also FWIW, I've now taken care of point 5. --Dylan620's public alt (I'm all ears) 21:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Dylan620 two weeks have passed, where are we with all my comments Dylan? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@TRM: Frustrated. Have spent several days on-and-off trying to look for reliable sources to confirm that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fisherman" were the B-sides for the "Birds vs. Worms" single (see relevant RSN post) and that "Shit Luck" was the B-side for the "Heart Cooks Brain" single. I've gone into the "Birds vs. Worms" issue at RSN; for the "Heart Cooks Brain"/"Shit Luck" issue, the best I seem to be able to come up with is the last.fm page (which appears to have been provided by the site, instead of being added by a member of their userbase), and this expired auction listing. The existence of the two singles can already be proven - see this archived web page on the site of their former label - but finding a reliable source for the B-sides has been another story. (Unless the auction listings/last.fm overviews count as reliable sources, in which case problem solved!) Apologies for the wait, between the search efforts and real-life stuff I have made less progress on this than I would have hoped to by now. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 23:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: problem solved by removing B-sides from the tables in question. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Vijay filmography

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Vijay is one of Tamil cinema's most iconic and successful actors with a large fanbase (who vandalise the majority of his articles). Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comments from Editor2050
  • 1. I have mentioned this before but is it necessary to include something as trivial as "playback singing" in his actual filmography? Could this not be put on a separate table (or even separate Vijay discography article?) Credits like Velai and Thulli Thirintha Kaalam probably involved ten minute commitments for the actor. It certainly fails to give a clear and concise picture of what readers/viewers hope to truly find out - "which films Vijay has starred in".
  • 2. Is there any supposed order that the names for dual roles are supposed to be written in? Are they meant to be alphabetical or order of on-screen appearance? eg. see "Kathiresan, Jeevanandham" and "Kathiresan, Jeevanandham"? etc
  • 3. Wasn't Sukran an (extended) guest appearance? It was never publicised as a Vijay starrer.
  • 4. For Sivakasi - his real name "Muthappa" is listed without brackets, but in Nanban - his real name "Kosaksi Pasapugazh" is listed in brackets.

Editor 2050 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved all your comments, Editor 2050. BTW, there isn't any order for dual roles. I've listed them in alphabetical order of names.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Awesome work. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Editor 2050: So, support or neutral?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: Sources look good too. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Editor 2050. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Editor 2050: Can you do a source review in that case? Officially of course.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • The lead image should an ALT description. I would also imagine that the caption should be more descriptive and include where the image was taken for the complete context.
  • I would clarify the last line of the lead's first paragraph. By "unsuccessful", do you mean commercially or critically or both?
  • What is "a lean period"? I would revise this/change the wording to make this clearer.
  • I would change "Uncredited role as child artist" in the table to "Uncredited role as a child artist".

Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. As someone has never seen even one Indian film, it was an interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved all your comments, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the list and good luck with getting it promoted. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@PresN, Giants2008, and The Rambling Man: Pinging you for source review.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Just add it to the yellow box at the top of WP:FLC; someone will get to it soon (it doesn't have to be a director/delegate). --PresN 14:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Vensatry

Regretful oppose

  • "Vijay is an Indian actor who works mainly in Tamil language films." - Given he hasn't acted in other languages, do we really need to use mainly here?
Done. Removed mainly.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "he made his debut as a lead actor in Tamil cinema with" - As it's pretty obvious that he was only acting in Tamil films to that point.
Done. Removed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "where he was paired opposite Sangita Madhavan Nair." - Two things. He wasn't paired opposite her (they had a dream duet though). Next, I don't see a reason why the actress' name should be noted here? She wasn't a leading actress even at the peak of her career. It seems his pairing up with other actresses are randomly chosen. He made a hit pair with Simran, but a relatively lesser known actress is preferred to her.
Done. Removed her name.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The film's success established him as an up-and-coming actor in Tamil cinema" - This isn't backed up by either of the references.
Done. Removed the sentence.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "His subsequent films, Fazil's Kadhalukku Mariyadhai (1997) and Vasanth's Nerrukku Ner (1997) were successful" - The latter was released first.
Done. Placed the latter before.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Vijay's portrayal of a singer who becomes responsible for the loss of his lover's eyesight in Thulladha Manamum Thullum" - He did not portray a singer but played a cable operator who "aspires" to become a singer. Furthermore, the "earned him the image of a romantic hero.[4][7]" bit isn't verified by the sources.
Done. Tweaked the sentence and found another source to support the romantic hero bit.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Vijay began the new millennium with a series of films in the romance genre such as Kushi and Priyamanavale, both of which were released in 2000 and were critical and commercial successes" - Millennium or 2000 - either one should suffice. Next, this sentence implies that Kushi and Priyamanavalae are romance genres.
Done. Removed the 2000 bit. I don't know what yo mean by "Next, this sentence implies that Kushi and Priyamanavalae are romance genres" though, Vensatry.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like Kushi and Priyamanavalae are sub genres of 'romance genres' (and not films). A punctuation can easily solve this issue. Vensatry (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "He continued to achieve commercial success with..." - Did he?
Yeah. Both were successful and both the Sreedhar Pillai sources back them. Sivakasi was termed a super hit while Pokkiri was a blockbuster.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The latter garnered him his first Filmfare Award nomination for Best Actor." - First? I'm sure the source doesn't mention it.
Done. Removed first.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wasn't Vettaikaran commercially successful?
2007-10 was undeniably the worst period of Vijay's filmi career (all five movies in this period: ATM, Kuruvi, Villu, Vettaikaaran and Sura bombed with critics, though Vettaikaaran must have been profitable due to the hype forced by Sun Pictures, unlike the other four). But it wasn't successful enough to break the flop streak I believe. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Times of India source (Reference no. 21) Says Vijay's films from 2007-2010 were failures. But Sify says it is a hit.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why isn't Nanban mentioned in the lead? I'm sure it would rank among the top ten films of his career.
I'd mention it if he earned a major nomination for his performance. He did win the Ananda Vikatan award for Best Actor and Vijay Award for Entertainer of the Year for Nanban, but are they as significant as Filmfare, which (unfortunately) nominated the film in only two categories? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It probably did not get much significance just because it is a remake (almost frame-by-frame) of 3 Idiots. Thalapathy was brilliant in it though.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If Filmfare wins/nominations are going to be the 'yardstick', the lead would nearly be empty. Going by the same 'awards'/critical acclaim logic, how can one include Puli, Bhadri and the likes? Vensatry (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Written a few bits about Nanban.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "star-studded" is journalese
Done. Written "multi-starrer" instead.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we really have sources for the "becoming Vijay's highest grossing film to that point" bit?
Done. Removed the sentence with the reference.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The latter featured him along with Mohanlal; both films were successful." - I must say the usage of semicolon is incorrect.
Done. Tweaked this part.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Vijay featured as a tribal ... -> He featured as a tribal ...
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest you to remove the translations of reference titles as they are misleading and not really helpful. "Do you know why 'Ghilli' Vijay is being given 'Parrot'?" was an eye-roll moment for me!
I have changed the Ghilli reference title.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said earlier, it's better to remove them as hardly serve a purpose. Besides, they are optional and can very well be explained at the talk page (if reviewers insist upon translating them). I'm not sure whether the outsiders would be able to get 'Kili'? (when some natives are unable to differentiate between the bird and the given term). Perhaps, better translate the articles rather than just their titles on the talk page. Vensatry (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Removed the trans_title fields.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The lead needs to be more engaging. More than just list down his films, it should provide an authoritative overview of his career by explaining the kind of roles he's played in some (important) films. I've not checked the sources yet, but based on a few spotchecks in the lead this needs a thorough source review. Vensatry (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments

  • Are you sure that his characters (as uncredited child artist) had no names?
Didn't he play the childhood character of Vijaykanth in some movies? Not a big deal if you're unable to confirm it though. Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs. #1 and #3 don't mention the character names. You need to find sources for films supported by these refs. Sendhoorapandi, Deva, Rajavin Parvaiyile to name a few.
  • Character name for Poove Unakkaga isn't mentioned in the source.
  • For Kaalamellam Kaathiruppen, neither his role nor the director is mentioned in the ref.
This one is still unaddressed. Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. Found a reference for it.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the TOI ref. (that supports Nerukku Ner and Once More) needs replacement. Vijay's part in NN isn't covered in the source. Ditto with 'roles' as far as both films are concerned.
  • Character name is missing in the ref. for Kadhalukku Mariyathai.
  • The ref. for Ninaithen Vandhai does not even talk about the film.
Remove the 'parrot' ref. as it does not even talk about the film. Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Hindu ref. (for Priyamudan) doesn't cover role, year and director.
  • Year and role missing in Thulladha Manamum Thullum.

... I'm stopping here for now. I'm sure there are a few more (especially the ones centering around 2000). Be sure to check the remaining ones as well. Vensatry (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Resolved your source review comments.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll have a look tomorrow. Vensatry (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisit

  • Sura in the lead is linked to Surah
Done. Redirected to the film.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For Rajavin Parvaiyile, you could replace the Cinema Junction Tamil link with this one as it seems a verified publisher.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Dinamalar link (for Nenjinile) talks about all of his films that released during that time except Nenjinile.
Removed link.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Role still missing for Minsara Kanna, Shahjahan, Pokkiri and ATM. Saravanan (for Villu) and Pulivendhan (for Puli) aren't verified in the sources.
Done. Rectified for all.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vensatry: Can you point me out at least one instance where? I really can't spot it. Is it the references or sentences?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In the references. Not just one but ten instances. Vensatry (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I have removed the spacings between the emdashes.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Accessdates are not needed for archived references.
Removed accessdates.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Kumar, S. R. Ashok should be listed as S. R, Ashok Kumar (Kumar is not his last name)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For some reason, the archived Hindu link - for Velayutham - doesn't work (the original link works though).
Done. Rearchived.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't we have a English source for Vijay 61?
Done. Replaced with English source.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Krish
  • Support: After reading the list, I feel it meets all the criteria required for an FL.Krish | Talk 07:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Krish!. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'll be reviewing this in the next few days. Please hold on any closure decisions before then. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob
Comments from The Rambling Man

List of accolades received by Nightcrawler

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's another film accolades list. This one is for Nightcrawler a thriller film that stars Jake Gyllenhaal as a psychopath who records violent events late at night in Los Angeles. Fun stuff!

For anyone afraid of the list being too short, I asked Cowlibob, a major contributor to FLs on film accolades, if the list met notability requirements, and it was allowed. This is the first film accolades list I've worked on, so hopefully this goes well. Anyway, have at it. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: After reading through the list several times, I did not find any errors. The prose in the lead is good, all of the references seem to be in order, and the images are all appropriate. Good luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Everything seems good. Great job. - AffeL (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've made a few moves to take into account unnecessary disambiguation. I'll review the content in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

WHO Model List of Essential Medicines

Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Over the last 4 years a number of us have been worked to improve all 414 medicines on this list. The leads of each item now provides a decent well referenced overview of the subject in question and an article exists for each of the medicines / combinations. The WHO just released an image under an open license for use to us. World Health Day is April 7th and 2017 also marks the 40 anniversary of the EML. Would be nice to get this ready for the main page for that date. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

comments Ozzie10aaaa

perWikipedia:Featured_list_criteria

  • Criterion 1- is consistent with professional standard [1]
  • Criterion 3- a. covers the scope of WHO Model List of Essential Medicines very well[3]
b. consistent with Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists and does not violate Wikipedia:Content_forking
  • Criterion 4- African trypanosomiasis........ Medicines for the treatment of 1st stage African trypanosomiasis...seems to be "two" headers, would you be willing to merge or get rid of one of them?
b.could use between 2-5 images to bring more interest in the "list" for our readers?


--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Have adjusted the headers[4] let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • perfect,and consistent with the rest of the list, thank you.
  • the other issue is images as indicated above (2-5 images) as our readers will be more interested when they see as well as read.[5] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay will pull in a few more :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


as a result of [6] and [7][8][9][10][11][12] in reference to this Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates nomination I therefore


BlueRasberry
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. No evidence is provided that the WHO released the copyright to this creatively compiled list, nor is any argument made that this list is ineligible for copyright. This is an ordered ranking based on judgement, separating medicines which matter more from ones which matter less. The WHO's copyright policy is at http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/. They forbid anyone from having access to their health information with only some exceptions, and it seems that they do not find it essential for anyone to have access to their essential list of medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, well that could be problematic. Can we obtain permission to use it like we apparently did with ICD-10 (Talk:ICD-10#ICD-10)? (Though I'm a little confused by how we are using ICD-10 unless the WHO relicensed it CC-BY-SA, which I don't think they did.) Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thks Blue. Will work on solving copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry I have gotten formal release of the list under a CC BY SA 3.0 IGO license. Have sent the permission to permissions-en and cc'ed you on it. Here is the ticket Ticket:2017013110007321 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. will work on the ICD stuff next. The prior director recently retired. Not sure who has replaced him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep All copyright concerns are resolved. This article should not be deleted because it has a free and open license. I processed the OTRS ticket and posted a note at the top of the talk page documenting the free license of this list. This is no longer a deletion discussion, and can now resume as a review of a candidate for featured lists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from RexxS

This is a commendably comprehensive list in Wikipedia terms – not just because of the breadth of its content, but because of the depth of coverage provided by all the linked articles on each individual medicine, a factor sometimes overlooked when assessing whether a list deserves to be described as "one of Wikipedia's best works". The contributors to those articles deserve our gratitude for the immense amount of work put into them as well as this list.

I usually try to assess lists for common breaches of accessibility compliance, and baring two minor concerns, I believe that the list meets our accessibility requirements in general:

  1. The list is properly structured with sections and headers meeting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Article structure;
  2. it contains no text that is too small to read per MOS:FONTSIZE;
  3. no use of colour makes text unreadable, per MOS:CONTRAST;
  4. no information is conveyed solely by use of colour, per WP:COLOR;

However, the use of the dagger typographical symbol † might be worth re-considering. Older versions of some of the most common screen readers don't read that symbol, although I'm told that support for many symbols has been improved in the latest versions of JAWS. To address that problem, we have a template {{}} which substitutes an image and alt text that all screen readers can speak. The only other small concern is the lack of alt text in all five of the images, but as those images serve merely to illustrate the appearance of particular medicines, rather than making a point, the caption alone serves the main needs of alternative text. In these sort of cases, I wouldn't feel that the lack of alt text a sufficient issue to prevent promotion, although I'd naturally encourage editors to provide alt text where they feel able. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:RexxS will fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hum, the article uses {{ref}} which does not accept that other template. Might take until I get home in a couple of days to figure it out unless someone beats me to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that template {{ref}} is being misused as it's designed for each {{ref}} to have a corresponding {{note}}, rather than just one note (which breaks the backlink). I have a look at the documentation a little more closely and see if I can find a simple solution. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Added alt text for completeness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS have switched to an "Alpha" symbol. Does that solve the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: That's likely to be an improvement, as most screen readers can make some sense of some Greek characters. You never really know unless you have the time and facilities to test large numbers of screen readers, and there are often settings that can be enabled to speak text that is not voiced by default. Anyway the web helps sometimes: for example, there's a resource at http://accessibleculture.org/research-files/character-references/jaws-we-all.php that gives a survey of what characters JAWS and Window-Eyes will speak. If you really, really want to be sure all screen readers will speak a symbol, you have to stick to normal text plus the symbols you get on a standard English keyboard, like *, #, $, etc. Anyway, I'm not suggesting you should change the symbol again, as one could spend forever trying to cater for every possible case. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I'm afraid that I don't think this article is FL quality just yet.

  • Most of my concerns mirror those that were mentioned on the talk page back in May 2014 – this article is composed almost entirely of just the list itself, with very little prose. By my count, the lead is only 235 words long, almost a third the size of the Notes section. Is there anything else that you can say about this subject? For example, why was the list introduced? Whose idea was it? Why was the children's list introduced? Are there more cost items or complementary items? Why have so many countries not adopted the list? Any controversies regarding the list? Plus all the questions in the Talk page section that I linked to above. You don't need to answer any or all of these questions, but they are the sorts of things that I might expect to see in a comprehensive article.
  • Eight references is far fewer than I would expect in a featured list; all but three come from the same source (the WHO). Google Books returns over 6,000 results about this topic, while Google Scholar returns 251,000 results. Could any of them be mined for more information?
  • If I'd been involved in that article's FLC, I would have opposed it too. In any case, there are considerably fewer sources available on that subject (3,570 results on Google Books; 112 on Google Scholar). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Even though many refs mention the EML, most do not discuss the list itself in detail. We are now up to 12 refs supporting this. Have added a Lancet review and a couple of textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Where has the lead image come from? Is it from the WHO website or some other reliable source, or is it an original image that has just been created specifically for this article? If it's the latter, then it is probably not the best image to represent the topic.
  • The lead image was created by one of the leads within the WHO essential medicines program in their free time. They plan to use the image this coming year in their campaigns.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • How do you know that? Uploading this article's lead image is the only contribution that that user has made to the entire Wikimedia project. Is this someone that you've spoken to off-wiki? I'm concerned that that opens up WP:Original research issues. Besides, if the WHO are intending to use this image in their own campaigns later this year, then they'll probably want to retain the copyright for it, in which case the image will need to be either released through the OTRS or else removed from Wikipedia entirely. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes I have been collaborating with the WHO for years on this project. You will notice in the 4th box down that the WHO has released this list under a CC BY SA 3.0 IGO license.[13]
Why would WHO be unable to use an openly licensed image in a promotional campaign? The uploader still owns the license even though it is openly licensed. The WHO already uses Wikipedia material in works they create. This book for example contains about 10 WP images[14]. And why would OTRS be needed? If this is the first (and only) place the images has so far been published. This would be like requiring OTRS permission for everything anyone uploads. Not a precedent I am willing to be involved in setting.
The uploader can either way the attribution requirement when WHO uses the image or WHO can attribute WP / the author.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Notes that aren't complete sentences (e.g. notes 5, 6, 7, 10, 12) don't need to end with full stops.
  • Do you mean you want periods removed for all notes? I am not sure which ones are or are not complete sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm no linguist, but the key, as I understand it, is the presence of a verb. For example, "Glibenclamide not suitable above 60 years" would not be a complete sentence, whereas "Glibenclamide is not suitable above 60 years" would be. Looking over the list, it seems that most of the notes are not complete sentences. The only ones that I can see are 1, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 28, 19, 41, 42, 44, 45 and 54 – these are the only ones that require periods. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This was an ambitious article to improve, and I'm sure that, when it does pass FLC, it will set a precedent for similar lists to follow. Unfortunately, I don't think it is there yet. I wish all editors the best of luck in improving it. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We have an article called Essential medicines were those other details are discussed User:A Thousand Doors. I am not convinced that this article should duplicate all that.
Will address the other concerns.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:Summary style, I would expect this article to provide more background about the list, rather just present the list itself. There isn't really a massive amount of content in Essential medicines anyway – a merge probably wouldn't be entirely unreasonable. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I have expanded the lead to cover more of the details that you mentioned. Much more can be said about "Essential medicines" than we currently say and the concept goes beyond the WHO EML. I would be more inclined to expand the EM article then merge it here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Per WP:EGG, I'm not convinced that that link to enumeration works at all. If you're after an opening sentence that doesn't repeat the word "link", how about "The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML), proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), contains the most effective and safe medicines ..."?
  • "3rd generation cephalosporin" -> "Third-generation cephalosporin"
  • "In acute diarrhoea zinc sulfate" -> "In acute diarrhoea, zinc sulfate"
  • Rather than listing all 22 authors in reference 6, consider listing just the first, say, five, and then sticking "et al." at the end.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Have adjusted these.
Added "|display-authors=5" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


Resolved comments from DarthBotto
Comments from DarthBotto
  • In the lead, the first sentence reads, "The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines is a list, proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO)..." It says it's a list that's a list. Would it perhaps be better to describe it as an inventory or catalog proposed by WHO?
    It is a list though and not an inventory (which is more physical in nature) or a catalog. We could use the term enumeration but IMO that is overly complicated. I have however linked to that term.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that flies-- and we don't want to over-complicate, convolute or mislead with the opening descriptor. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The flow of the lead gets off the tracks in the third paragraph, where it blurts out a series of short statements with little synergy between one another, save for the connection that it says it is on a two-year basis, with the last one being in 2015, thereby implying that the upcoming one will be this year. Could you include a statement with a source about the upcoming list, if that is possible? Is there a special significance about the 2005 list that I am missing? Perhaps bridge the 2015 mention with the two-year mention, as well.
    Yes. A new list is supposedly coming out in a couple of months. I can find no sources talking about it though. Do you know of any? The reason why the number of items in the 2005 list is mention is because that is the only source I can find. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking around and I cannot find anything that talks about the 20th list, I am sorry to say. Damn, that would really have been a great addition! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Details on the 20th list will be avaliable in a couple of months and will add them than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The organization of the sources is very well composed and reliable. The notes are succinct and so far as I can tell, aptly placed.
    • I do get nervous around the volume of primary sources, specifically Reference 1, but assuming that there are no easily accessible alternatives, I suppose it works.
    It is a statement by a major medical organizations and therefore fulfils WP:MEDRS. I could also add the Lancet review to that statement but not sure it is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of MEDRS. It was certainly not the most pertinent question in my mind, but this satisfies what little doubt I may have had. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at the fourth paragraph makes me realize that the lead is somewhat disorganized. You have some history components between the third and fourth paragraph that is intertwined with content about the core functions of the list. Could you reorganize said paragraphs, so the third discusses core functions, like the fourth discusses the history?
    Adjusted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Very well done! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • All in all, I don't believe extensive work will be necessary. The deterrents are in the flow and organization of the lead. If you could give these core points proper attention, I would be glad to support this FLC. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 09:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If I may say so myself, this list satisfies all six of the criteria for Featured List status- you have my Support vote. @Doc James: If you could spare a bit of time to review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1920–39)

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Second nomination for this one, which languished just over a year ago due to a lack of reviews. "Following on from England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), here is the next in the series. This list follows the same format as that one." As always, all comments, criticisms and nattering welcome! Harrias talk 09:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: My comments are below:
  • image needs alt text
  • Lead:
    • resulting in 41 victories, 49 draws and 30 defeats. link to Result (cricket)#Draw
    • The emergence of Don Bradman as an extraordinary batsman for Australia... link to batting (cricket)
    • The first three sentences of the second paragraph all require references.
      • These are drawn from the table, which itself is referenced. Typically, per WP:LEADCITE additional references in the lead are not necessary. Harrias talk 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I would argue that WP:LEADCITE doesn't apply to lists as the in almost all cases only prose is in the lead. So my suggestion is to add this ref after each of three sentences. Also, could you please replace ref 3 with this this ref as this clearly shows the stats. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
          • I completely disagree; WP:LEADCITE itself only states "in the body", rather than "in the prose", while numerous FLs have been promoted in the past without the need for us to over-reference them. Harrias talk 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • against the West Indies they won 8 matches and lost 3. change to eight matches and lost three as per MOS:SPELL09.
      • These are comparable figures to the figures against Australia, and so by WP:NUMNOTES should be represented in the same format. Harrias talk 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions requires a reference.
    • Place in the Key into a table
    • In the table, the links to Lord's Cricket Ground to be changed to Lord's
    • Test no. 172 and 173 in the table – at first glance it seems like one of the dates are wrong but as it turns out two English sides were playing at the same time! This definitely needs to be explained. I found this ESPNcricinfo article which explains the situation.
    • Test no. 178 and 214 – a comma is required between Bourda and Georgetown
    • Test no. 205 – change Kolkata to Calcutta (name didn't change until 2001)
    • The biggest thing that I am going to ask of you is to provide a reference for every match result and add this as a new column.
      • Why? Every match result is provided in ref #3; I see no need to WP:OVERCITE?? Harrias talk 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, we usually reference the match report in every other cricketing FL. See again the current open FLs where every item in the table has a reference. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
          • You're right, but in those lists, there isn't one single source that can give all the information. In this one, there is. There is simply no need to provide more references to back up information that is already supported by the sources provided. (Though I do need to check the referencing on the series scores; that might be a bit dubious. Harrias talk 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ianblair23: I've queried a few, will deal with the bulk of them later. Harrias talk 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Harrias: I have replied to queries above.
Also, could you please
  • add this ref after 579 runs against Australia during the 1938 Ashes series, after when they won by 675 runs and after 10 wickets on two occasions
  • add this ref after by 562 runs during the 1934 Ashes series
  • capitalise the while in while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Harrias: Are you going to address the above points? Also, how about as compromise a ref for each series is added. Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, work has got completely hectic these past couple of weeks. Need to have a more in depth look, but I agree that a ref for each series is probably a good idea. Will try to look at the weekend, but it might end up being next week. Harrias talk 07:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Harrias: I would really like to see action taken on the points raised above. It has been almost six weeks since I first posted them. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I know, but real-life has swamped me. If this ends up being archived (again!) because I'm too busy, at least I've got the points here to work off before I re-nominate. But I'll see if I can get to it. Harrias talk 11:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

  • "country's best batsmen" - according to whom?
    • Very quick reply to this point: ESPNcricinfo, as stated in the same sentence as that quote was taken from. Harrias talk 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Wally Hammond was England's leading run-scorer in Tests between 1920 and 1939" - Actually, he was the leading run scorer during this time, not just for England.
  • against Test newcomers - Isn't it quite obvious that we're talking about Test cricket until now?
  • "Their largest victory by runs alone during this period was during the 1928–29 Ashes series against Australia, when they won by 675 runs ..." - 'during' is repetitive.
  • ""while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions." - I suppose this sentence was not meant to be a standalone one.
The table looks good. A fine piece of work Vensatry (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 13:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the great Amy Adams has played a variety of characters in last ten years and has received plethora of accolades. This provides the information about the awards and nominations she has received, and I feel it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 13:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • The following references are dead and need to either be archived or replaced: 3, 10, 18, 22, 63, 89, 61, 88, 97, 120, 104, 146.
  • Make sure to list work and publisher in the references when appropriate. A large portion of your sources is missing work and/or publisher and this should be corrected.
  • Do not shout in the reference titles (see references 74 and 77 for an example of what I mean, but look through all of the references for this)
  • The description in the "People's Choice Awards" subsection requires a reference to support it as you have done in other article subsections.

These are the main areas that I noticed after reading through it once. Once you address my comments, I will look through the lead more carefully and make some more comments/suggestions. Great work on the list so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Great job with the list and good luck with getting it promoted in the future! If possible, could you look at my FLC for Private Practice (season 1)? I understand if you do not have the time or interest to do this as it is a busy time of the year. Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Mymis
  • All the statements in the introduction that are not referenced within the rest of the article must have a source. Mymis (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Where are the sources for:
  • "in the 2005 acclaimed independent comedy-drama Junebug"
  • "performances in the critically acclaimed dramas Doubt, (2008), The Fighter (2010) and The Master (2012) garnered"
  • ^ The sources only talk about her performance and not about the films themselves.
  • More links must be archived, especially for award websites as they become broken very quickly.
  • Where links are archived, accessdates are not necessary.
  • Ref 53 missing date and author, same with many other sources, and loads of formatting inconsistencies, Variety is always in italics etc.

Mymis (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Mymis: Done. I ahve written a dozen of Featured content on wikipedia and no one ever questioned me for adding accessdates for the archived links. If I'm not wrong that is how it always been here.Krish | Talk 02:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, the accessdates do not serve any purpose when the link is archived. It would also make the ref section less heavy. The references generally need a lot of work. Many sources do not have dates and authors etc. Mymis (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mymis: I cannot make a change just to please you because that is how its done here. And, coming to many sources not having dates and authors, it is simply because those sources don't have any such as the critics associations links and others. However, I fixed few other sources.Krish | Talk 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to please me? I did say that accessdates are simply unnecessary, and you are not giving any other reasons why they should stay besides the fact that no one else brought it up for your previous FLs. Accessdates are removed in many other featured articles, interesting you've never seen it before.

In terms of formatting the refs:

  • Gold Derby should be linked
  • New York Times -> The New York Times
  • Ref 29 needs date
  • Ref 31 not working
  • Refs 50, 51 and 52 do not even mention Amy Adams???
  • Ref 61 needs date
  • Ref 68, Variety -> Variety
  • Ref 113 needs date
  • Ref 123 needs date
  • Indie Wire - > IndieWire
  • Ref 134 needs date
  • E! -> E! Online or E! News
  • I may have missed many more.

Mymis (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Mymis: All Done. Aditionally, I re-checked everything.Krish | Talk 18:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 31 and 32 need authors.
  • More links could be archived, especially for award websites as they become broken very soon.

Mymis (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Hey! @Mymis: I am sorry I didn't notice your comments. I cannot archive right now as I am very busy. Do you have any more issues?Krish | Talk 14:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Famous Hobo
Comments from Famous Hobo

Figured I might as well stop by and give at least a few comments on a list about my favorite actress (I'm still mad that she didn't receive an Oscar nod for Arrival or Nocturnal Animals, not to mention five Oscar nods without a win. What does this woman have to do?)

  • @Famous Hobo: Well, you are not alone in this. I have been saying this (5 Nominations without a win) for a while. To be honest, I literally cried few times after her name did not appear in the Oscar nomination streaming video. Plus the outrage on social media is the proof that she deserved her sixth nod more than anyone. Previously, she has been snubbed by the Academy for Enchanted (an excellent film) and Big Eyes (not so excellent), but her snub for Arrival hurts the most.Krish | Talk 14:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • First off, would this picture go better in the lead? I know award lists like to have a picture where the subject was at an award ceremony, and the new picture would work, as that was taken at the 2011 Oscars. It's more recent, and in my opinion, looks better than the current lead image.
  • There's a decent amount wrong with the first sentence. First off, Amy Adams is an American actress and have received various awards and nominations. The first "and" in that sentence disrupts the flow, and should be replaced with "who". Second, it's "has", not "have", as that would me Amy Adams is plural, which she isn't... Finally, I don't think you need to mention which awards she has won in the first paragraph of the lead. Jennifer Lawrence's and Bradley Cooper's award pages do not list their wins in the first paragraph, and I think it's better that way. I would keep the Star on the Walk of Fame though, that's pretty interesting.
  • The biggest problem I have with the lead is that there's very little flow. The two paragraphs talking about her films and which awards she won follow the same formula: In 20XX she starred in this film, and was nominated for these awards. Try to mix up the formula a little bit, as to not make the lead so monotonous.
  • The lead doesn't mention her nominations for Man of Steal or Batman V Superman. I'm okay with letting that slide, since it was just one nomination for both performances, but just wanted you to be aware of that. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Famous Hobo: Actually someone had edited the lead and I didn't notice the changes until you said. FYI, I myself had written Jennifer Lawrence's list, so I know that. Plus I have fixed the repetitions and other problems. I hope its okay now.Krish | Talk 14:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up the monotony of the lead. As someone who worked on Bradley Cooper's awards page, I know that listing multiple awards in the lead can really break up the flow, but I think you did a great job. My last possible issue is with ref 2. What makes Golden Derby a reliable source? Besides, every use of that ref is in the lead, but it seems like you have reliable sources for those awards in the actual table. So is the Golden Derby ref even necessary? Famous Hobo (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Famous Hobo: Thanks and Yes, the Gold Derby Awards and the website itself is very much reliable. Actually, the above reviewer asked me to add a source as it gives information about the roles, which are not mentioned in the boxes below. I hope it is fine now.Krish | Talk 05:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with a .400 batting average in a season

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bagumba

I quickly went through the prose, which has the boilerplate text (e.g. HOF inductees, handedness, etc) that other baseball FLs possess. I'd like to see more a bit more text that uniquely puts .400 into context:

  • Add that .300 is considered a fairly good season already.
    • Added at the end of the 2nd sentence (supported by 2 refs). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To appreciate The Washington Post's comment about it being "unattainable", mention modern day players that came closest: Brett (.390), Gwynn (.394).
    • Done. Hope the wording of the additional sentence is okay and non-weasely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if/when I'll be able to do a complete review, but do want to at least see these addressed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • In the opening paragraph should state unconditionally that .400 is considered a rare feat. Attributing the quote by SABR makes it sound like .400 is not generally revered. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. "—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed, but still left the exact wording in quotations (if that's alright). —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Quotations should always be attributed in text, not merely with a citation. That being said, I don't see why this specific quote is needed. It's probably more common place to say that it is currently considered unlikely to be reachable.[15][16]Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not inclined to use the word "considered" – it's a weasel word in this situation. Not to mention that this article was AFD'd three times in just over a year because of that word in its title. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Feel free to suggest an alternative. Note WP:WEASEL says "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." How do you otherwise propose avoiding use of the specific quote from: "The achievement of a .400 batting average in a season is recognized as 'the standard of hitting excellence'"?—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I also added a sentence (2nd last one in para. 2) about Shoeless Joe Jackson's .408 mark being a rookie record – hope that checks out as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Bagumba – I've addressed all the comments you've made so far. Is there anything else that needs to be improved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did a Google search on "bat .400", and seems there should be more discussion on .400 being common before Williams, and why it is now considered out of reach.

  • Impact of relief pitchers.[17][18][19]
    • The use of relief pitchers doesn't specifically affect batting .400.[20] They also affect consecutive hit streaks, the reduction in 200 hit seasons today, and the overall decline in offence.[21] The more appropriate place for this info is the general batting average article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Mentioning relief pitchers here doesn't imply their impact is limited to .400 hitters. At any rate, there should be some explanation given in an FL as to reasons why the feat hasn't been duplicated in 70+ years.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
        • You win on this point – added a short note in the first sentence of the last paragraph. But I won't bog this list down with the stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 5 players combined to hit .400 seven times in 20 years before Williams.[22]
  • 3 players hit .400 in 1922[23]
  • Aside from Brett, only Williams and Carew have batted .388 in a full season since[24]
    • Trivia – why the artificial delineation of .388? Could've used a rounded whole number like .390 or .375 … —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Bob Hazle hit .403 in 1957. His 134 at-bats were most by .400 hitter since Williams.[25]
    • Irrelevant, in my opinion, since he couldn't even qualify for the batting title. If they were instead discussing the most plate appearances, then that would be a different story. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I interpreted it that the feat is so difficult that only a player with 1/3 or fewer of the reqd plate appearances has hit .400.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Like the other baseball stats/stat club FLs, the lead and the tables should only focus on those who joined/are in the club and not mention those who 'almost made it' (also applies to the .388 comment). Notwithstanding the fact that Hazle wasn't even close – again, trivia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • current drought of .350 hitters longest since 1962–66[26]
    • 1968 year of the pitcher, steroid era, specialised RP era – historical trends which are already covered in the MLB GA. If readers want to find out more, they can simply click on the link in this list, which is not the place for me to regurgitate this info (which no other baseball FL does). And once again, .350 is 'almost made it'. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – The one thing that stuck out at me in a negative way was saying that the Washington Post itself was responsible for the "both mystical and unattainable" quote. Since there is an author provided in the piece, this should be worded "The Washington Post's Barry Svrluga" or similar. Other that that, this is a nice-looking list, and I didn't spot anything else to complain about. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008 – I've changed it to "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark …". Is that alright, or would it be better to identify the writer in question by name? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008 – I think I've addressed your comment satisfactorily. Any follow-up vote? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Peter Dinklage on screen and stage

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and I have also adressed all comments by the previous failed FL nomination. - AffeL (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DarthBotto
Comments from DarthBotto
  • I would add a comma after "...the British film Death at a Funeral (2007)".
    • This punctuation fits in with the apparent serial comma syntax of the article.
  • I was going to recommend adding the mention of Nolan North replacing him in the role of Ghost, but I see that it is in hand in the content, so it's not unnecessary in the lead.
  • The referencing in this article is strong and reliable.
  • I would say that any adjustments made, like my recommended punctuation, are minimal. If you take care of that little detail, you'll definitely have my support vote. Beyond that, if you would like to weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: All done. - AffeL (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful! With that, you have my support!
Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not sure if the second image in the "Television" section is entirely necessary as it does not illustrate anything new from the top image.
  • Shouldn't the key in the "Film" section be at the top of the section to be really helpful to a reader?
  • I do not quite understand why his roles as a narrator for television documentaries is noteworthy enough for its own section and table. Couldn't this easily be put in the table in the "Television" section?

@AffeL: Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: All done. I removed the first image and put the second as the top image. - AffeL (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: Thank you for your prompt responses, and great work with this list! I can definitely support this nomination. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? I understand that it is a busy time so I understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so. Either way, good luck with getting this promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Aoba47. MCMLXXXIX 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the most thorough compilation of storms affecting the Arabian Peninsula. The region has been affected more and more in the past decade, with the three strongest storms on record in the adjacent Arabian Sea (Gonu, Phet, and Chapala) causing significant effects to the region. Add in a Yemeni civil war, the massive amounts of oil in the region, and a typically desert region getting lots of rainfall from storms, and you get some interesting effects. I believe the article is now ready for the rigors of the FLC process. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Nice work! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support with the disclaimer that I've done some minor copyediting. I believe the article is a great resource that easily meets the FL criteria. My only suggestion would be to include a time period for the following: In 2014, an archaeology team discovered evidence that a major flood affected Ras Al Hadd in eastern Oman, possibly the result of a tsunami or a severe storm.Juliancolton | Talk 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose until maps are provided. You guys have tons of maps showing paths, and I am sure you can create one for this list too. Nergaal (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. I contacted @Cyclonebiskit: about it. He said he would be able to, but it just might be a few days. 03:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, keeps slipping my mind. Just need to compile a few more tracks then I'll be able to produce the map. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: just waiting on a few more track files to be converted into a format I can use with the map generator. Thought it would be a simple copy/paste job but turns out all of the pre-2007 systems needed to be re-transcribed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Any timescale? I know there's no deadline but this has been ongoing for a month now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Just waiting on Hurricanehink to send me the revised track files then we're good to go. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: having some technical issues with the tracks... Need to go through them one-by-one and see what's bugging out the program. Getting closer though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Alien characters

Nominator(s): DARTHBOTTO talkcont 04:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this page, which I have poured countless hours into, is ready, as it meets and exceeds the Featured list criteria. It is of professional writing standard, it has an engaging and current lead, it is comprehensive, it has an easy-to-navigate structure, it has a consistent style and it is stable, despite the fact that there is an upcoming sequel that will feature a whole new host of characters to be added near the bottom of the page. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 04:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't we wait until the new film is released? The page will change substantially in a few months. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I would reason that this page is in the same position as List of The Last of Us characters, in that it is stable and ready for Featured List status now, though it will have a short period of retrofitting in a few months, when the new installment hits. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I share the same concern as Mattximus about the upcoming release of a new film with a whole new cast of characters to be added to this list. I understand why you brought up List of The Last of Us characters, but that list was promoted in July 20, 2015 and the sequel was officially announced in 2016 (there were rumors about the sequel as far back as 2014, but it was officially confirmed after the list became a featured article). This is why I think these two cases are very different from one another, and I share the same concern listed above. However, I can also understand your point of view as it should not be that difficult to add the new characters to the list, but I am concerned that the amount of traffic that will mostly likely come to the page after the film's release may interfere with this somewhat. Hope this makes sense, and great job on the list as I can tell a lot of time and effort has been put into it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Firstly, I appreciate your compliments towards the quality of the page, as it truly has been a complete 180 from being nominated for deletion after being of poor quality year after year. No matter what happens with this nomination, your words are recognized and I know this page will be a Featured List this year, sooner or later. That being said, I maintain my perspective that the article will remain stable, given that the organizational structuring of the list. We'll see, however; if it's not passed this time, it will be after May. Thank you, again. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 01:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: Thank you for your response, and I can definitely see this becoming a featured list sometime this year as it is very strong. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (and even newer to editing lists) so if other users determine that the upcoming film does not affect the stability of this list (as I would trust their word far more than mine), then please let me know and I would gladly provide a review. The Alien franchise is one of my favorite so it would fun to look this through when the time comes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Mattximus, Aoba47, there's no reason to delay reviewing the list in its current state. If it's complete and comprehensive right now, that's fine. Most lists will need to be updated, some annually, some substantially, some trivially. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man:@DarthBotto: Thank you for your message. I just wanted some confirmation either way as I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, and even newer to working on lists. I apologize for any delay on my behalf. I will provide my review of the list by the end of today. I look forward to looking through this in detail. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the delay. I will get to this as soon as I can. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Aoba47, The Rambling Man, thank you for your concern and clarification. I have appreciated the mutual respect in this review and with that note, no worries, Aoba47, as I look forward to reading your input. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • I might just be overthinking this so feel free to ignore this, but I am uncertain about the use of the word "character ensemble" in the first paragraph of the lead. I understand the meaning, but it seems odd to have the entire sentence be very in-universe in terms of providing a really strong summary of the setting/narrative and have a more production/out-of-universe word in the same space. I am mostly likely overthinking this, but let me know what you think.
I personally prefer including "character ensemble", but to test the waters, I'm trying "...the film series centers around different groups of people's struggle for survival..." I can't think of alternative wording that would not sound redundant. But, this should be suitable for completely in-universe context. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at it again, "character ensemble" is probably the best word choice. I cannot think of a better replacement as all of the characters come from a very diverse background and they cannot be easily group together under a single title so "character ensemble" is probably the easiest way to convey that idea to a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Great work with the table in the “Summary section”
Thank you so much for that! :) DARTHBOTTO talkcont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the final sentence of the “Newt Jorden” subsection, would it better to revise it to the following: (The decision to kill Newt in Alien 3 was criticized by James Cameron, who called it a…). Kill off seems to colloquial for Wikipedia, I do not believe "opposed" is the best verbiage, and the comma between opposed and the James Cameron portion leads me to think there was a large opposition to the death than just Cameron's criticism.
That's a valid point and the reference is specifically referring to Cameron's, so I'm trying a different take: "The creative decision for Newt to die in Alien 3 was opposed by James Cameron, who referred to it as a "Temple of Doom slap in the face"." DARTHBOTTO talkcont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the “Amanda Ripley” subsection, I think the parts about Inglis reads a little awkwardly. You currently have one sentence about Inglis being the picture model at the end of the first paragraph and then a second sentence about Amanda's design being based on pictures of a young Inglis at the end of the second paragraph. I would imagine that these two sentences should be placed closer together as they inform one another rather than being separated by the second paragraph.
I've taken the content from the end of the first paragraph and introduced it to the start of the end content in the second paragraph. This way, the source supports it and it has flow with describing the performers. I briefly tried having it in the middle and even at the beginning, but it didn't work as well-- in my opinion, at least. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 12:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of the “Christie” subsection, you use a similar sentence structure when introducing the source. It may be beneficial to add some variety to prevent this from coming across as a list.
    • It would appear as though the Guild of Copyeditors may have trimmed down fluff wording and the cloud to the silver lining would be that small things like this may seem redundant. I've taken the liberty of changing things up a bit. That being said, @Aoba47:, I'm very much back from my travels and am at work at this. I also wouldn't be concerned about the drastic edits the IP editor is trying to implement, as they have a history of not following consensus and copyvios on articles already, so they certainly don't represent any considerable wave. I abruptly put things back into order. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 13:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your response and take as much time as you need with this. I was not concerned about the edits being made as you have a very good handle of the list and I imagined that you would have this under control. I hope you had a wonderful time with your travels. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more for clarification purposes, but is there any other information on Sabra Hillard. Just want to confirm this as her subsection is significantly shorter than the others, which is fine if that is all there is out there about the character.
There were a couple of walls I ran into while rewriting this list and unfortunately, Hillard was the absolute worst, as she's notable enough within the context of the film to get mentioned, yet obscure enough for nobody to care. I removed her at least once, but upon consulting several administrators and standard editors, the consensus was for it to be included. Quite literally the only discussion about her part in the film was the analysis of the brief sex scene. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 04:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That is understandable; the subsection on the character looks fine with that in mind then. I agree that she should be included in the list and I have definitely hit similar walls to that when working on articles on fictional characters. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For the “Meredith Vickers”, do you think it would relevant to add criticism of her death sequence to balance it out? The running in a straight line bit was pretty ridiculous (even though I could see something like that playing out in real life). I was wondering as there is criticism to the character so I was not sure if it would be helpful to provide balance for the parts on the positive reception. Feel free to not do this as it is more of a suggestion/question on my part.
I'll try to have a crack at this after I get some sleep. She's an ice queen and deserves due service! ;) DARTHBOTTO talkcont 13:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me lol Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Aww-right, I've added the donut-rolling criticism. I think that with that, I've hit all your extenuating points! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good! Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Great work with the list! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this FLC. Have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Just want to let you know that several edits have been made to the list from other users. Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thank you for notifying me. I'm traveling for the next day, but I will address this and all extenuating issues as soon as I am home. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 05:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @DarthBotto: Support: You have done an exceptional job with the list, especially given that its AfD was relatively recent. It was a very interesting and thorough list that made me want to go and watch some of the Alien movies, which is a success in my book. If possible, could you look at my FLC for Private Practice (season 1). I understand if you do not have the time or interest to do this as it is a busy time of the year. Good luck getting this promoted and I apologize for my earlier confusion.
@Aoba47: Absolutely, I would love to. Just let me wrap up a few things, like my Virgin America GAN and I can hop on over to give some input. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: Thank you! Good luck with your GAN and with this nomination. I look forward to your feedback and to working with you further in the future if our paths cross on here again (I primarily focus on fictional characters/television/music). Have a great rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Activity with this nomination has slowed down somewhat. Do you reckon there is a way to prompt more feedback and reviews to help secure the Featured List status? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 00:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I would advocate reviewing other nominations and politley noting this one is still looking for input! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Impressive work on this page. But source 57. The Gametap source does not work for some reason, that page is not working. Everthing else is great. - AffeL (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I archived that source for you. So it works now. - AffeL (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Amazing catch, and thank you on all counts, AffeL! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 09:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2014 Tour de France

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Another Tour de France teams and cyclists list following my FLs of 2012 (FLC) and 2013 (FLC). The bulk of the work done on the tables was done by Cs-wolves and Ytfc23, I've just identified it as a possible FLC, tidied it up and then add the lead. BaldBoris 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment – In the second photo caption, is the first "stage" in "before the stage of the fourth stage" intentional, or was that meant to be "start"? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Typo, thanks. BaldBoris 00:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Support – That was the only issue I found in an excellent piece of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

  • What is "HD" originated from?
    "Hors délais". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Do you think a footnote is needed? BaldBoris 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The "by section" tables should give out the team classification times+positions (below the director?).
    Do you mean "by team"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Can only benefit the reader I suppose. Something like below? Please change it to how think it looks best. BaldBoris 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Thinking about, the section is really about the cyclists, so this would need to go in the teams section. Perhaps a wikitable simlar to List of 2016 UCI WorldTeams and riders#Teams overview. Instead of "Groupset" and "Bicycles", have the directeur sportif and the team classification place and deficit. This could mean we could do away with the "By team" section entirely. BaldBoris 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Team Sky (SKY)
No. Rider Pos.
1  Chris Froome (GBR) DNF-5
2  Bernhard Eisel (AUT) 126
3  Vasil Kiryienka (BLR) 86
4  David López (ESP) 105
5  Mikel Nieve (ESP) 18
6  Danny Pate (USA) 153
7  Richie Porte (AUS) 23
8  Geraint Thomas (GBR) 22
9  Xabier Zandio (ESP) DNF-6
Directeur sportif: Nicolas Portal
Team classification: 7th; + 1h 40' 36"
Movistar Team (MOV)
No. Rider Pos.
11  Alejandro Valverde (ESP) 4
12  Imanol Erviti (ESP) 81
13  John Gadret (FRA) 19
14  Jesús Herrada (ESP) dagger 61
15  Beñat Intxausti (ESP) 114
16  Ion Izagirre (ESP) dagger 41
17  Rubén Plaza (ESP) 91
18  José Joaquín Rojas (ESP) DSQ-18
19  Giovanni Visconti (ITA) 37
Directeur sportif: José Luis Arrieta
Team classification: 3rd; + 1h 06' 10"
Team Katusha (KAT)
No. Rider Pos.
21  Joaquim Rodríguez (ESP) 54
22  Vladimir Isaichev (RUS) 157
23  Alexander Kristoff (NOR) 125
24  Luca Paolini (ITA) 136
25  Alexander Porsev (RUS) HD-13
26  Egor Silin (RUS) DNF-6
27  Gatis Smukulis (LAT) 100
28  Simon Špilak (SLO) DNF-17
29  Yuri Trofimov (RUS) 14
Directeur sportif: José Azevedo
Team classification: 17th; + 04h 02' 46
  • The teams section should have stylized jerseys listed too (you guys have something like {{Football kit}}?
    Stylized jerseys are purely decorative. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    I don't want to go into too much detail but cycling jerseys/kit aren't the same as other pro sports teams. The majority of cycling teams are reliant on sponsorship, which can change every season, and thus their kits are a reflection of the team's sponsors (not plain colours like a football clubs). Regardless of this, I highly doubt we'll ever have all the kit images done, with the amount they change and the little amount of people able to make them. You can imagine the inconsistency. We currently use non-free images on the team's article, but nowhere else. BaldBoris 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Relpied to comments above. Can I ask why you changed the legend font size to 90%? Where's the MOS on this? BaldBoris 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing in MOS to support that, so I've restored the normal text size. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from DarthBotto

Pinging BaldBoris, as I don't want this nomination to go stale!

  • What would you think about having a picture of either Chris Froome or Andre Greipel in the lead, directly above the map? It could say that while Froome won the race, Greipel secured his fourth victory with the completion of the final leg.
    This is a personal preference of mine; I've chosen to put images of all the classification winners in the "By starting number" section. The two others I have promoted (2012 and 2013) use the same. I do think believe in consistency though and think all the Grand Tour team list should all follow the same style. BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The race was contested by 22 teams". Why not "22 teams competed in the race"?
    I can't find where but someone pointed this out to me at WP:NUMNOTES. BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, I see: "Avoid beginning a sentence with figures". DARTHBOTTO talkcont 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The number of riders allowed per squad was nine..." The wording is a little off, in my opinion. How about "Each squad was allowed nine riders"?
    I agree it's off, but I think the revision should be "Each team was allowed a squad of nine riders" or "Each squad was allowed a maximum of nine riders". The FL List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Vuelta a España uses "As each team was entitled to enter nine riders, the peloton...". BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I would go for the latter of your two suggestions. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Of this, 47 were riding..." Would "Of them" be more appropriate, as we're talking about athletes? "This" sounds possessive of the number, rather than the individuals themselves. Or, was this your intention?
    I think I just recycled it from another. During the FAC of the 2012 Tour de France, Mike Christie changed it from "Of this" to "Of these" [27]. So, it's between "them" or "these"? BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think "these" is better -- starting a sentence with "Of them, ..." sounds very unnatural to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I would settle for "these". DARTHBOTTO talkcont 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond this nitpicking, I am very impressed with the composition and referencing of the lead. I can see that you have put a large amount of effort into getting it polished and up to snuff.
  • The references would appear to be in good order. Previous Featured List designations use similar sources with a similar ratio of first to third party ones. Good job!
  • There is very little work to be done before you have my support vote. I ask that you at least look into having a good picture in the lead, as well as applying the minute suggestions I have in mind. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 06:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments DarthBotto, I had almost forgotten about this myself. Your ping to me didn't work BTW. BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a damn shame! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@BaldBoris: Thank you for being so reasonable, methodical and showing of logic behind addressing my concerns. You hereby have my Support for Featured List status. When you have a little time, I would love it if you could return the favor at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, (which is almost as old as this one! :P). DARTHBOTTO talkcont 05:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of works by Sax Rohmer

Notified: WikiProject Bibliographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it contains a section of entirely uncited information reliant on nothing but original research. An editor is insisting that it remains, which means that this article now fails the criteria necessary to be classed as one of WP's best. - The Bounder (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

List of films that received the Golden Film

Notified: Awards and prizes

This list suffers from severe neglect. It has not been updated in almost 8 years, and the lead needs to be completely rewritten as it is in a style that is no longer considered appropriate for featured lists. Specifically "This page is a list"... "This page shows,"... "In the following tables".... The tables themselves are also broken, and there has been an update tag since 2014... Mattximus (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delist per nomination. Nowhere near our current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey

This list has sadly been neglected for about 6 years. Almost all the links have rotted away (12/23 links are dead, including all major links), and the list hasn't been updated to reflect the 2014 Olympics (!). The formatting of the tables and placement of images could also use work. This requires major work to bring up to FL status. Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delist unless nominator's comments are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film (Russia)

Notified: Tomcat7, Awards and prizes

This page simply fell into disarray due to lack of upkeep. It has not been updated for almost 5 years, thus missing significant content. Almost all the links have rotted away, and I count 39 dead links. Which means the page is almost entirely unsourced and would take quite a bit of effort to properly source them again and updated the table. Mattximus (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delist sadly the mass of dead links and the foreign-language sourcing required to bring it back up to date is way beyond me. Not an FL by current standards. Maybe the film project could help? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=771336179"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA