Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2015

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | Featured log
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 21:24, 29 August 2015 [1].

List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rooooney. His goals and his imminent passing of Bobby Charlton's all-time scoring record for England have been the subject of many discussions over the past few months, so I thought I'd bang this into shape. I would be interested to see what the community here think could be improved/added/removed. As always, my thanks all of you who contribute, in whatever form, to the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comments
  • "Wayne Rooney made his debut for the England in a 3–1 defeat...."
    Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Ref 3 confirms Rooney broke Owen's record, I don't see it confirming it was against Morocco.
    Ref added, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could have extra tables for 'by opponent' or 'by competition'? Lemonade51 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could do, but that's covered in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more, mostly to do with sources...

Lemonade51 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on style and structure. Rooney's goalscoring record in the tournaments, particularly the World Cup is often scrutinised. Just an idea, you could rephrase "He has scored a single goal in the World Cup finals," to "...only scored once..." to reflect this? Lemonade51 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, have tweaked as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian
  • Support: The Rambling Man, I've completed my review and re-review of this nominated list, and I find that it meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the list's lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of Rooney's international goals. The image of Rooney is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for use here. This image does need an "alt" citation, though. Also, Macedonia national football team should be wiki-linked in the lede, since England and Australia's national teams are. Lemonade51 addressed the only other issues with the list, which look to have been sufficiently answered. Thank you for writing another featured-worthy list and congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi West Virginian, thanks for your support and your comments. I've added alt text, but Macedonia is already linked on its first appearance in the text. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list needs some kind of visual tally by year and by competition. Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain why you think that's required. I can add something but your comment is unclear, by competition is clear from the table and the prose, by year, is that really needed or is it just stats? Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
Comment: I can't help but think that this list would benefit from being sortable? Harrias talk 20:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You win the £5. I had thought that myself, and I'll do that, but it takes TIME and effort to get all the sort templates done. I had hoped that I'd catered for all the "sorting" questions (e.g. opponents, stadia most scored) in the lead, but if you insist, then I'll have to spend a few hundred thousand hours working it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: the list says "England score shown first." But that doesn't seem to be the case for the first half of the list. It does hold true for roughly #33 onwards, but not before that? Or am I misreading? Harrias talk 20:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, I'll go through it all tomorrow, try to make it sortable, damn you, and get back to you. Thanks for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm playing around in my sandbox (well, one of them) with a similar list for Bobby Charlton. So I was looking quite closely at this list for guidance! Harrias talk 20:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would be REALLY helpful would be a bot or script that turned bare dates into sortable dates... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm learning some coding at the moment in an effort to be able to come up with useful scripts like that. But don't hold your breath, at least not for this FLC! Harrias talk 21:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check out my recent edit..... Wow! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheat. Harrias talk 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and removed false note, England score isn't first. It's just standard home team-away team, so I've destroyed that claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias fully sortable now, what do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting looks good, though I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the "Score" column being sortable. But it can't harm I guess.
  • I know it is the general format convention, but it looks odd have YYYY FIFA World Cup, and UEFA Euro YYYY. Would there be any worth in making it FIFA World Cup YYYY to keep the two consistent within the list?
    I'm keeping it consistent with the reset of Wikipedia's articles on these things, it makes me wonder though if we need a wider discussion to move them all inline with one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a need to link London? I'd say that the Republic of Macedonia is in more need of a link than London!
    I'm just trying to be consistent, some readers know where Skopje is, some know where Manchester is, so I can either link all the cities, or none of them, all of the countries or none of them, I don't think I can judge on every reader's behalf what places are and are not obvious.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have another relevant picture to kill some of the whitespace next to the Goals and appearances per year table? (Which could also be made sortable *wink*) Harrias talk 07:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Harrias all responded to or addressed, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the scores look the wrong way around. #32, #34, #35, #36, #39, #43, #45, #46. Harrias talk 07:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Harrias: wow, stoopid me, and sorry for taking so long to notice your comment. Fixed now I think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, yup looks good to me now! Harrias talk 07:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

As an ancestral Evertonian it goes against the grain to support anything to do with the goblinesque defector, but this FLC seems to me to meet all the criteria. Dammit. Tim riley talk 20:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This might seem a little silly, but it's not mentioned anywhere that Rooney is a footballer. Perhaps this is worth adding in the first sentence somewhere?
  • "Rooney has never scored an international hat-trick although he has scored twice in a match on ten occasions." Comma after hat-trick?
  • I only count four goals during Euro 2004, not the five stated in the lead
  • "Statistics accurate as of match played 7 June 2015" full stop at the end?

This is an excellent list and a novel idea that will surely catch on. Fantastic work. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed as you suggested. Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - It will be the first FL for international goals unless I'm mistaken and it sets a nice template for future articles of this type. The prose flows really smoothly even though it is incredibly stat-heavy, which is a great achievement. Spiderone 11:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as second-equal top scorer or as the second-equal top scorer - and one behind or and behind. Other than this, the list is very well written and made.--Cheetah (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mattythewhite
  • "As of August 2015": should this not be the date of his last cap?
    Well both are valid. Both are true. And quite possibly I'll need to update this list in a week or so's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He has only scored once in the World Cup finals, in a 2–1 loss to Uruguay": which World Cup?
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:DTAB, tables should have captions to describe their nature.
    I thought only if it wasn't obvious, e.g. if it follows on from a heading. Anyway, added a caption. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the prose the FIFA/UEFA acronyms are not included, but in the list they are; should be consistent.
    I tend to disagree here. In the list, they are designed to link to specific articles, but in the prose it becomes very awkward to keep mentioning UEFA, FIFA every time when we simply don't do that in common parlance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Republic of Macedonia": just Macedonia? If we were to write out the official names of every country, we'd have the Portuguese Republic, Kingdom of Denmark etc.
    Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "San Marino Stadium": no settlement, unlike the other venues.
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Statistics are accurate as of match played 7 June 2015": I should hope not, seeing as Rooney was last capped on 15 June 2015!
    Reused note from previous table. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. I believe I've responded to and/or addressed your concerns, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, not that I think it needs any more support !votes...! Mattythewhite (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:53, 26 August 2015 [2].

List of accolades received by Aadukalam edit

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2011 Indian Tamil drama film, Aadukalam starring Dhanush and Taapsee Pannu. This film is notable for garnering Dhanush and Vetrimaaran several awards and nominations. It is my second attempt at FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry I see a 3(b) violation here. The size of the parent article is just over 8k chars (1.3k words). I see no point in splitting the awards page unless the main article is expanded by a sizeable fold. Besides, your previous candidate has two opposes with a few outstanding concerns still left. —Vensatry (ping) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Oh I see. Thanks for making me aware of it. If that's the case, should I withdraw the nomination? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: I don't have a final say here. So wait for others opinion. Cheers —Vensatry (ping) 12:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm retracting my oppose as Ssven2 has expanded the parent article. Although my rule-of-thumb is 12k chars, this looks fine for me. —Vensatry (ping) 05:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm going to have to disagree with Vensatry on this. I think the table is just long enough to qualify for a separate article. It would look excessively bloated in the main article. It's a well sourced list which looks near FL criteria to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not with this list, but with the parent article. As pointed out earlier, since the size of the parent article hovers around 8k chars, I see no point in forking this list out of it. —Vensatry (ping) 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Ssven has stated that Aadukalam will be a future GA for him, so he will expand it to who-knows-what-length. And the film, being a multiple NFA winner, will definitely have at least 100 news sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this list can well be nominated when the parent article gets expanded long enough. Whether or not, it becomes a GA isn't an issue. —Vensatry (ping) 09:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't understand why would it "bloat" the main article, when the prose part of this list can easily be covered there. —Vensatry (ping) 19:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie
...
  • "The film's story revolves around Karuppu who is the understudy of an experienced Cockfighter" – why is cockfighter capitalized?
  • An unnecessary space between ₹150 and –.
  • The size of the image is a bit large.
  • "Aadukalam won six awards at the 58th National Film Awards ceremony held at New Delhi in 2011" – I think "held at New Delhi in 2011" is redundant.
  • In the same sentence "more than any other film at the ceremony" since the succeeding sentence mentions the record.
  • "with Kannathil Muthamittal (2002) for the highest number of National Film Awards" – "highest" → "most".
  • "It won awards under the Best Direction (Vetrimaaran), Best Actor (Dhanush), Best Screenplay (Original) (Vetrimaaran) ... categories".
  • Every sentence I see starts with "it won at the xxx awards under the xxx categories". Consider rephrasing some.
  • References (which are already in the Accolades section) from the third paragraph should go away as they are not supposed to be repeated in the lead when they are already covered in the main body, per WP:LEAD.
  • References after dates of awards i.e. The Chennai Times Film Awards and Mirchi Music Awards South are unnecessary as they don't need to be verified by sources.
  • Since you have presumed that one award is equal to one nomination, I would suggest to add the Enthiran footnote in FN#1, preceded by the current sentence.
  • Page no for reference 8 should be changed to "p. 15" to maintain consistency.
  • Publisher of ref 16 and 17 should read as Norway Tamil Film Festival Awards.
  • I would suggest you to go with full name of publisher of ref 19.
  • Ref 20 should read as CNN-IBN.
  • I think the Sources section does not need to have two headers. It can be used as a subsection of References.
  • I would have to disagree with Vensatry on content forking as the list, including the accompanying prose, would be too long to be included in the parent article. And as Dr. Blofeld said, it would look bloated in the main article. -- Frankie talk 12:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: your comments have been resolved. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sven, I have capped my comments. I shall take a final look, and see if I have more to quibble about. Asides this, I think this is a job well done. -- Frankie talk 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for its direction, screenplay, Dhanush's performance. music," – replace the full stop (.) after "Dhanush's performance" with a comma.
Done Didn't notice this one. My bad. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of August 2015, the film has won 26 awards." – what's wrong with not mentioning the total number of nominations?
Done included the nominations. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ref(s)" should be replaced with either "Ref." or "Refs" as you can see there is no row which has one ref, but multiple in all of them.
@FrB.TG: Don't understand what you mean here. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Reference(s) refers to the fact that there might be one source at a place, while there can be multiple sources at a different place. But that is not the case here, as you can see that all of the entries under "Ref(s)" are filled with multiple sources. Thus, this should be either changed to "Ref." or "Refs." -- Frankie talk 12:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Got it. Thanks, Frank. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why is there an FN regarding the dollar exchange of INR. This is a global encyclopedia, not a US one.
@FrB.TG: Some editors might question the amount conversion if it was not there before. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you mention the winner's name in parenthesis, preceded by the certain award category, I don't think you need to repeat it. For example, remove Dhanush's name in "including Entertainer of the Year (Dhanush)" as it's already written above.
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "p.16" with "p.xvi" in ref 7. I know you changed it per my suggestion, but p. 16, I believe, is different than p. xvi in the book. -- Frankie talk 11:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – after an exhaustive and comprehensive review, I can't find anything else to fault. -- Frankie talk 12:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Thanks, Frankie. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian edit

@West Virginian: Thanks, West Virginian! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:53, 26 August 2015 [3].

Brad Pitt filmography edit

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my 16th nomination this year; this one on the filmography of actor Brad Pitt, who is well known for his roles, such as Thelma & Louise (1991), Seven (1995), 12 Monkeys (1995), Fight Club (1996), Ocean's Eleven (2001; and its sequel), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008), and Moneyball (2011). Thanks to all reviewers indulged in reviewing this list. -- Frankie talk 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2 edit

  • "and played his first major role in the slasher film Cutting Class." — The year of the film's release can be added like "and played his first major role in the slasher film Cutting Class (1989)."
  • "In 1993, Pitt was cast in the role of a serial killer in the road thriller Kalifornia, and featured in the Tony Scott-directed black comedy film True Romance." — Does citation number 4 cover this as well?
  • Well, that supports only his Golden Globe nomination. The other parts are verifiable through the main body of the list.
  • "in which he played a detective on the trail a psychopathic serial killer" — "in which he played a detective on the trail of a psychopathic serial killer."
  • "both nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture" — "both of which were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture"
  • One link has a redirect. Fix it.
  • In the 2001 image, you can mention where the photo was taken.

That's about it from me. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ssven2. All resolved. :) -- Frankie talk 12:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Sven. Your time and support are much appreciated. -- Frankie talk 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks a sound list to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc! -- Frankie talk 08:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimknut edit

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction
  • "Brad Pitt is an American actor and film producer. His acting career began in 1987 with uncredited roles in the films No Way Out and Less Than Zero." – "Brad Pitt is an American actor and film producer whose acting career began in 1987 with uncredited roles in the films No Way Out and Less Than Zero. (The first sentence seems too simplistic so I suggest combining it with the second.)
  • "In 1993, Pitt was cast in the role of a serial killer in the road thriller Kalifornia, and featured in the Tony Scott-directed black comedy film True Romance." – "In 1993 Pitt was cast in the role of a serial killer in the road thriller Kalifornia and featured in the Tony Scott-directed black comedy film True Romance." (Commas not necessary)
  • "Pitt re-teamed with director David Fincher to star in the apocalyptic film Fight Club" – When was their first teaming? It's not mentioned above.
  • "Pitt won the Academy Award for Best Picture for the period drama 12 Years a Slave (2013) – "Pitt's production of the period drama 12 Years a Slave (2013) won the Academy Award for Best Picture ."

Television

  • Since Pitt is an American and all of his television appearances have been in the United States, the column titled "Channel" should be changed to "Network", which is more appropriate for American television. ("Channel", I believe, is more appropriate for British television.)

— Jimknut (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimknut: Thanks for taking time to leave comments. I believe I have resolved them.. -- Frankie talk 18:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- Frankie talk 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: FrB.TG, this list easily meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It is also in keeping with the established format set forth by other featured filmography lists. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot mate. -- Frankie talk 14:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maile edit

  • Under "Theater" section, it probably should be changed to the accepted spelling of "Theatre", especially given that's how the venue spells it.
  • Overall, a really excellent list. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. :) -- Frankie talk 18:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:53, 26 August 2015 [4].

List of accolades received by Enthiran edit

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2010 Indian Tamil science fiction film, Enthiran starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. This is the first Tamil film list to be attempted for FL and also the first time I'm nominating an article for FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry edit

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Mild oppose
  • Need a comma after editing and Antony.
  • "around the scientist's struggle" - around a scientist's struggle
  • Link android robot
  • "report by Sun TV Network" - report by the Sun TV Network
  • "with praise particularly directed at with particular praise for" - Needs a desperate rephrasing
  • "As of August 2015, the film has won 26 awards." - The table lists only 19 awards
  • "Enthiran won two National Film Awards ..." - Year and ceremony needs to be specified
  • winning for
  • The film won two Screen Awards at the 17th Screen Awards ...
  • Year needed for IIFA
  • The piped link for 17th Screen Awards should be unlinked
  • Does Ghanta Award count as an accolade? I'm not very sure because as far as I can see this isn't listed in any Indian accolades list.
  • I'm not sure if technical awards like Best cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design have nominations.
  • Since Robot, the Hindi version, too received quite a few awards you should perhaps add a line in the opening para mentioning that the film was dubbed into Hindi as well.
  • "Aishwarya Rai Bachchan" appears twice in the lead, keep the last name for the second occurrence.
  • Behindwoods and Oneindia Entertainment qualify WP:RS?
  • The NDTV refs. (#11, ... , #16) are one and the same.
  • Mumbai Mirror should be italicised
  • Publisher for ref #5 should simply be Bombay Stock Exchange
  • I don't understand why we are so keen to add archived URLs for every single ref. They are not at all necessary in the article.
  • Date for ref. 26 is 26 June 2011
Except for the second and third para which need a slight copy-edit, prose seems to be okay. But I'm a little worried about the quality of sources used in the article. Behindwoods, OneIndia – the article is heavily dependent on both of these. —Vensatry (ping) 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Resolved almost all your comments. Oneindia was about the only one which covered the Filmfare Award ceremony completely (both winners and nominees for both technical and performance). All other sources I tried finding on the net were quite unreliable (except a few cases where I got TOI for IIFA awards, which I now have used instead of Behindwoods). I'll try and reduce the Behindwoods sources in the article. Regarding technical nominations, is it ok if just the winners are included? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's such a disgrace that Indian media does not cover much about award ceremonies. I still hope the ceremonies are available for viewing on YouTube; nominees in them ar typically announced. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Got the official link for Vijay Awards on YouTube. Removed Behindwoods and Oneindia sources from the article. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: I haven't really had a look at the list since my initial review. Part of me feels you've done a good work so far. Since both the questionable sources are replaced now, I'm retracting my oppose. I'll revisit the page tomorrow. —Vensatry (ping) 19:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets the standards. Nicely improved since my previous visit —Vensatry (ping) 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Thanks for the thorough review, Vensatry! Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian edit

  • The image of Rajinikanth is licensed CC BY 3.0, so it is acceptable for use here.
  • The first sentence of the article's lede needs to have an inline citation that verifies S. Shankar as the director and Kalanithi Maran as the producer.
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest adding an and behind the semicolon in the third sentence of the lede's first paragraph.
@West Virginian: I wrote "The film stars Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in the lead roles with Danny Denzongpa, Santhanam, and Karunas playing supporting roles." If that's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure to use an Oxford comma consistently throughout the lede, as it is not used in the third sentence, but is used in the fourth sentence.
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than "The film was dubbed into Hindi as Robot," consider "The film was dubbed in Hindi as Robot."
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Produced on an estimated budget..." vs. "Made on an estimated budget..." Produced sounds more professional here.
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest inserting an Oxford comma in the sentence outlining areas of "particular praise."
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the National Film Awards are not always held in New Delhi, I would mention that New Delhi was the venue for the ceremony along with the year.
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an inline citation for the final sentence of the third paragraph?
@West Virginian: Yes, the citations are available in the list. I want to keep the information in the lead like other Indian film award FLs. I'll add the citations if you want me to do so. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised there are not more Tamil language sources referenced here. I would engage in a cursory search of Tamil language media sources to see if there are any other sources out there to include here.
@West Virginian: Not much reliable tamil newspaper/magazine/website sources (online) cover the award ceremonies. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Ssven2, thank you for addressing all my concerns in a timely manner. While this is a short list, it would make the article for the film much too long if this list were added to it. With that said, this list is quite comprehensive for the subject matter, and I support its progression to FL status. Thank you for all your work on this one! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@West Virginian: Thank you very much, West Virginian! Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Azealia911 edit

  • Before I start a thorough review, I just want to say, this article doesn't seem very necessary, just over 30 awards from a mere six award shows amassing to a total of less than twenty references for the entire article, what's stopping this table from being slipped into the main article? It seems somewhat fork-y from my point of view. Azealia911 talk 22:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Azealia911: The main article faced length issues, especially during its first FAC. That's why the awards section has a separate article. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But...you created the awards article in February 2015, and you didn't nominate the main article for FA until March 2015 for the first time, so how exactly was it an issue? After reading over some of the issues presented at the main articles nomination for the first time concerning length, it seems that issues were to do with repetition of language, as opposed to that the article was too bulky. There's nothing wrong with a long article, so long as it doesn't waffle, which is what the editor took issue with, I really don't see any issue merging the table into the awards section. I'm not going to review this, sorry to say, and currently take the stance of oppose, withdraw and merge, per this being an unnecessary split. I could be otherwise persuaded though, but at this point I'm not seeing enough notable information concerning awards for a stand-alone list. Azealia911 talk 01:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Although there is no specific rule on the limit, an accolades list with 15+ awards and close to 30 nominations is definitely a legitimate fork. You may want to see similar FLs with less than 15 awards. —Vensatry (ping) 07:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Azealia911: The length was actually discussed during the main article's first peer review. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By giving the awards a separate article, the main article became concise enough to to pass its FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie
...
  • I think the exclusion of infobox started from Kahaani's accolades (the first FL on an Indian film accolades), which did not include it, because certain awards have no prior nominations. I think an infobox can be added with a footnote as seen in this list.
  • To see an example of a tally to add, you might want to have a look at this list. -- Frankie talk 20:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enthiran won two awards at the 58th National Film Awards ceremony, held at New Delhi in 2011" – de-link New Delhi as WP:OVERLINK suggests "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions [should not be linked]".
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enthiran won three International Indian Film Academy Awards at the 12th IIFA Awards ceremony held on 25 July 2011" – 25 July 2011 not needed.
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the entries under "Recipient(s) and Nominee(s)" should be linked (even if repeated) as the table is sortable.
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names under the aforementioned column should sorted by last names, using {{sort}}.
@FrB.TG: Where to place it exactly? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[[Kalanithi Maran]] should be changed to {{sort|Maran|[[Kalanithi Maran]]}} and so for others, who have last names. -- Frankie talk 11:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the publishers/owners of publishers in references are really not needed, e.g. Press Trust of India in ref 2.
@FrB.TG: Changed to "author" if it's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I want this to go away for the sake of consistency. -- Frankie talk 11:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree with Azealia911 on content forking as the list, including the accompanying prose, would be too big to be included in the film's article. -- Frankie talk 11:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a final point – "Enthiran won three International Indian Film Academy awards at the 12th IIFA Awards ceremony under". -- Frankie talk 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – nice work on your first list. -- Frankie talk 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Thanks, Frankie. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dr. Blofeld edit

  • Support Looks a decent list to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks, Doc. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vivvt edit

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 04:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* No need to use three level sections for notes, footnotes, and sources. Use ";". Also, sources section should be changed to bibliography and footnotes to references.
@Vivvt: There is already a title "References". It would cause another Duplicate title to be created. I have used "Citations" instead of "Footnotes" and used ";" for all the three if that's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "Only" is the keyword here. Why use "only" Rajini's image and not one with Aishwarya Rai alongside? Both the images are from commons anyways. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: She was hardly nominated for any awards except the favourite heroine in the Vijay awards. She also won a Ghanta Award for Worst actress (which, per se, is not an accolade, hence removed from this list on Vensatry's suggestion). That's why "only" Rajini's image is used. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get this argument. She wasnt nominated so doesnt deserve an image then why not include image for the most nominated people like V. Srinivas Mohan or Cyril. I know this is not a film article but the complete story revolves around her. We can go on with these arguments but I dont think thats the agenda for this FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a requirement? This is an accolades list after all. I'd be more happy to include the images of Shankar, Srinivas Mohan, Sabu Cyril (if we have a free image), and Randy. —Vensatry (ping) 12:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: Done I have used the image you mentioned, tweaking the sentence below it a bit. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider re-writing "The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for Rajinikanth's performance, cinematography, visual effects, art direction, and costume design." Sounds like Rajini did all that.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enthiran won two awards at the 58th National Film Awards ceremony, held at New Delhi in 2011, --> At the 58th National Film Awards ceremony, Enthiran won two awards... Year and place is not required in this list.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Best Art Director (Cyril) and Best Costume Design", add an Oxford comma after Cyril.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the 5th Vijay Awards, it was nominated --> At the 5th Vijay Awards, the film was nominated
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Maran) and Favourite Director, add an Oxford comma after Maran
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12th IIFA Awards under the Best Special Effects, Best Art Direction and Best Makeup categories, add an Oxford comma after Art Direction
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Vivvt (Talk) 06:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Good work overall. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: Thanks, Vivvt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:53, 26 August 2015 [5].

List of tied One Day Internationals edit

Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) 18:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A decade-old list, I've completely re-written the lead and worked on the table and formatting stuff. Look forward to comments and suggestions, as always —Vensatry (ping) 18:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • You abbreviate ICC but never use the abbreviation.
  • Why not link England and Australia cricket teams in the lead?
  • " if it ends up " maybe "if it concludes" or at least remove "up".
  • Duckworth and Lewis should be separated by an en-dash.
  • "There are also two matches where the scores ended level, but the team which had lost fewer wickets was declared the winner." was this a local rule change that over-ruled the ICC definition?
    • Guess it was a local rule. Can't find sources for the same, anything from your side? —Vensatry (ping) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first tie in ODIs happened" bit awkward reading for me "The first tie in ODI history took place..."
  • Why not link Aus and WI?
  • " occurred after a gap of five years during the second match" the way that's currently written it could be inferred that gap of five years took place during a match...
  • "Starting from 1991, a further 30 ties have occurred in ODIs, more frequently than ever before" not keen on this really, and I imagine that more ties occurred because more matches were played...
  • "Australia was involved in" instead of was, maybe "has been" (or BritEng "have been")
  • Kingsmead cricket ground -> Cricket Ground.
  • Some of the notes make claims which need referencing, e.g. Note A.
  • Note G - overs, not over.
  • Not sure you need to relink D/L method every single time it's used.

That's it from a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian
  • Vensatry, I only had a few comments for you regarding this list. Overall, fantastic job researching and crafting this lede and list! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first statement in the first sentence of the lede where the term "One Day International" is defined should have an inline citation at the end of it.
  • The image of the Australian team is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is acceptable for use here. Both captions are suitable.
  • Over (cricket) should be wiki-linked to the "over" in 40-over, since it comes before the next usage of the term in the lede's prose.
  • In the last sentence of the first paragraph, two matches are mentioned but no specifics are given. Is there a way to include more information here regarding those two matches? I know this content is below in the table, but this could be elaborated further in this sentence.
  • Bangladesh needn't be wiki-linked in the final sentence of the lede.
  • All the images included are licensed appropriately and are suitable for use here; and all images have acceptable captions in keeping with FL standards.
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments'
  • "There are also two matches where the scores ended level..." -> There have been two occasions where a match has been tied, that the team which had lost fewer wickets was declared the winner.
  • "the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack called..." called makes no sense, change to stated
  • "occurred in till..." in till -> until
  • I would move the green key indicator to before the table so the reader knows what it represents before they view the table

Other than these looks good. NapHit (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:16, 25 August 2015 [6].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Stuart Broad edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on Thursday just gone, we witnessed one of the greatest bowling displays from an English cricketer in the history of the game. With his performance, Stuart Broad unlocked the door to 300+ wickets, became the fourth greatest English bowler of all-time and snuck onto the foot of the 15 or more fifers chart. I knocked this list up in the last 24 hours and humbly submit it to the scrutiny of the community. Note: I have another, similar, list here at FLC, but it has two supports and an indication from a third editor that they see no major problems other than the one they pointed out. As ever, my thanks to anyone and everyone who takes the time to participate in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: The Rambling Man, the prose is professionally written and the lede meets the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and is both engaging and comprehensive in content. The list itself is in keeping with the standards set forth by other featured "lists of international cricket five-wicket hauls." I also prefer the key being placed in a table, as it is here. More importantly, the references cited are verifiable and are in keeping with Wikipedia standards. The first image is licensed CC BY 2.0 and the second image is licensed CC BY-SA 1.0, so both are acceptable for use here. Great job and thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments
  • As of 9 August 2015 – Do we really need the date here?
    Since we're in the middle of a Test series, yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure "all-time combined five-wicket haul takers" can be rephrased in a better way. Also, not sure if 'five-wicket haul takers' is good English
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What about 'five-wicket haul takers'? —Vensatry (ping) 11:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I see a major problem here, we say "he took a five-wicket haul" so he's a "five-wicket haul taker", no? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot find this usage outside our WP lists. —Vensatry (ping) 11:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Kingston in the lead
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You use Kingston in one sentence and Trent Bridge in another. Be consistent —Vensatry (ping) 11:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sabina Park. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Test matches, Broad has been most successful against Australia, taking six of his fourteen five-wicket Test hauls against them." – 'Test' and the 'against them' bit are redundant.
    Reworded, but yuck. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He took the only wicket, that of Shoaib Malik, in a rain-curtailed match" – You need be more clear here; earlier England were bowled out in the first innings.
    More clearer. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why 'one-day' format and not 'One Day'? Also, something is missing in the sentence.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODI table says his fifer came against India in 2007, which again is wrong (guess you remodeled the Mitchell Johnson list).
    Indeed, massive oversight, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Riverside Ground image needs alt text
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The double dagger thing should be added for the twin fifer that he took at the Riverside Ground. —Vensatry (ping) 11:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why aren't the cities linked in he "Venue" col.?
    Avoid linking common geographical terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, we shouldn't link countries. But not sure if all cities fall under 'major geographical regions'. Also, in that case you shouldn't have linked Kingston in the lead. —Vensatry (ping) 11:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with Sabina Park. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is a personal preference. Given that, he first played ODIs and took his first ODI fifer before Tests the lead and table could follow a chronological ordering.

—Vensatry (ping) 09:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I've tended to stick to Tests, then ODIs, then T20Is in all of these kind of things, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I hopefully have addressed them. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "the first Test of the 2008–09 series in Sabina Park," should it be at instead of in?
  • "pick up a fifer..." perhaps take a fifer?

Apart from those two slightly pedantic comments, I see little wrong with this list, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed as you suggested, thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments
  • Could the phrase "As of 9 August 2015, Broad has taken 308 wickets in Test matches, 177 wickets in ODIs and 65 wickets in T20Is." Be re-written so that it wouldn't need updating so often to keep it up to date? Something more like "has taken over 300 wickets in Test matches, and almost 250 across ODI and T20Is." Actually, that sounds pretty pants, so maybe not!
    I'm only keeping it like that until the end of this Test, I'll make sure it's updated accordingly after this omnishambles we're experiencing! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Harrias talk 07:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that "fifer" is encyclopaedic language that we should be using in prose.
    Excised. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps add Jamaica into the location for the first ground? Harrias talk 07:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, fair enough so it isn't confused with other Kingstons. Done, thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for resolving my concerns nice and quickly, nice list. Harrias talk 07:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:16, 25 August 2015 [7].

Katy Perry videography edit

Nominator(s): Frankie talk and Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list was previously the part of Katy Perry discography, but was separated by the user Samjohnzon. Also, I would like to acknowledge and thank the fellow editor SNUGGUMS for the contributions he has made. I believe this a second open nomination for me, with the first one having already 5 supports and no outstanding concerns. I will try to resolve reviewer's queries with the best of my ability. Cheers. -- Frankie talk 09:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my name as a nominator given my edits to the article. Hope you don't mind. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not in fact I was going to add your name anyway~, but it automatically inserted my name. -- Frankie talk 14:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Azealia911 edit

  • Consider a lighter shade of red for the infobox listing for "Television"
  • Could the N/A templates possibly be expanded? EG {{N/A|None}}. A bare N/A always feels so vague to me.
  • Can you explain the "Other videos" table to me? I see no reason why it can't be slotted into the above table.
  • Are any of the descriptions actually covered in the references? I've checked a couple, and in the two I've checked; Kesha isn't mentioned in the Hot n Cold reference, while Matt Dallas isn't mentioned in the Thinking of You reference.
  • Since this is for plot, I don't think we need to provide references for each and every plot point. And as the description does not provide any additional analysis, the contents should be easily verifiable. In that case, I am not sure if multiple references will help. Besides, no reference really states the "entire" plot of a narrative. Every plot point is only verifiable if we watch the entire music videos. Thanks for your other comments anyway. I shall resolve them tomorrow. -- Frankie talk 21:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I worded it wrong, I wasn't asking you to verify every single detail in the column, EG, I'm not going to strong oppose due to the fact that the Part Of Me reference doesn't say who Perry's boyfriend cheated on her with, while the column describes her as a co-worker. Just things that may be challanged like the two examples I gave prior. Azealia911 talk 21:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally do feel sources should support plot details, and will spot check the references Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced those two sources, which now mention Kesha's and Dallas' appearances.
  • Add {{small|(featuring Patrick Stump) to the "Artist" column in "Guest appearances" for Cupid's Chokehold, like how Bitch I'm Madonna lists Minaj's feature.
  • "Company and product" is the header title for the "Commercials" table, yet there are no products mentioned in the column.
  • Of course there are e.g. Proactiv.
  • Nothing on this for commercials?
  • I am not sure about this one, but an ad was released by her to promote the film by Pepsi (which is mentioned in the list). Couldn't find a reference on this one.
  • Ref #61 is dead.

That's all I spotted. Azealia911 talk 19:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Azealia, all fixed. -- Frankie talk 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments being addressed, quickly and politely too. Any comments at an FLC I currently have open are greatly appreciated! Azealia911 talk 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments and support. I'll take a look at your nomination tomorrow. -- Frankie talk 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin edit

Resolved comments. The Wikipedian Penguin 09:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
  • "After starring in several music videos between 2005 and 2007, including 'Simple', a low-budget music video for 'Ur So Gay' was released."—I think we need some context here. Was "Ur So Gay" her first mainstream single?
  • "In 2008, she released music videos for 'I Kissed a Girl' and 'Hot n Cold' – both released from her second album One of the Boys – and the latter took place during a wedding."—"released ... released" is repetitive.
  • You don't need to say "music video" every time; it gets repetitive. You can use "video" in subsequent instances when it is clear you are talking about a song as opposed to eg. a film.
  • "Her 'Firework' video won the MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year,[1] and the music video for "E.T." took place in outer space."—odd connection
  • "Perry voiced the Smurfette character in the animated feature The Smurfs and its sequel The Smurfs 2."—mention years, and move this to before her documentary for a chronological order.
  • Why is the description cell for "Ur So Gay" centred?
  • Awkward seeing Katy Perry as the name of the website. You can say "Katy Perry (Official Website)" or simply hard-code it ("KatyPerry.com"). The same thing with Toyota. Feel free to justify otherwise.
  • Ref 7 also results in a connection error.

Overall, this is great work you guys. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @Wikipedian Penguin:. All sorted now. -- Frankie talk 14:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on these but you beat me to it, FrB.TG :P, though thanks for helping Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Simple" has been replaced with "Goodbye for Now" and "Cupid's Chokehold"; they actually have their own articles unlike "Simple", and those were also her first acting features along with "Learn to Fly" (but that doesn't have its own article) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some more:

  • When describing the content of fictional work like songs and videos, use present tense (eg. "is set in", "takes place", "features the singer").
  • "...and the latter took place during a wedding"—I know the intent with this is to summarize the video, but can we do without it? It just feels out of place and disrupts the flow. If you do remove this, you can change the dash to a comma.
  • "The Yoann Lemoine-directed video "Teenage Dream" saw her play a euphoric teenager."—journalese writing. Maybe "...depicts her as a euphoric teenager"?
  • "The music video for the song featured her in a jungle after a plane crash, followed by "Unconditionally", which focused on unconditional love."—sentence lacks logical flow and parallel structure
    Current version can still be improved. It reads as though "Unconditionally" was released after the plane crash. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead would flow better if the third paragraph started with the films than with Prism.
  • Not sure what you think about it, but I've also moved her TV roles to where the films are and gave Prism its own paragraph Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be a matter of personal taste, but I still think the lead would flow better with the film/TV appearances in one paragraph. Maybe merging Prism info into the second paragraph? The Wikipedian Penguin 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with whether the year column is centred across all tables.
  • In the television table, "Role" should be "Role(s)" since she has played multiple roles in SNL.
  • In the commercials table, the first header should be "Company or product" since we don't mention both in each cell. For the last row, for the sake of specificity, you can use Toyota Yaris as the product instead of just Toyota as the company. The Wikipedian Penguin 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your detailed review. All fixed. -- Frankie talk 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support—nothing else to quibble at, well done! The Wikipedian Penguin 09:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such an exhaustive review. Much appreciated. -- Frankie talk 09:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated indeed, Wikipedian Penguin Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian edit

SNUGGUMS and FrB.TG, following my review of this list, I assess that you have adequately addressed many of the concerns previously raised above by Wikipedian Penguin and Azealia911. The template at the top is beautifully formatted and the image of Perry in the info box is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0, so it is suitable for use here. The only unsourced content within the lede is content that is sourced below in the list, so that will do, which is in line with other featured videography lists. With that said, the article meets the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I only have two comments, which are merely suggestions and are not deal breakers by any means. Great job on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rather than say just "music market" which seem truncated, would it flow better if you render it as "the music industry market"?
  • Rather than sometimes using "video," every mention should be rendered "music video" for consistency's sake.

Thanks West Virginian. I changed "music market" to "music industry", but Wikipedian Penguin above advised against using "music video" so much as it was repetitive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A thanks from me, too, West Virginian for such a polite review, which is quite rare in this encyclopedia. -- Frankie talk 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: SNUGGUMS and FrB.TG, thank you for addressing my two points, and for all your hard work on this list. Congratulations on a job well done! While I would prefer "music video" being used consistently, I will defer to Wikipedian Penguin's review on that one. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for your kind review. Coming to your first query, I would agree with you on certain points. However, as WP Penguin said, it gets a bit repetitive as every time the readers know we are talking about music videos until the mention of film and television releases. Again, thanks for your review and support. -- Frankie talk 00:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, West Virginian, and thanks for the support :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:16, 25 August 2015 [8].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Riverside Ground edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I did a cricket list, so I thought I'd give this neat little one a go. Should be shipshape, error free, correctly formatted, accessible etc etc, but I welcome all comments and suggestions for improvement. Thank you in advance for any time and effort expended contributing to the process! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

  • Just a quick one I noticed, Fidel Edwards, Ryan Harris and James Franklin have got the team the wrong why round. None of them is English. Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't spot any errors, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

  • "It is the home of the Durham County Cricket Club has played host to Test, One Day International (ODI) and Twenty20 International (T20I) matches" - think there's some words missing there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "It is the home of the Durham County Cricket Club" - don't think the second "the" needs to be there. I've never heard cricket fans refer to "the Kent CCC" or similar......
    Hangover from the list I based this one on. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also making him the only bowler to have taken ten wickets in a match at the Riverside" - a Test match, an international match irrespective of format, or any match at all?
    Added "international". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 16:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • "The Riverside has hosted six Test matches" - From the source, I can infer the ground has hosted five Tests.
    Ooooops, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the first of which was in 1999 when Pakistan defeated Scotland by 94 runs in the qualifying round of the 1999 Cricket World Cup" - 1999 appears twice
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "best Test bowling performance" - I prefer figures to performance in this context
    I agree, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australian Ryan Harris" - You ought to be more clear since he has a dual citizenship
    I'm not sure about that. In the context of this list, he represented Australia and so I don't see a real necessity to go into his dual citizenship, I'm not sure it would add anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure, but when you say 'Australian' I thought it refers to his nationality rather than team. It's safe to say 'Australia cricketer'. —Vensatry (ping) 10:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed it to "Australia's". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change the piped-link from Australian cricket team in England in 2013 to 2013 Ashes series.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2015, two bowlers have taken five-wicket hauls ..." - Given that, the ground recently hosted an ODI, it's better to include the month also.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Zealand's medium pace bowler James Franklin took 5 wickets for 42 runs against England during their tour in 2004 while England's Graeme Swann achieved 5 for 28 ... " - The usage of while is inappropriate in the sentence.
    Replaced for "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 'versus' encyclopedic?
    I don't see why not but I've replaced it with "against". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The batsmen column corresponding to Richard Johnson contains only five entries.
    Travis Friend went walkabout.... Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates for the last three entries should be 9 Aug 2013
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check ref no. 17
    What happened there?! Must have been parallel editing... Good spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry (ping) 09:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vesantry, I would have got to these comments sooner if I hadn't spent the day getting to Nottingham to watch the final death knell of the Aussies! I'll do my best to get to them in the next day or so and will ping you when I'm done. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry, I think I've addressed all your comments, thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a problem with my username. It's Ven
  • Support – Good list —Vensatry (ping) 16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The only issue I have is that ref #6 has the author as First Last, while ref #8 has Last, F. M. I would suggest changing ref #6 to Last, First. Otherwise, a nice little list, well done. Harrias talk 06:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks for picking it up and thanks for the support! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:16, 25 August 2015 [9].

J. Gordon Edwards filmography edit

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is perhaps the most comprehensive and exhaustively-researched list of Edwards's films currently available. One of the preeminent directors of his day, most of his films have sadly been lost and his name has been all but forgotten. I previously nominated this list in February, but life circumstances forced me away from the project for several months, and the nomination failed due to my nonattendance. The bulk of the concerns raised there have been corrected (including the awkward realization that the AFI had swapped its opinion on St. Elmo's directorial credit sometime in 2014!). For the comments which did not result in changes, I've included responses below. And, additionally, I've been able to locate and include the British alternative titles for several of Edwards's films with Theda Bara. This time, I should be able to stick around through the entire process, which hopefully doesn't need much more polish at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding scenerist/scenarist, while the latter spelling seems more common with recent writers, broadly speaking, I've opted to follow the included sources, which vastly prefer the former.
  • The Celebrated Scandal is awkward. JGE is listed as having "picturized" the film in its copyright registration, but there are oddities about the credit, and there's no other evidence he worked on the film whatsoever. The AFI's opinion is that he may have written material for an earlier, unused version of the film. The source presented in the first FLC that outright names him as director is self-published and not a RS. I'd be happy to footnote this article with the AFI statement, but I'm not really sure where it would go.
  • Original stories that aren't novels or plays are quoted instead of italicized because I believe they are generally less-than-novel length, and quoted titles are the standard for short stories and similar works.
  • August 1918 is the best I can do for the second reissue of A Daughter of the Gods.
  • "The New Magdelen" really was spelled like that.
@Jimknut, The Rambling Man, Lightlowemon, and Tim riley:: Pinging the participants of the February–April FLC in case they wish to participate in a candidacy I can stick around for. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – good informative (but not overlong) introduction, the lists are evidently comprehensive, and are thoroughly referenced. Edwards certainly is a forgotten man, but this excellent page does its bit to restore him to cineastes' attention. Meets the FL criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All queries answered, I'd love to see the tidbit about The Celebrated Scandal in the article at some point though, especially if it's mentioned by the AFI. --Lightlowemon (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Included mention as a footnote. Please let me know if this wording and placement is satisfactory. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support as is; everything seems pretty tickety-boo in regards to comprehensiveness, tone and accessibility. Not convinced it's worth splitting into three tables when two are only one entry long each, though, but that's more of a stylistic preference. I'm also not hugely keen on the image's alt solely describing the pictured people by name but it's, again, not vital. GRAPPLE X 13:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with the objection to the alt-text, which was not compliant with best practices. New alt text is purely descriptive. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:16, 25 August 2015 [10].

List of accolades received by Gone Girl (film) edit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Girl is a psychological thriller based on the eponymous novel by Gillian Flynn. The film was directed by David Fincher and received many accolades especially for the performance of lead actress Rosamund Pike. As usual, look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • his wife Amy played by Rosamund Pike Add a comma after "Amy".
  • Neil Patrick Harris, and Tyler Perry Remove the comma.
  • The score was composed by Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross. Remove the comma.
  • Gone Girl premiered at the New York Film Festival on September 26, 2014,[2] before 20th Century Fox later gave the film a wide release at over 3,000 theaters in the United States, and Canada on October 3. Remove "later" and the comma after "United States".
  • Pike won the Empire Award for Best Actress, and Breakthrough Performance Award from the Palm Springs International Film Festival, and was also nominated at the Screen Actors Guild, and British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAs). Could you split this up into two sentences or phrase it better? You say "and" three times in just one sentence.
  • Flynn was also nominated at the BAFTAs as well as the Writers Guild of America Awards. Add a comma before "as well as".
  • The National Board of Review included Gone Girl in its list of top ten films of the year. Add "their" before "top ten films of the year".
  • African-American Film Critics Association should come before American Cinema Editors in the infobox. Same in the table.

Otherwise, this is a great list! Littlecarmen (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlecarmen: Thanks for the review! I think I've sorted the above points. Cowlibob (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great job! I also currently have a list nominated for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look :) Littlecarmen (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie
..
  • "Gone Girl is a 2014 psychological thriller directed by" – I think you missed the word "film".
  • "As of July 2015, Gone Girl is Fincher's highest grossing film" – hyphenate "highest grossing".
  • Empty the references from the third paragraph as they are not supposed to be repeated in the lead when they are already covered in the main body of the article – see WP:LEAD.
  • It should be either Deadline.com or Deadline.
  • Again, it should be either "The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media" or "The Hollywood Reporter (Prometheus Global Media)".
  • Why is National Board of Review seen twice in ref 13, and also link it.
  • The date format for ref 39 isn't as others are.
  • Ref 51 is incomplete. I mean it's by The Hollywood Reporter, but I can't see such.

I think that's all from me. -- Frankie talk 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted the issues highlighted, please let me know if I haven't. Cowlibob (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Great list once again!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 08:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Vivvt
  • Just like 87th Academy Awards, maintain consistency with Golden Globes --> 72nd Golden Globe Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards --> 21st Screen Actors Guild Awards and British Academy Film Awards --> 68th British Academy Film Awards
  • You can use "The film" instead of Gone Girl alternatively if you want. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: Thanks for the review. Ssven2 has gotten ahead of me and has resolved these queries. Let me know if it was satisfactory and any other further comments you'd like to make. Cowlibob (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments are resolved. I have trimmed some of the references. Feel free to revert if you do not like it that way. Also, could you please add Portal:Film in the United States under "See also" section?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:16, 25 August 2015 [11].

78th Academy Awards edit

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2006 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Please note that the Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash "so-called" controversy will not be addressed due to concerns regarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and objectivity concerns. This list/article is primarily focused on the ceremony itself, what actually happened in that event, and analysis pertaining to the ceremony in the form of critical reviews. Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
* A comma (,) needed after presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) in the introducing line.
  • The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences linked twice in the lead.
  • MoS suggests not to link big cities, so de-link Los Angeles in the lead.
  • "with the late Alfred Newman for the second most Oscar nominations of any individual" – I think "late" is a bit informal and redundant, so I suggest to omit that.
  • Are you sure that winners are "highlighted in boldface"?
  • BBC News needs to be linked in ref 17.
  • Ref 20: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences – ditto.
  • I think United States should go away from the entries in the Bibliography section. -- Frankie talk 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Done: I have fixed everything listed above.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BenLinus1214 edit

Resolved comments from Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work
*"other winners included" and "also" make the sentence a bit redundant."
  • Done: I removed most of the word "also" throughout the article. I think the phrase "other winners included" is important at the beginning of the article since it encompasses and enumerates the other films that won awards prior to the in depth coverage of the article.
  • For better prose, do "Brokeback Mountain garnered the most nominations, with eight total…"
  • Done
  • Several of your references do not have links to the publishers, why so?
  • I only linked the publisher's name on the first mention in the references section to avoid overlinking. I do not mind linking several times for convenience, but that's what was given to me during my first submission for FLC.
  • "the aforementioned category" is a bit vague and made me stop and look for a second to realize what that was, so perhaps do "that category" instead.
  • Done
  • To preface the section on various records and barriers being broken, I would put a sentence like "The ceremony marked several notable achievements by multiple individuals and films."
  • Done: Added "Several notable achievements by multiple individuals and films occurred during the ceremony" as the second sentence of that paragraph.
  • I personally prefer boldface to the double-dagger thing, but you can do either--it's not a big deal to me.
  • Are sources required for the multiple awards and nominations tables or not?
  • I would give a little more background on Cates' role in the previous ceremony's failure.
  • I am iffy on this one. I know that 77th ceremony's ratings were a decline from the 76th show's numbers, and I do know that most television viewers did not like Chris Rock's performance, but I don't think the failure (to attain higher ratings) would be attributed to solely Cates, though. Furthermore, the sinking ratings could be attributed to the fact that fewer people saw the Best Picture nominees (compared with last year which had Best Picture winner Lord of the Rings: Return of the King). The link in the phrase previous year's ceremony links to everything including the ratings and reviews and is pretty straightfoward.
  • I think you dropped a "before" in the sentence starting "In a statement…"
  • Not sure where the word "before" belongs in the sentence. Could you restate that sentence so I know what you mean?
  • "The show received a mixed reception from media publications. Some media outlets were more critical of the show." Not only is this choppy, the second sentence is kind of obvious given the first one. I like keeping the "second sentences" for both the positive and negative reviews, but instead of just restating, expand it—i.e. "some commented negatively on the show, mainly criticizing x, y, and z." Also, I would switch the positive and negative--for mixed reviews, I usually put the positive first.
  • Done: Switched the positive and negative paragraphs. I think the reviews are straightforward in what each review liked/disliked.

@Birdienest81: A few comments. Looks like a great list! Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BenLinus1214:: I've addressed or responded to everything above with either comments or changes. Thanks for the feedback.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vivvt edit

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 05:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* There are 11 "Uncategorized redirects" in the references.
  • The nominees were announced --> The nominees for the 78th Academy Awards were announced
  • it was revealed that 2005 host Chris Rock would not return --> it was stated that 2005 host Chris Rock would not return
  • @Vivvt: Done: It looks like Ssven2 helped me the latter two comments. For the "uncategorized redirects", I tried to replace the URLs with newer ones. All of them now work except the Filmsite.org link which I can't seem to fix. Anyways, even if they were "Uncategorized redirects", the webpage technically still works in itself. Anyways, thanks for the feedback.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very comprehensive. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jimknut edit

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very good. My only suggestion is on this line in the "Winners and nominees" section: "With his latest nominations for Best Original Score, composer John Williams tied with Alfred Newman for the second most Oscar nominations of any individual." Why not mention how many nominations they received? (I believe the number is 64.) Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jimknut: Done: Added statistic that Newman and Williams were tied with 45 nominations for second place in most nominations. Added footnote in Notes indicating Disney as nomination leader with 64.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:16, 25 August 2015 [12].

NWA World Middleweight Championship edit

Nominator(s):  MPJ -US  01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it hits all the marks for featured lists including an engaging lead, it is encompassing the subject, it is fully sourced with reliable sources, well written, it adheres to the list format for professional wrestling championships and the subject matter is definitely Feature List worthy as a number of professional wrestling championship lists are Featured Lists, including 12 articles I have previous led through the FL process.  MPJ -US  01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well nevermind, plans are made, plans change so I will be here and ready to review & improve this list. MPJ -Viva Esfinge  20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "For the majority of its existence, it was featured by...." - not keen on the word "featured", maybe try "For the majority of its existence, it was defended in...."
      • Done
    • "NWA Mexico previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles" should be "NWA Mexico had previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles". Also, when did this occur?
      • Made the change, researching if the sources mention when it was previously attempted to reclaim the championships
      • Doing some research the best I could find was "in 2008" but that was on luchawiki, so that's not a reliable source. Most of what I found basically said "previously" so until I find something reliable to support it I guess the article stays the way it is? MPJ-US  11:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case I suggest that "NWA Mexico had previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles" be changed to "NWA Mexico had already tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles on a previous occasion" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Forty-five wrestlers have shared 84 NWA Middleweight Championship reigns" - per WP:MOSNUM, either both should be in digits or both should be in words
      • done, digits in both
        • That's great, however the MOS says that a sentence shouldn't start with a digit, so maybe move "Since 1939" to the start of the sentence..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some of the title changes on early Anniversary Shows, the location is given in the table as unknown, but our articles on the shows do give locations??
      • That is a great catch, based on that I fixed the locations and applied the anniversary source to those reigns as well
      • I researched and found a few more locations. I used the cagematch citation for the location specifically. Cagematch is listed as a reliable source for wrestling results on the Pro wrestling source page.
    • "The event promoted by the respective promotion in which the title changed hands" - the word "respective" does not belong there
      • Reworded
    • "CMLL replaces the championship" - this is in the present tense, but all other notes are in the past tense
      • Fixed tense
    • To work with the "reigns by combined length" table, notes 6 and 7 and also 8 and 9 should indicate which reigns they refer to, eg "The exact date on which René Guajardo vacated the championship during his Nth reign is unknown"
      • Fixed
  • Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the great feedback, I have looked at the article so many times I had gone blind to some of the details, looking at your feedback everything makes sense to me.  MPJ-US  08:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support and more importantly your input to improve the article.  MPJ-US  18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from West Virginian

  • MPJ-DK, while the prose of your lede meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and your list meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, I do have one suggestion. Do you have inline citations for the sentence "The NWA has not determined a champion since." and inline citations for the sentences in the fifth paragraph of your list's lede? The content of the fifth paragraph is sourced in the list below, but it should also be sourced in the prose. Thank you for your efforts to improve this list and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your feedback. I am not sure how to source that something did NOT happen since there is no official NWA Mexico site. I can look for a recent article stating that there is no Middleweight champion but that may be hard to find specifically, but there are a few options i can look through. I have some year end Lucha magazines, maybe a 2014 recap magazine that usually list champions? Not being on that list could source that? And yes some of the statements in the 5th paragraph can be explicitly sourced, although longest, shortest and most reigns is a synthesis of ALL table listed sources and would be quite a long string of citations, but i could put a note in to refer to the table sources and explain it. I will work on that today. I will let yoh know when I am done.  MPJ-US  12:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support MPJ-DK, that is certainly not a deal breaker, especially since I too was unable to find a source that clearly stated that NWA had not determined a champion since 2010. Because the championship has not occurred since August 12, 2010, it could be assumed without even needing to state it that a champion has not been selected since. You could probably just omit the sentence entirely with that in mind. No need to source the fifth paragraph as those statements are gleaned from the prose below, which uses sufficient inline citations to verifiable references. I hereby support this list. Great job! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took your suggestion on the sentence and just took it out. The list shows it and we are good. Thank you for your support.  MPJ-US  15:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Not sure how it reads to a layman, but to me "He chose himself as the first champion, and won it in a Wrestle and Romance (WAR) match with Corazón de León" sounds like it's describing the type of match, not the promotion it was contested for. Perhaps the whole sentance could read: "He chose himself as the first champion, and won it in a match with Corazón de León for Wrestle and Romance (WAR) on November 8, 1994, in Korakuen Hall, after which he began promoting the title exclusively in Japan, holding it himself until vacating it in 1998."
  • "Dragón signed with World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and returned the championship to CMLL." - Was this freely given (as the wording implies) or did they buy it back given that he bought it originally?
  • Given that it's a red link it might be worth a quick aside to explain if NWA Mexico is a sub-division of, or a similar entity to, "the" NWA.
  • The timing of Dragon's first reign coincides with his famous J-Crown run; a quick glance at his article mentions that he held these belts separately--I don't think it's worth explaining why, but it might be worth pointing out that this wasn't one of the middle/cruiser/junior heavyweight belts that made the Crown up.
  • On a technical level everything's fine and WP:ACCESS seems fully met, and with this being inactive it's nice to have a discrete list that can pretty much be called "finished". I'm already leaning to support as is but ping me if you implement or even just respond to the above suggestions. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Grapple X: I have addressed issues 1, 3 and 4. For issue 2 I do not have any proof if CMLL paid for it or he just gave it back since he worked with CMLL whenever he was in Mexico and co-promoted shows with them. Thank you for your input and support. MPJ-US  20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Happy to support. GRAPPLE X 16:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 04:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Lil Debbie discography edit

Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 12:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the discography of American rapper Lil Debbie, from her early 2012 mixtapes to her recent 2015 EPs. It features a strong, well-covering lead along with a well-referenced comprehensive list of releases. Azealia911 talk 12:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick drive-by comment - "Following an appearance in the music video for group member Kreayshawn's "Gucci Gucci" in 2011" - what group? No group has been mentioned............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it hadn't, added a note about it now. Azealia911 talk
  • Back for a proper review.....
    • "In 2011" mentioned in two consecutive sentences, not sure both are needed
Removed one. Azealia911 talk
    • V-Nasty wikilinked in two consecutive sentences
Removed one. Azealia911 talk
    • "These videos later saw commercial release as singles" - the videos themselves can't have been released as singles. The songs were released as singles
Corrected. Azealia911 talk
    • "Due to the relatively minuscule track listing, Queen D was not eligible to chart on any album charts in the United States" - is it really necessary to state this? Why would people expect EPs to be eligible for the albums chart? Certainly in the UK, where I am based, an EP would always chart on the singles chart.
I'd say it was appropriate. I too live in the UK, but rules are seemingly different for US charting. EG, her first EP, Queen D featured five tracks and charted on singles charts. However, her second EP, California Sweetheart, Pt. 1, released less than six months later, featured eight tracks and charted on an album chart. Both are technically EPs so are listed as such, but one charted on singles charts while the other logged in on an album chart. The note clears up any possible confusion. Azealia911 talk
That makes sense, but "Due to the relatively minuscule track listing" seems a little verbose, I'd be inclined to say simply "Due to its short length". After all, I presume the criterion is based on total run time rather than number of tracks. Napalm Death could release a CD with 20 tracks but it would still probably be eligible for the singles chart ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol you're right about Napalm Death, changed the sentence. :) Azealia911 talk
    • "commercial success of it's predecessor" - there should not be an apostrophe in "its"
Corrected. Azealia911 talk
    • "The EP featured guest appearances from Wiz Khalifa, Paul Wall and Bricc Baby Shitro." - not sourced
Sourced. Azealia911 talk
    • Promotional singles table - sources do not confirm that these were promotional singles? For that matter, what is the definition of a promotional single as opposed to a regular single?
Regular singles are always released commercially. However, the lines on what promotional singles are is quite blurred, especially on this site. Usually, anything that garnered notable release but wasn't an official single gets thrown in that box. From my perspective, after seeing examples in other discographies and reading over the article for promotional single, anything that was released for free, but was still largely reported on, used to promote a project, received artwork ETC, is a promotional single. I'll use that for the two specific listings.
The "What It Look Like" remix received an artwork, notable coverage from Complex, and was released for free. Having another rapper on the song reaches out to their fanbase and promotes the work of Lil Debbie. "420" was released on July 30, a day before the Home Grown EP dropped, and was the only track to feature a barely-relevant rapper she's ever worked with, hyping up the release for the EP. However, that is my interpretation and you may well class that as WP:OR, but I think you'll struggle to get the same answer out of two people on what a promotional single is. Azealia911 talk
    • List of non-single guest appearances - two of them apparently did not appear on any album. If they weren't on albums, and weren't singles, what were they??
They're just that, guest appearances. Songs in which she wasn't the lead artist of, that didn't garner a single release. You'll find non-album guest appearances a common occurrence in modern FL discographies. Azealia911 talk
How were they released, though, if not either as singles or on albums? That's what I'm struggling to grasp...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the two tracks were released to online streaming, the song "Not the Same" was uploaded to AudioMack, a site where users can stream/download urban music, while the song "Pump" was uploaded to Red Bulls site. Azealia911 talk
Thanks for the clarification. I fear I'm a bit out of touch with all the ways the kids get their music these days ;-) Out of interest, if tracks had been uploaded to those sites which were not guest appearances but were by Debbie alone, where in the discography would those have appeared.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol it's fine, I appreciate the thorough review. Umm, if Debbie was the lead artist, I probably wouldn't have included it, maybe if she had enough stand alone releases as a lead artist, I'd create an "Other releases" section like I did at Azealia Banks discography. Azealia911 talk 09:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Azealia911 talk 12:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all seems OK now, thanks for bearing with me ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem whatsoever, thankyou for the support :) Azealia911 talk 12:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • "all of which received music videos" -> "all of which were accompanied by music videos"
Done Azealia911 talk
  • It did however, chart Remove the comma.
Done Azealia911 talk
  • "The EP featured no guest appearances as opposed to her earlier releases" Neither did Queen D, just leave this part out.
Done Azealia911 talk
  • "In October 2014, a compilation of the two California Sweetheart EPs was released, with a re-edited cover, exclusively on CD format." The cover art and format aren't that important, you don't need to mention that. Remove the year.
Done Azealia911 talk
  • "In November of that year, Debbie's second mixtape, Young B!tch, was released." You can remove "of that year". Maybe say "a month later"
Done Azealia911 talk
  • "as a part of the Colt 45 mixtape Colt 15." -> ", which appeared on the Colt 45 mixtape Colt 15."
Done Azealia911 talk
  • For "Lofty" you only mention a year, for Home Grown you give an exact date. Mention the months "Lofty" and Home Grown were released.
Done Azealia911 talk
  • Maybe move the references behind the place it was released. It looks cleaner that way.
Done Azealia911 talk
  • References: Only italicize magazines and newspapers.
Done, side note, can you link me to the relevant guideline/policy on italicization in references? It seems to be a reoccurring issue at my FLCs that I should see to before nominating in future. Azealia911 talk
WP:CITEHOW mentions what should be in italics. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commercial sources should be avoided on Wikipedia. Can you find other references for the info sourced by Amazon, iTunes Store etc.?

Littlecarmen (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. Believe me when I say that I searched high and low for non-commercial references. I completely cleared out Complex and HotNewHipHop, as well as trundling through every urban hip-hop site imaginable. The two hardest things to reference were the "Me and You" single, where I actually resorted to an archived iTunes link from Italy, as the US and UK versions have deleted it from their database, as it was seemingly pulled as a single after a bad response, and the California Sweetheart compilation, which was seemingly a limited release, and not reported on at all. Any commercial references are the last resort.

Thankyou for your comments! Azealia911 talk 20:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I don't think commercial sources are forbidden, it's just best to use others if possible but I completely understand that it can be difficult and sometimes impossible to find other sources. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Eurofan88 (talk)

  • You should change the number of singles from 14 to 12 as 2 of them are promotional singles.
No, they're still singles, promotional or not. Azealia911 talk
  • Why Riff Raff's name is capitalized? It's a stylization and should be omitted anyway.
Changed. Azealia911 talk
  • Use Director(s) in the Music video section as Joe Dietsch and Louie Gibson directed two vidoes together. --Eurofan88 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Azealia911 talk

Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 talk 22:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, in overall it's a good list, but sad that none of her releases have their own articles on Wikipedia. --Eurofan88 (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the support, yep I agree, it's hard due to her being such a low charting artist, although I am working on a couple. Azealia911 talk 22:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
* "It did however chart at" → "However, it charted at".
Done Azealia911 talk
  • Why am I seeing so many months in the third paragraph. Normally we mention years of works, and here I see too many months.
Reduced, reshuffled. Azealia911 talk
  • Why is Amazon is piped to Amazon.com in ref 3? ".com" is the part of its title.
Done Azealia911 talk
  • Is there a substitute available for BallerStatus?
Substitute meaning a different source? Azealia911 talk
Yeah! -- Frankie talk 12:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced :) Azealia911 talk
Can you point out where? The only instances of shouting are RiFF RAFF's name styling and "Suckas ASKiN QUESTiONS (feat. LiL DEBBiE)" which is how it's stylized in the source. Azealia911 talk
  • "Rap Dose" is not the part of the titles of ref 46 and 47.
Removed Azealia911 talk

I don't know if it's only me, but I think she looks pretty much like Lady Gaga in this image. -- Frankie talk 09:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see it! Azealia911 talk 11:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 14:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WillC
Disclaimer: I'm unfamiliar with the style of discographies so I'm going to try my best here.
  • Not much to really look at now. My only issue is as far as I am aware, tables are exceptions to overlinking. If I'm not mistaken that is my only issue with formatting stuff in the tables is linked only once.
  • I'll take the references in good faith. I'm sure some of them have already been covered above and from what I can tell they seem to check out. Overall, I'm not really finding much of an issue here.--WillC 02:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrestlinglover Do you have any requests for change on the article? Sorry to ask, but you comments seem like observations as opposed to suggestions. Azealia911 talk 17:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is the linking of all terms in the table even if they are featured several times. Wish I had more, but I don't really see any issues since I'm not familiar with the style too much.--WillC 20:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrestlinglover While I see what you mean about overlinking regulations not applying to tables, I think I'll leave it if it's all the same to you. Once in the lead and once in the first occurrence in a table seems to be enough. Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 talk 16:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter to me really. Just a preference of mine, you don't have to share it. No one else seems to have an issue with it so I'm fine.--WillC 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from WillC. Azealia911--WillC 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 08:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian edit

Support: Azealia911, following my review of this list, I assess that it meets the criteria for both Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and it looks like the concerns raised above have been addressed and incorporated into the list. While Lil Debbie lacks a robust musical catalog, this list is the most comprehensive compendium of her work out there, and is in line with other music artist discographies. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much! Azealia911 talk 17:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comments

Looked through this list before going to promote it, and I have some issues with the lead that I'd like to see fixed first:

  • I'd like at least one sentence actually saying who Lil Debbie is before launching into her album count. Just the first sentence of her article, "Jordan Capozzi (born February 2, 1990), better known by her stage name Lil Debbie is an American-Italian rapper, model and fashion designer.[1]" is fine.
  • In the second paragraph, you say that the other two members of the group were Kreayshawn and V-Nasty, but the very next sentence you reiterate that Kreayshawn was a member of the group and don't mention that V-Nasty was when you mention her. I think you should change "group member Kreayshawn's" to just "Kreayshawn's".
  • "In August [...] California Sweetheart, Pt. 2[, ...] later, a compilation[, ...] the following month Young B!tch..." - so the compilation was released a nebulous "later", but Young B!tch was released one month after later? either the compilation or Young B!tch need a more specific date, because one month after later doesn't make much sense. I'd replace "later" with an actual month, because right now it's the only release to be so vague. --PresN 01:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Thankyou for your comments, done. Azealia911 talk 09:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as passed --PresN 04:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 08:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [14].[reply]

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II edit

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC), Hawkeye7 (talk), and Gecko G (talk)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...it is a well organized list and is suitably written. It passed an A-class list review earlier this month. Just a list of all the (notable) campaigns that the Army served in during World War II. All comments are welcome. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

  • I supported this article at A Class and re-reading it I think it is FL standard. A couple of minor points.
  • The lines - Gustav Line etc - are italicized even though they are not in the lines' own articles. Done
  • "American troops hit the beaches, near Algiers, behind a large American flag, hoping for Vichy French troops not to fire." As you mention that they were hoping for the French not to fire, you should say whether they did. Done
  • Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tables review - Needs MOS:DTT formatting to each table. Specifically, based on how you set these up, I think the column headers need the scope="col" , as in This Example. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images review - Good use of appropriately licensed images; all images captioned. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation error check - No issues found. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you for taking care of the tables issue so quickly. A-class review seems to have vetted much on this article. Well done. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian edit

Support: Tomandjerry211 (alt), Tomandjerry211, Hawkeye7, and Gecko G, I assess that this list meets the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. A review of the images, their licenses and captions, the references, and the formatting did not turn up any errors or questions. I hereby support this list and congratulate you all on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 08:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [15].[reply]

List of Essex County Cricket Club grounds edit

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. I have an open FLC for List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club grounds, but that has two supports and no unresolved comments. All changes in response to user comments on that FLC as well as the recently promoted List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds have been incorporated into this article too --

Support and will look in at Derbyshire's list when I have time. (Sad to see that the last Essex match at Valentines, a lovely ground, was twelve years ago.) I can't think of anything in which this candidate fails to meet the FL criteria. Next, a statistical and meteorological analysis to show why Lancashire should get out of Old Trafford and back to Aigburth would be welcome. Tim riley talk 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Like Tim I'm struggling to see any reason why this list does not meet the criteria. Great work. NapHit (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support AssociateAffiliate and ChrisTheDude, in concurrence with NapHit and Tim riley, I find that this list definitely meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The list is in keeping with other featured lists of county cricket club grounds in England. The image of the Leyton county ground is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and the image of the Chelmsford county ground is licensed CC BY 2.0; so both are acceptable for use here. I would recommend modifying the widths of both images so that they are of equal height, which would be more aesthetically pleasing. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted (hopefully) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude, this definitely looks much better and all seems to be in order. Congratulations again on a job well done! I echo my support for this list's promotion to FL. -- West Virginian (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've already got two more of these lists ready to bring to FLC, but I'm going to hold off for a couple weeks as I'll be off on holiday shortly so wouldn't be available to respond to any issues raised..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 02:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

List of accolades received by Fashion (film) edit

Nominator(s): —Prashant 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2008 Indian drama film Fashion starring Priyanka Chopra. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala edit

I am listing the issues i have encountered after a thorough read and am expecting the nominator to rectify the following issues or give a valid explanation within a reasonable period of time.

  • The film features Priyanka Chopra as Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model and her transformation from small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry — consider rephrasing it as The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model played by Priyanka Chopra from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry. And, i don't think so it stops there. Rise, fall and rise. Isn't it?
Tweaked it a bit.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music director has been credited. What about the rest of the relevant technical team like the director of photography, editor and lyricist(s)?
  • ...to positive reception — from whom? if critics, please change it to critical acclaim.
  • ...collected ₹600 million (US$9.4 million) — Is that gross figure? If yes, please changed it to "grossed" as Nett and Share are collected in general.
Done.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • was noted for being commercially successful despite being a women-centric film with no male lead — I think, no male-lead is not that necessary. The statement can be rewritten as was noted as one of the commercially successful women-centric films in India IMHO.
Well, a similar line is use in Chopra's page and her filmography. Also, it was the first box-office hit featuring a female lead in a long time. So there should not be any problem.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added ALT and replaced those dead links, I have archived all the sources and will add when I have time.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a part of The Times of India.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Owners of the website, does not establish that an individual is notable or reliable. Please state how this site meets GNG, do other RS sites cite it? Cowlibob (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the ones "Golden Trident Awards", "Cine Blitz Awards" and "Lions Gold Awards" are given priority over National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards, Screen Awards etc.? Those three don't even have articles here and since the chronological order is not followed, i suggest the nominator to place the ones with articles existing on the top and the other ones down, though the list is sortable.

I hereby request the nominator to ping me after all the issues have been addressed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Done. Thanks for the comments.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where done? The last adjustment hasn't been made yet. And, i hope you shall archive all the references soon. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the awards were placed alphabetically and Yes i will add them ASAP.—Prashant 16:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2 edit

  • "The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur played by Chopra, an aspiring fashion model from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry." — Can be rephrased as "The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model played by Chopra, from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry."

That's about it from me. Really good work on the article, Prashant. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Done. Thanks.—Prashant 11:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: No major issues found from my perspective.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article, and it is all fine; it has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Cannot state critical acclaim by using two reviews especially as one is by Taran Adarsh. It is a NPOV issue.
  • Ref 1 is a simple cast list. It does not specify who is the lead roles or supporting or that real models are playing themselves. A film review of it probably contains this info so find one with the info and add it.
  • Editor is stated as "Devendra Murdeshwar" in the ref.
His name is Deven Murdeshwar and, published wrongly in Bollywood Hungama celebrity directory.—Prashant 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the ref for the budget?
  • What makes Golden Trident Awards, Cine Blitz notable? Provide some refs of secondary sources discussing these awards in depth rather than mentioning who won what which is routine coverage.
Why no one questioned anything here?—Prashant 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is not a good argument with. FL status doesn't mean they are perfect and can't be improved. In any case, the unlinked awards in that article can be supported with [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]]. For the awards without links they should at least able to be redlinked. So that it's not just an indiscriminate list of awards.Cowlibob (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Prashant 02:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite I could easily redlink the Cowlibob International Film Awards but that doesn't mean they should be redlinked as they need to be notable and verifiable or soon to be created per WP:REDLINK. I personally can't find any reference about the Golden Trident Awards apart from the one line saying Chopra won the Best Actress award or any on the Cine Blitz Award. Cowlibob (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. However, in 2009 both awards were covered by a large section of the media, but i found no sources for them now.—Prashant 02:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, what makes iDiva an RS? Having a reliable owner does add to its RS status. Plenty of RS have websites that we wouldn't cite for anything. Provide some evidence why it's an RS.
  • To replace iDiva you could probably use these [[22]] [[23]][[24]] for the Fashion being women-centric and [[25]] for it being noted as being commercially successful + women-centric.
  • Surely we can source the IIFA awards with a better reference than DesiHits?

Cowlibob (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Prashant 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Stardust is also ref'd by Desihits, any replacement?
  • The list also has an error where there is an accessdate for ref with no url. Please check refs to find which one it is. Cowlibob (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Prashant 09:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian edit

Prashant!, I have a few comments and suggestions for you regarding this list. Great job overall! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first sentence of the lede should probably have an inline citation for the film's direction by Bhandarkar and its production by UTV Motion Pictures. Strangely enough, the article for Fashion fails to specifically mention that the film was produced by UTV Motion Pictures in its prose, and only lists that it was distributed by the company in its info box. All content in the lede should be backed up by inline citations to verifiable references, even well known or obvious statements like these.
  • "Produced on a budget..." may sound more formal than "Made on a budget..." This is merely a suggestion.
  • The lede should probably also mention that this is specifically a Bollywood film.
  • The image of Chopra is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use in this list.
Done. But, i think it is better to call it an Indian film. It's not a problem. And, thanks for your inputs.—Prashant 07:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Prashant!, the film could be referred to as both in the lede (perhaps in different places), stating that it is an Indian film of Bollywood production, to distinguish it from Tamil cinema and Telugu cinema for example. This, however, is merely a suggestion and it is not a deal breaker. Following my re-review of your list, I find that it definitely meets all aspects laid out in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and I hereby share my support for its promotion to FL. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as Passed. --PresN 01:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) [26][reply]

List of Attorneys General of West Virginia edit

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive listing of Attorneys General of West Virginia, with an adequate introduction that provides history and context to the state office. I welcome your comments and suggestions so that I can further improve upon this list so that it meets Featured List status criteria. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
Comment – Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Since you haven't gained at least one support for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn/archive1, I suggest the nominator to withdraw one of their nominations. -- Frankie talk 21:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, I was under the impression that users could submit a maximum of two nominations, no matter their level of support. Is this a recent change to the Featured List bylaws? Thank you for your most thoughtful and helpful response to my nomination. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure about that 'cause I have based it off of my experience and the FLC rules (also not sure about any change). @SchroCat: or any other delegate might comment on it. -- Frankie talk 22:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, I have one "support" vote for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn/archive1, so this nomination can stand. Again, thank you for your concern. -- West Virginian (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

  • Images need alt text.
  • Thank you for the catch, I've added alt captions to each of the images in the list. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reveals that there is a link which redirects back to the page.
  • I was unable to find such a link in the article's prose. Could it be that the "Attorneys General of West Virginia" at the bottom of the article is the culprit, as its title wiki-links to this page. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York City; Cincinnati, Ohio; etc. (in the second entry of the Bibliography section) – MoS advises not to link cities (especially big ones). Also, can you explain what "etc." is for? -- Frankie talk 16:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FrB.TG, Thank you for this catch as well! I've de-linked the two cities in question in this section, and removed etc. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions in the meantime and I'll address them as soon as is possible. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Wasn't able to spot any other issue. -- Frankie talk 23:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FrB.TG, thank you for your support, and for showing me the ropes. I don't often nominate lists for FL, so I appreciate your guidance and will heed your advice for next time. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • Shouldn't state constitutional officer, governor, secretary of state and commissioner of agriculture be capitalized since they're titles?
  • Same for attorney general throughout the lead.
  • Per the guidance above, the first usage is a proper noun "Attorney General of West Virginia," but the following usages of the attorney general are used as a common noun. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attorney general represents the state in all claims processed by the Court of Claims, prosecutes civil actions as prescribed by law, enforces the state consumer, antitrust, and preneed burial statutes, enforces the West Virginia Human Rights Act and the West Virginia Fair Housing Act.[2] The attorney general is also an ex officio member of the Board of Public Works, Council of Finance and Administration, Public Land Corporation, West Virginia Housing Fund, West Virginia Sheriff’s Bureau, Department of Public Safety Retirement Board, Bid Suspension Review Board, State Building Commission, Commission on Charitable Contributions, Women’s Commission, Multistate Tax Compact Advisory Committee, Records Management, and Preservation Advisory Committee. A lot of these should be linked.
  • These are not linked, because they would all be red, as there are no articles to link them to. Once an article has been created for each, I will link them. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wiki-linked United States Court of Claims following your initial review. I've also since wiki-linked antitrust. Unfortunately, the Women's Commission referenced here is for West Virginia, and does not correspond to the Women's Refugee Commission. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a table of other high offices held by attorney generals. This is obvious.
  • How about: "The following Attorneys General of West Virginia have held other high public offices." I've changed it to this. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine but I don't think it's really necessary since the section heading and table are clear. It's fine if you want to keep it, though. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a section just for the notes since they aren't references.
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I've created separate "References" and "Notes" sections, per your guidance. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say attorney generals in note a.
  • ref #1: Remove Office of the West Virginia Attorney General website as the website. Office of the West Virginia Attorney General as the publisher is enough.
  • Same with ref #13.
  • References and Bibliography sections: You don't need to link websites/publishers/books etc. more than once. Littlecarmen (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Littlecarmen, I've also de-linked titles, per your guidance. Thank you for your thorough review, and please let me know if there are any other edits or suggestions you may have in mind. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Littlecarmen, thank you again tremendously for taking the time to review this article for Featured List. It's now a stronger nomination because of your efforts. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also just nominated a list for featured list status myself. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look :) Littlecarmen (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and support Littlecarmen! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 18:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
====Comments from Azealia911====
  • For the first table in List of Attorneys General, you could make the Attorney General, Party and County of residence columns sortable.
  • I know there are some different views on redlinks, but why are there so many in the table?
  • Remove the note concerning †, it's not being used (unless I'm going blind)
  • Can you explain what G and H stand for in the table?

That's all I spotted so far, a good list! Azealia911 talk 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Azealia911, first and foremost, thank you for taking the time to engage in this review. Your time and feedback are greatly appreciated! I've made the Attorney General, Party and County of residence columns sortable, and I reformatted the attorney general names so that they can be alphabetized by their surnames. I've also de-linked the red links in the list. As I have time, I am creating new articles for each of the red links as I had done with Edwin Maxwell, Thayer Melvin, Robert White, and currently Joseph Sprigg (in work in my sandbox). In the meantime, I have de-linked these names so that they are not red links. As for the "†" sign, it is located adjacent to the "G" in the Governor column next to William C. Marland, since he resigned as attorney general to run for governor. The idea to place G and H in each column for Governor and U.S. House member came from List of Governors of West Virginia, which is a featured list. I included H for the U.S. House of Representatives, since no attorney general was ever elected to the U.S. Senate, but two were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Please let me know if I have sufficiently addressed your concerns, or if you see any other areas that need editing or clarification. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, comments addressed quickly and politely (almost too politely! ) Any comments at my FLC are greatly appreciated! Azealia911 talk 18:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent work on the list, West Virginian. Just a quick question — Shouldn't the title of the list article be "List of Attorney Generals of West Virginia" instead of "List of Attorneys General of West Virginia"? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:14, 11 August 2015 [27].

List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows a similar format to List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London, which previously passed FLC, and I have had great pleasure in visiting and photographing the Hertfordshire sites. I hope that this list will also meet the requirements. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Support – well up to the customary level of excellence we expect from this source. Meets all the FL criteria, in my view. Just two minor queries:

  • Lead – To avoid ambiguity I'd make it clear that "The oldest LNR listed by Natural England" means, as I assume it does, the oldest in Herts rather than the oldest in England. (Contrariwise, if it does mean England, that should be made clear.)
  • Danesbury Park – "Grassland areas, which are managed by rare-breed cattle": a rather unexpected phrase. One has visions of cows with clipboards and mobile phones.
  • Changed to grazed - although a cow pawing a clipboard with complaints about the poor quality grass is a wonderful image. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lovely article, beautifully illustrated and deftly, economically written. Splendid stuff! – Tim riley talk 19:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - a good looking list as ever. Just one or two comments/questions:

This is complicated. My own view is that official designations and titles should be capitalised. They are normally (not always) in the sources. Some editors dislike capitalisation and go round removing it. The result is a mess - Prime minister and Secretary of State, Site of Special Scientific Interest and Local nature reserve. In the case of LNR, it was not originally capitalised. I got it capitalised by consensus, but then an editor unilaterally changed it back. Another editor proposed a move back, but this was rejected on the ground of lack of consensus. I could have disputed this on the ground that the original consensus should stand, not an editor's unilateral change, but I could not be bothered to pursue it further.
I did say I am never sure and have had similar debates.— Rod talk 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Pedant alert) "As of July 2015, forty-two LNRs in Hertfordshire have been notified to Natural England" are they notified by the county council or the districts? Are any of the districts unitary in which case it will definitely be part of their functions.
There are no unitary districts in Hertfordshire. LNRs can be designated by county councils and districts, and by town and parish councils if the district has given them the power. In practice they are designated by all levels. Do you think I should explain this? I assumed it is a technical details people would not be interested in.
You are right it is probably only me that would ask such a question.— Rod talk 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • In the first para an area of square miles is converted to square kilometers, however later we have areas in hectares not converted to anything (although in the table they are).
All done now.
  • Table seems well laid out and sorts appropriately:
  • Weston Hills has a reference in the area column - the others don't
There is no map or area for Weston Hills on the NE list. I have expanded the note to clarify. (When I started on the article, Weston Hills was missing from the NE list. An editor posted on the Talk page pointing this out, and I emailed the council, who said that they would ask NE to add it to the list. This has now been done, but not yet the map and area.)
  • Would it be worth adding a column saying which of the districts each site is in (as shown in the navbox at the bottom), possibly in the location column?. If I'm only interested in those sites in the Three Rivers district for instance, I can't sort the table to achieve this.
Done.
  • Stockers Lake redirects to Stocker's Lake - should the apostrophe be there or not?
I am not sure how to deal with this. My usual policy is to go by NE's spelling unless there is an obvious typo. In this case NE has no apostrophe, but the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and the Friends of Stocker's Lake have one.
I think there is benefit in having consistency between the list and the articles it point to so I would add it as our wp article has one in the article title. I would welcome the comments of others on this.— Rod talk 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one which doesn't have public access (Hilfield Park Reservoir) therefore I'm not sure how useful that column is - it could be removed and a note added or explanation given in the description column to explain this.
Done.
  • Not part of the FLC process but why do the relevant wikiprojects already have it as FL in the banners on the talk page (seem to have been added here presumably when the project banners were copied from another page)?
Yes my cockup not noticing the FL when I copied the project banners. FL now removed.
  • Hope these comments are useful.— Rod talk 11:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Rod. Please advise if you are happy now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree the first two comments are probably "unresolvable" but would like to see the apostrophe in Stocker's Lane.— Rod talk 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apostrophe added. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, I now think this meets the criteria.— Rod talk 20:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and images review - I've checked each image on Commons. All are high-quality, many taken by the nominator himself, and are freely licensed appropriately. Nice job, indeed. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:14, 11 August 2015 [28].

List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio edit

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 11:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list on awards and nominations received by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, known for his roles, such as What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993), Titanic (1997), The Aviator (2004), Blood Diamond (2006), Inception (2010), and The Wolf of Wall Street (2013). I feel that the list meets the FL criteria with the inclusion of the said material. I will address any comments or concerns to the best of my ability. Thank you! -- Frankie talk 11:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry Frankie, you don't get to vote on your own noms with FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's fine for TFAR and FPs, but not FAs or FLs. I've no idea why it is for some processes and not others, but there you are! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sorry to leave a !vote without any comments, but I fail to find any improvements needed. A good list nominated by an experienced editor with multiple FL's under their belt. Nice job. Azealia911 talk 13:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • films that earned him two nominations at the 12th ceremony of the MTV Movie Awards. I think it would be better if you said the year of the ceremony, it's just clearer for the reader.
  • he garnered the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor nominations Remove the "the".
  • a film that earned him the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Change "film" to "role".
  • Infobox: Saturn Awards should come before Screen Actors Guild Awards.
  • The Critics' Choice Movie Awards are presented annually since 1995 -> "have been presented annually" Also change "cinema industry" to "film industry". You forgot "award" in the last sentence.
  • Replace the hyphen in Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards with an em-dash. Same with ref #23.
  • an organization of radio, television, and internet journalism from Dallas–Fort Worth-based publications "journalism" -> "journalists"
  • The Los Angeles Film Critics Association was founded in 1975 presented each January. You forgot an "and".
  • Remove the second wikilink to Claire Danes in the MTV Movie Awards section.
  • is an annual awards show that airs on the Nickelodeon cable channel that honours the year's biggest "honours" -> "honors" since DiCaprio is American.
  • You already linked Ellen Page in the MTV Movie Awards section, so you can remove the link in the People's Choice Awards section.
  • The Screen Actors Guild Awards are organised "organised" -> "organized"
  • Remove the link to Cameron Diaz in the Teen Choice Awards section.
  • Separate the Notes and References sections.
  • Last.fm is not a reliable source.

Great job otherwise! Littlecarmen (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, Littlecarmen. Wasn't very difficult to address them, but it has brought a very positive change to the list. -- Frankie talk 19:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the review and support. -- Frankie talk 16:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob edit

  • Please compare the list to IMDb's own, please verify if IMDb is correct which they often are. Many awards/nominations are missing from notable organisations: Berlin International Film Festival's Silver Bear for Best Actor. Alliance of Women Film Journalists, Australian Film Critics Association, Boston Society of Film Critics, Chicago Film Critics Association, Denver Film Critics Society, Detroit Film Critics Society, Dublin Film Critics' Circle, Empire awards, Film Critics Circle of Australia, Dorian Awards (GALECA), Hollywood Film Awards, Houston Film Critics Society, Irish Film and Television Awards, London Film Critics Circle, National Board of Review, National Society of Film Critics, New York Film Critics Circle, Online Film Critics Society, the honour of Order of Arts and Letters, Palm Springs International Film Festival, Rembrandt Award, San Diego Film, Satellite, Santa Barbara, Scream Awards, St. Louis, Vancouver Film Critics, Visual Effects Society, Washington D.C., Young Artist Award. Cowlibob (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob: Thanks and sorry for being slow on resolving this as I have been a bit busy these days. Anyway, I have included all of the awards now, with the exception of Houston Film Critics Society and the honour of Order of Arts and Letters because no source is available for the former, and as for the latter, I have decided not to include any of honors bestowed upon him in his awards page; that belongs to his biography. -- Frankie talk 21:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " failed to win in any competitive category" --> should change this as it could imply that it may have won an honorary award
  • Description for the Alliance of Women... awards needs to changed. "to award in to award women in the film industry" makes no sense.
  • Go through the awards descriptions as I can see many that don't sound right. "Denver Film Critics Society is held annually in Denver, Colorado", "Film Critics Circle of Australia is a group of film critics to award best films of the year".
  • why are the film titles not linked after the first mention?
  • the 2011 in Saturn Awards can be linked to 37th Saturn Awards
  • GALECA = Gay and Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association so should be "The Dorian Awards are presented by the Gay and Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association (GALECA). Cowlibob (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Almost FL-worthy, just fix a few citations:

  • Is Manchester Evening News a good source?
  • Something's wrong with the formatting of ref#131
  • One dead link to fix

Otherwise, good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for commenting. I have fixed the formatting of ref 131 and fixed the dead link. As for Manchester Evening News, I can't say about its reliability, but to this kind of info, I think it's okay as it does not contain any controversial information. And as it's London Film Critics, most of sources will be covered by British sources, which MEN is. Also, I would not add it if it were not the last option (there is not substitute available). -- Frankie talk 22:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure, and I can now gladly support this nomination. Another job well done! Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There are no other problems with the list. Great job.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snuggums and Birdie. :) -- Frankie talk 22:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Looks pretty comprehensive. Great job again, Frankie my boy! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:14, 11 August 2015 [29].

List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey edit

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this list of songs recorded by American chamber and art pop singer-songwriter Lana Del Rey for about one and a half years trying to get it to the highest quality possible and I would like to see it achieve featured list status. I would appreciate any comments. Greetings, Littlecarmen (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from West Virginian (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review by West Virginian


Littlecarmen, overall you've done an outstanding job of codifying all of Del Rey's extensive musical catalog, in a concise and well-referenced format. This is my first Featured List review, and it's my first review of a musical article, albeit a musical list, so please bear with me throughout this process, because I may be unaware of standard operations and procedure regarding what is, and what is not acceptable for an article of this type. Thank you for all your hard work on this list!

  • In the first paragraph of the lede, you mention that Del Rey had assumed her stage name for her debut studio album. Therefore, it is not necessary to mention the name change in the second paragraph when referencing her recording contract with Stranger Records in 2011 as it has already been established by 2010. I would recommend using the following New York Times and BBC News Online articles which also lay out the timeline of Del Rey's career and name change:
  • "Finding Her Future Looking to the Past: Lana Del Rey Still Stirs Things Up With 'Ultraviolence'". The New York Times. New York City. June 12, 2014. Retrieved July 25, 2015.
  • Savage, Mark (January 27, 2012). "Love, the law, and Lana Del Rey". BBC News Online. Retrieved July 25, 2015.
  • She has used two different stage names. Lana Del Ray (with an A) for her debut album Lana Del Ray and then Lana Del Rey since 2011. That's why it's mentioned twice; it's for two different names. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thank you for the clarification. I hadn't noticed the slight change in spelling. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am rather unfamiliar with the standard references and inline citation procedures for musical articles, so again, bear with me here. For citation number 2 and others like it, the citation links to an album article, with "Media notes" as the referenced item. Are these the liner notes on the EP or compact disc? I'm assuming there is no online database with this information for reference? If this is standard protocol for these articles and lists, I will assume good faith. I was just curious.
  • They are for the liner notes for the physical release of the EP. It's quite common to use these as a reference. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an inline citation reference available for the last sentence of the second paragraph? And for the third paragraph?
  • There are no inline citations in those paragraphs because the information in them is mentioned and sourced in the table. According to WP:CITELEAD, the lead doesn't require citations if the content is sourced in the body of the article. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, then that will be fine as that content is cited below in the list. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lede also needs an inline citation to a reference. The final sentence of the fifth paragraph could also use an inline citation to a reference.
  • The image of Del Rey performing is acceptable for use here, as it is licensed CC BY 2.0. It is good to go!
  • Depending upon the outcome of the question above, I will assume good faith on the "Media notes" citations for the list of songs.
  • In addition to "Media notes" inline citations, I would also encourage you to use articles from reputable media sources with online articles that can be referenced and linked to. The New York Times, Billboard and MTV News are three sites with this information that immediately come to mind. Again, you've done a phenomenal job bringing together this catalog list! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the compliments and comments! I have used the best sources I could find that verifies the information in the article. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Littlecarmen, it has been my pleasure. You've done a phenomenal job here. You may want to add additional inline citations, as the source for Citation 3 ([30]) does not currently link to the information it is supposed to support. I would again recommend citing other periodicals from the period that can support the information and can be easily verified by the reader. I also do not know if sites like AXS meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for bringing ref #3 to my attention. I have replaced it. I have referenced everything that needs referencing with reliable sources and I don't see why AXS shouldn't be seen as a reliable source. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Littlecarmen, this is the most authoritative and comprehensive Lana Del Rey song recordings list out there, and I hereby support its passage to Featured List status. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk
Comments from FrB.TG
  • Expand EP on its first usage with EP in parenthesis, and then you can use it simply as EP.
  • Is it that important to discuss her birth name and such I mean I can not find one in Katy Perry, Lady Gaga etc.
  • I think it is. Her having changed her stage name is frequently talked about and she used her birth name for her first release, so I think it should be mentioned. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extended play linked twice in the lead.
  • "Del Rey secured a recording contract with Interscope Records" – I would suggest to replace the word "secure" with "sign" or something as that does not look sound.
  • "Del Rey followed up Born to Die with an"
  • "in collaboration with" used three times in the lead. Replace one or two.
  • I replaced one because I can't find many alternatives. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about this, but I think you can also add the remixed version of "Summertime Sadness" in the table as it was more successful than the original.
  • I didn't think remixes should be included since the lyrics are the same and shouldn't we need to add all remixes, not just particular ones, if we start doing that? Littlecarmen (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and if we do that, it will be overkill. -- Frankie talk 09:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compared to Del Rey's career, I think the lead is a bit long. How about some trimming?
  • I've removed one sentence I deemed unnecessary but I'm not sure what else I could trim because I think it's all important. Is there something in particular you think should be removed? Littlecarmen (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing I find is trivial or unnecessary, just that I felt the length was a bit long, but I think it's fine. -- Frankie talk 09:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time when you nominate an article for FLC, please do this. I would appreciate it if you also look mine. -- Frankie talk 09:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, somehow I forgot to do that, thanks for doing it for me! Where is your nomination? I'll take a look at it if you can link it because I can't find it. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Link. -- Frankie talk 09:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911
  • Ref. → {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}}
  • None of the songs listed as singles have references to prove they're singles, while I don't have the albums listed in the refs, media notes don't usually include information about which songs are singles.
  • The WP:ALT for the picture of Lana isn't how it should be, look here at the Queen Elizabeth II one and you'll see what I mean.
  • "Ghetto Baby" is indicated as a single but it's article says otherwise.
  • Place a <br> in the artist column for listings of "--- featuring ---". ideally after the word "featuring". Due to her having a three word name, "Rey" is normally left on a line of its own and it looks somewhat distorted.
  • The three notes could all be merged into one considering they all say the same thing.

Looking good otherwise. Azealia911 talk 17:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last tiny things, change Ref. to Ref(s). Add an S to "official track listing." in the note, and <br> the refs so the column forms a single line as opposed to some being next to eachother and others not. Ghetto Baby and Wait For Life also need ! scope="row" | Azealia911 talk
Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another happy support after comments are addressed quickly and politely, always a pleasure :) Azealia911 talk 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Littlecarmen (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this a deeper look later on but here are some initial comments. Looks pretty good.
  • "the track experienced commercial success" This sounds odd to me. Maybe "After the commercial success of the track,".
  • Late 2012 --> November 2012
  • "to the soundtrack of the 2013 adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby" --> to the soundtrack of Baz Luhrmann's 2013 film adaptation of The Great Gatsby. I'm sure everyone knows Fitzgerald wrote it.
  • For the debuting at number one in twelve countries sentence, perhaps add an as of x date.
  • Correct me if it already does that but for the table is it possible for the year column to sort chronologically for albums released in the same year.
  • Ref 8 is a PR release from her record company. Can you find an alternate secondary source?
  • The only other source I found is this one and it's likely they got their info from Wikipedia. I just thought the press release was the most reliable. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We tend not to use commercial links on Wikipedia as references. Are there alternate refs for the info sourced by Amazon, iTunes etc.?

Cowlibob (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list has got ref error(s) where there is an accessdate but no url. Check the refs to find the problem one(s). Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found one and fixed it. Littlecarmen (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:14, 11 August 2015 [31].

List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut edit

Nominator(s): Joseph2302 (talk) and —Vensatry (ping) 19:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302 created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied up the table a bit. Look forward to comments and suggestions —Vensatry (ping) 19:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911

General

  • Why is the article not titled "List of One Day International cricket centuries scored on debut"? The abbreviation in the title seems rather confusing, and expanding doesn't make it overtly long. The article for One Day International isn't abbreviated to something like "ODI (cricket)", and even if it a commonly referred to abbreviation, things like MTV Video Music Award are still used as article titles (over "MTV VMA's" in this case)
    • You're right. Will move the article once the discussion gets archived. —Vensatry (ping) 09:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture of Martin Guptill needs an alt.
So it is, sorry, I saw the ]] next to Guptill's link and mistook that for the end of the file. Could you possible expand on it? Just his name is rather brief. Azealia911 talk
No, WP:ALT suggests in these kinda lists it's fine to have the names alone. —Vensatry (ping) 10:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "regarded by the critics as a significant achievement." Needs citation.
  • Both instances of "achieved this feat." → "accomplished this"
  • Why is the F in Full members capitalized? (Not a cricket expert I'm afraid, if it's something to do with that, that's fine, just pointed it out in case it's a grammatical error)
  • "no player from Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka has achieved this feat." I don't see what relevance this holds.
    • Because these three teams are full members of the ICC, it makes sense to add them here. Also, the Indian batsmen have scored the most centuries in ODIs, so it definitely adds some relevance to the context. —Vensatry (ping) 09:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence about Dennis Amiss needs citation.
    • Not needed as it's referenced in the table. Added a ref. for the FN —Vensatry (ping) 09:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His total was bettered" → "His record was broken by"
  • "when the latter" there's only one name mentioned in the sentence.

Key

  • Move the key to below the table, and remove an equals sign from each side, having both of them at the same header level gives off the

vibe that they are unrelated.

This still needs doing Azealia911 talk
In general, we list the key above the table. You might want to have a look at similar lists. As for the equals sign, can you elaborate a little more on it. Are you referring to the rowscopes? —Vensatry (ping) 10:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough for listing the Key first, but having both the "Key" and "ODI centuries on debut" under ==These headers== gives off the impression to me that the sections are unrelated, I suggest as compromise:

==One Day International centuries on debut== ===Key=== *Key* *Table*

ODI centuries on debut

  • Change section header to One Day International centuries on debut per my comments about the article title.
I meant the section header as in "ODI centuries on debut" to what I suggested.
Still needs doing
  • In Venue, add the country to each listing.
First listing needs a country, please link the countries as well.
Still needs doing
  • There's a space next to Won before the ref (like Won [3]) for Dennis Amiss' listing, remove it.

Notes

  • The first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead discusses the first ODI century, there is then a note that reads "It was the first ever century scored in ODIs." when we've literally just been told this in the sentence?
    • The sentence says "English cricketer Dennis Amiss was the first debutant to score a century in ODIs". It cannot be inferred that he was the first to score a century in ODIs. —Vensatry (ping) 09:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove note [b] completely, it's explained immediately after in the table, and holds little relevance to how many times a scoring player's team lost.
    • I disagree. It would give an impression that of the nine occasions a cricketer has scored a century, his team has won seven times. —Vensatry (ping) 09:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • {{reflist|2}}→{{reflist|30em}} it's more browser friendly.

Think that's everything I spotted. Azealia911 talk 01:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • I'd remove the Key listing on no result, and just link the page to about it in the ODI box.
    • Since the 'Result' column is sortable, I may have to link 'Won' and 'Lost' also. So, it's better to have the explanation (hyperlink) in the key itself. —Vensatry (ping) 10:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All but one reference now appears in the Notes section?

Looking a lot better Azealia911 talk 10:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up final notes (would appreciate you replying here as opposed to above)
  • Key needs changing to what I suggested, or at least something that gives the two sections some kind of connect, if you're still not sure as to what I mean, give me the green light and I'll change it myself, which we can then always discuss.
    • It won't confuse the reader, as the header precisely tells the purpose of each table. —Vensatry (ping) 18:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section header for "ODI centuries on debut" needs changing to "One Dday Internationals centuries on debut"
  • All of the countries in the "Venue" column need linking.
  • I'm at a loss as to what you've done to the Footnotes/Notes/References. Change "Footnotes" header to "Notes", "Notes" to "References" and implement the ref at the bottom. See here if you're unsure of what I mean.

Once these are addressed I'll happily support. Azealia911 talk 13:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can now happily Support per all comments being addressed. Would appreciate any feedback at an FLC I opened, thanks. Azealia911 talk 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azealia911: Will review your nomination soon. —Vensatry (ping) 10:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "by the critics" -> by critics
  • "did not make any appearance in first-class cricket then." I think what you're trying to say is he had not played in first class cricket before his ODI debut? Needs to be clearer and worded better
  • "With only four instances happening between 1972 and 2008, it remained a rare feat. However after 2009, this feat has been achieved more frequently than ever before, by five players from four different teams." I would try and reword this so it flows better. How about "Between 1972 and 2008 only four players scored a century on their ODI debut. However, since 2009, five players have achieved the feat."
  • Batsman column should sort by last name
  • Need an accessdate for ref 1

NapHit (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: All done. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry (ping) 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk
  • "While at least one player from seven of the ten teams..." I think "Although" would sound better starting this sentence, rather than "While". It might be better completely reworked to something like "Players representing seven of the ten teams that have full member status have scored an ODI century on debut; no players from Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka have accomplished the feat."
  • It would be more interesting (to me, at least) to note that Amiss' century came in the second ODI ever played, rather than it being in "the first match of the Prudential Trophy in 1972".
  • "His record was broken..." What record? You haven't mentioned a record. I assume, given what follows, you mean the highest score on debut, but the only thing mentioned previous is that Amiss was the first player to score a century on debut, and that record clearly can't be beaten!
  • "the most recent cricketer to score a debut ODI century." The term "debut ODI century" is a bit ambiguous, as it is also used to refer to a player's first century, even if they score it in their seventeenth match! I would rephrase this for clarity.
  • "..his team has lost two times." I'd change "his" to "their" personally.
  • Ref #9 is missing an author.
  • Ha! Just noticed that this wasn't an author at all. Must pay attention to foreign languages! Harrias talk 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #10 has a typo in the work name ("Aamanack"!) and should take an endash, rather than a hyphen in the year range. Harrias talk 09:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, great work, and good quick responses. Well done! Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Greg Chappell/archive2? Harrias talk 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:14, 7 August 2015 [32].

List of York City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) edit

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. It is the last of a three-part series including List of York City F.C. players (featured since October 2007) and List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) (featured since March 2015). I am working on reducing the number of red links, although I feel criterion 5a is met as it is. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Comments'
  • "the club failed to be elected to the Football League for the coming season." could be worth linking to that coming season?
  • "At international level, Iwelumo also went..." I think also is redundant
  • "so have the opportunity to add to their totals" -> can add to their totals
  • This is just a suggestion, but you could try and get the position column to sort by position rather than alphabetically?
    • I'm not sure about this. The list includes the old playing positions (full-back, half-back etc) as well as the current ones, and ordering them in a logical manner might be awkward. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused why a lot of the players that have been selected for their international team, have a zero in the caps column. For instance, i checked Iwelumo's article and it says he has received 4 caps for Scotland
    • The key explains that "For players having played at full international level, the caps column counts the number of such appearances during his career with the club" (my bold). Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, the under-21s just have a dash in the caps column, while their article states a figure
    • I don't feel caps below senior level are pertinent enough for inclusion, and it's difficult to find the number of caps gained for many below-senior national teams, e.g. the England youth team c. 1960s. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Fantastic work, well done. NapHit (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The one thing that jumped out at me was the Players with 25 or more appearances section, which is basically just a hatnote to other articles. Since links to the other pages are included in the templates at the bottom of the page, I'm not sure we need a blank section for them. If you feel that they are important enough to highlight, perhaps they should be at the top of the page. Otherwise, the list looked strong to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I placed the links to the other lists there as I thought readers would find them useful upon finishing reading the list. However, I wouldn't oppose them being moved to the top of the page if you feel it is more practical. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no issues jump out at me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. The format for these lists is well established now, the second part of the York City trilogy passed FLC quite recently, and this list follows that one pretty closely, so I expect to support. There are a couple of things...
    • The John Lowey image struck me as clearly a scan from somewhere, so I checked its description at Commons, was unconvinced, and have nominated it for deletion as likely copyright violation. The people at Commons might think it's OK, and they might take ages thinking anything at all, but I'd be tempted to remove it pending a decision.
    • Would "all players who have played between 1 and 24 first-team matches" be a more precise wording than "played in fewer than 25"? or does saying "played in" clearly exclude unused substitutes? Naming the article List of York City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) would clarify, but that's outside the scope of this FLC.
      • Reworded as suggested, and article retitled as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one stems from the standard wording "The club's first team have competed in numerous nationally organised competitions" which was removed at the 25–99 apps FLC to cater for the Midland League years. For clubs without time spent in a regional league, or where the players list doesn't cover such time, that wording avoids having to include things like appearances in county senior cups, which certainly in the early years of my club were very much first-team competitions but for which the line-ups aren't recorded. Did YCFC play first-team matches in any regional cups? and if so, should they be specifically mentioned and excluded, as the Gillingham lists do with supplementary matches? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The club has fielded a team in the North Riding Senior Cup since its inaugural season, but appearances in this competition are not regarded as first-team/competitive, and records have not been maintained for appearances in it. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As stated above under the yellow stripe, I expected to support, and nominator responded to my comments in a very timely manner, which is more than can be said for my belated return to this FLC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - feels this satisfies the criteria based on prose and structure alone. Couldn't find any issues with references. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:12, 7 August 2015 [33].

List of amphibians of Bulgaria edit

Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I hope that a successful promotion would encourage other users to create or improve lists of amphibians (and other animals) by country. While the lists of mammals and birds generally cover most countries, the lists of amphibians and reptiles still cover only a limited number of countries. In my opinion it is surprising how little lists there are in that field despite the available information. Regards, Gligan (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few minor comments. I could not find the full citation for Biserkov 2007, and the introduction sentence "This is a complete list of the amphibians of Bulgaria" can be deleted, as it's no longer accepted form for featured lists (as it is rather redundant). Mattximus (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I have changed the introduction of the list. However, I don't understand what exactly is missing in order to have full citation for Biserkov 2007. I hope you can help me with that issue. Here is a link to the book of Biserkov in PDF, if that could be helpful. Best, --Gligan (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by PresN

Alright, removing my delegate hat to review this list, as I'd like to see more lists like this as well. Comments:

  • Okay, the only amphibian FL we have appears to be List of amphibians of Michigan, which has very different formatting than this one. At first glance, I'm on team Bulgaria- looks better visually
  • That lead is short. It's barely a single paragraph- is there no other information from the article that could go up there? The Michigan list gives the idea of a map of Bulgaria, to start with. Maybe add a description of the regions of Bulgaria you discuss in the various species notes?
I have expanded the lead. I will also add some information about the levels of precipitation but this would be in Wednesdays, when I get home.
  • The background:Linen; is removing the up/down arrows from the column headers; replace them with background-color:Linen; and they pop right back up
Done.
  • You're missing row and column scopes; make the column headers scope="col" style="blah" to fix those, and make the first item of each row !scope="row"| ''Lissotriton vulgaris'' for the row scopes. Note that the row scopes change the formatting of the first column; to undo it add plainrowheaders as a class of the table (so class="sortable wikitable plainrowheaders") and make the row !scope="row" style="background:#ffffff"| ''Lissotriton vulgaris''.
Done. (hopefully I haven't messed up something)
  • All your status links are redirecting, but that seems to be a problem with the template, not your list
I have corrected the template.
  • The distribution texts all have punctuation but most are not complete sentences- either make them all complete sentences with a period at the end, or drop the periods and make them all half-statements
Done.
  • Poor southern crested newt doesn't have an image- I assume you've looked for one?
Indeed, I have looked for an image but unfortunately there is none in Commons.
  • I like the way you tell the reader how many species/genera there are in general, as well as in Bulgaria
  • And... that's it! A nice, short list that covers all the bases.

--PresN 01:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the suggestions and the positive comments :) I will take note of the discussion here and will extrapolate the recommendations to the List of reptiles of Bulgaria, which I intend to nominate once the current process is over. Regards, Gligan (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did a copyedit on the new additions. 2 last things- ref 3 (First record of Triturus macedonicus (Karaman, 1922) (Amphibia: Salamandridae) in Bulgaria) - shouldn't this be cite journal, not cite book? If so, it needs a journal listed; if it is a book, it needs a publisher. Cite 5 (Ecoregions of Bulgaria") is also missing a publisher. --PresN 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Best regards,--Gligan (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, Support. --PresN 20:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of getting this list some more attention: consider reviewing some other lists at FLC to get people more inclined to review yours back, and maybe ask Mattximus if he's willing to do a full review. On that note- would you consider reviewing my World Fantasy Special Award—Professional down below? --PresN 12:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images Review -

All the other images look good.— Maile (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gligan (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well done list. — Maile (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Regards, --Gligan (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
  • "Geographic map of Bulgaria" Why not just Map of Bulgaria? What is an non-geographic map?
A silly mistake of mine. What I meant was topographic map.
  • "The foundations of the Bulgarian herpetology, or studies of amphibians and reptiles" I suggest "The foundations of Bulgarian herpetology, (the study of amphibians and reptiles)"
Done.
  • As all but one species are low concern, I would delete the status column and add a sentence at the end of the first paragraph saying that they are all least concern apart from the Macedonian Crested Newt which has not been evaluated.
In my opinion all good-quality lists should a similar structure for all countries and a status column is a must (in general). Indeed, in the case of Bulgaria most amphibian species have the same status but that category is variable and the current status might change. My idea is to have uniform lists of vertebrate species of Bulgaria and that column would be needed there.
  • A column for the genus would be far more useful.
My thoughts on that suggestion: if we have a column for the genus, it should not have the same number of rows as the other columns because it is redundant to repeat the same word over and over again. However, if the number of rows differs, then the options to sort the species by Latin, common name or status will not work properly.
I do not see the problem. You repeat the status and could equally well repeat the genus. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The status is repeated only because in that particular list the vast majority of species happen to have the same status. The genus on the other hand is already clearly visible in the Latin name and sorted alphabetically anyway. Generally, in the lists with tables I have seen so far there is no such column. In your opinion in what place should a column about the genus go in the table. Perhaps third, after the Latin and common name of the species? --Gligan (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only one genus, Hyla, is found in Europe, and one species occurs in Bulgaria.[" You might add the number of species in the genus.
If we add the number of species there might be confusion whether that number includes all Hyla species or only those found in Europe. They are 37 and 6 species respectively. I am open for a suggestion how to add that information without complicating the sentence too much.
How about "Hylidae or tree frogs are the most diverse amphibian family with 951 species in 51 genera, and worldwide distribution. Most species inhabit tropical areas with warm and humid climate, especially the Neotropics. Hylids range from small to large in size and usually have distinct adhesive toe discs that contain a cartilage offsetting the terminal phalanx, which aids in climbing. The only genus found in Europe is Hyla, with 6 species out of 37 worldwide, and one in Bulgaria." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gligan (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not formatted harvnb refs correctly. You need to add ref=harv to the sources.
Done (hopefully) but please take a look at my formatting and correct it if needed.
  • A first rate list. All my queries are minor apart from the lack of a genus column. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the comments. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One other point. Columns where sorting does not make sense, description and image, should be non-sortable. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gligan (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I still think there should be a column for the genus, both for completeness and because it would allow a link to the genus which would be useful to some readers, but I leave it to you to decide. If you do put it in, it could go second or third. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support :) I would like to use this opportunity to encourage the people following this discussion to share their opinion on the issue regarding a column for the genus. Best, --Gligan (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:11, 7 August 2015 [34].

List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club grounds edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude, AssociateAffiliate

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. I have an open FLC for List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds, but that has two supports and no unresolved comments. All changes in response to user comments on that FLC have been incorporated into this article too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Vensatry (ping)

  • Burton upon Trent – Linked twice in lede
  • "List A cricket since 1963[2]" – Move the ref to the end of the sentence.
  • You say "The club was established on 4 November 1870 and has played" but in another sentence say "Derbyshire have played first class".
    • Sorted (hopefully) - in British English it is standard to use the singular when referring to the club as an off-the-field organisation, but plural when referring to the team of actual players on the field. Hope that makes sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the opening para must be sourced.
    • I would have thought it was self-evident from looking at the dates in the table...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be more precise, I was referring to the last two parts of it. Also, the "Notes" section is currently unsourced. —Vensatry (ping) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I still don't follow. DO you refer to the bit that says "....Highfield in Leek, which in 2013 hosted the most recent Derbyshire home game not to be played in either Derby or Chesterfield."? Well, that can be deduced by looking at the dates in the table, I don't think it needs separate sourcing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Notes are now sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • "all of which are not actually located in Derbyshire, but in the adjoining county of Staffordshire." —Vensatry (ping) 06:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, sorry, opening paragraph - d'oh! For some reason I kept reading it as if you were talking about the whole lead. Ref added..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Biddulph piped to Knypersley? Also, I cannot find Burton upon Trent in the source. Does it have a different name? Lastly, Leek links to the vegetable. —Vensatry (ping) 07:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The map in the source shows Burton as being in Staffordshire, but just to be on the safe side I've put in another ref too. Knypersley is part of Biddulph and does not have a separate WP article. Leek link fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debut first-class cricket since 1871 is repeated twice in lede.
  • The table needs row and column scopes.

—Vensatry (ping) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias and The Rambling Man: Can you have a look at this candidate? This shouldn't be closed due to lack of reviews. —Vensatry (ping) 07:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to me. A couple of wrapping issues in the table I'd prefer to see fixed ("v Nottinghamshire" splits onto two lines on my browser for the Twenty20 column), but nothing major. Harrias talk 08:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Late to the party, but confidently supporting. Plainly meets the FL criteria. I am obliged to The Rambling Man for shaking the bucket for this benefit, which I'd otherwise have missed. This is good work, and I'm happy to support. Off now to look at Warwickshire. Tim riley talk 21:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:10, 7 August 2015 [35].

List of awards and nominations received by Satyajit Ray edit

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray is considered as one of the great filmmakers of all time and he has won numerous awards for his films and honors for himself. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies FL criteria. Looking forward to constructive criticism.

  • Note: Sorry to say this but bad-faith Indian editors...please stay away. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
  • Not sure if his date of birth and date are relevant in his awards page, but in his biography it's worth mentioning.
  • I have had used the same pattern for his FL filmography. So would like to keep it same. Also, some of other FLs also use the same pattern, probably for all those people who are passed away.
  • "These include awards at the Berlin International Film Festival (28th), Cannes Film Festival (35th)..." You need not mention the ceremonies in parenthesis. You can have it like "28th Berlin International Film Festival"
  • Done
  • Why is he mentioned by his full name in FN. 2 and 4.
  • Because it has mention of his son as well. Just to distinguish between them, I have used the full name for both.
  • "He won ten awards for his screenplay writing" - I think you should word numbers that are below ten.
  • I am not sure what is the criteria here. Second opinion would be nice.
  • Not sure if Wikipedia (or WP:FL?) holds a criterion regarding this yet you have done this at other places (in the list) which is why I am asking you to do this to maintain consistency. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed and Done
  • You have abbreviated it as "Refs" while the full form is "Reference".
  • Done
  • Why is only section 2.1.3 linked?
  • Fixed I missed it earlier.
  • In the same section "Ray received three nominations and no awards" - The "no awards" is not needed as it's so obvious (from the table) that he didn't receive any award.
  • Done
  • The links for ref. 54 and 56 are broken.
  • Replaced 56 with other source and trying to find another source for 54. web.archive.org did not let me archive it for some security reason and the original site is down now!
  • Since the original site is down and not archived, I'm having no luck finding other source for 54. So I have used the same source as that of 55 because so far, at filmfare, one of the films nominated for the best film is given critics award. I think, its safe to assume that way and would not fall under WP:OR but if this is not OK, I'll remove the nomination mention. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the National Film Awards section, you have the key indicator in colors while in the table they are colorless.
  • Done. Initially, I thought of not adding the color. But now I think its alright.
  • Why do the tables below "Honorary awards" have so much unnecessary width? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had it 80% earlier but its too cluttered and wraps the text. - Vivvt (Talk) 02:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last section you can change "1958–1959" to "1958–59". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Oppose on a quick run through
  • Consider changing the caption of the image. Looks pretty obvious to everyone that it's a portrait.
Any suggestions?
  • The table lists 133 wins and 15 nominations – This is a blunder
In what regards?
@Vivvt: Some of those award wins would have had previous nominations which you should include in the total. For example say a film was nominated for five Oscars and won twice then you would include in the table as five nominations and two award wins. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: But in case of films, its kinda impossible to have previous nominations for the same awards. I didnt want to categorise per award which is very convenient for me but wanted to show how many of his each film won any award. There are total 39 films by him so didnt want to mention all of them in the lead. Do you have any suggestions?
Fixed Cowlibob helped to fix this.
Not done —Vensatry (ping) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point out the mistakes for the further correction, if required. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every win is an outcome of a nomination. —Vensatry (ping) 08:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not true for all the awards. E.g. National Film Awards, Bodil Awards do not declare nominations and only announce winners. As Cowlibob suggested earlier, added a footnote explaining the same. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every award has nominations; it's just some ceremonies don't disclose it. In case of NFAs, they have something called "shortlists" in the final round. The winner will be decided from the shortlist, which is made available to the press these days. I agree we cannot consider the all those "contenders" as nominees, but the winner certainly is. Also the BFJA awards have nominations, but you've not considered that. —Vensatry (ping) 11:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Vivvt (Talk) 12:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a point in splitting "Awards for the films directed by Ray" and "Awards for the films contributed by Ray". After all, he was the recipient (of a particular category), regardless of who made the film.
  • honors -> honours (Indian English usage)
Not done Will keep US English for this list.
As Ray is Indian, the standard is to use British English not US English. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I can still see the usage of "honor" in the article. —Vensatry (ping) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "Ray received numerous awards and honors, including India's highest award in cinema, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, in 1984 and India's highest civilian award, Bharat Ratna, in 1992." – The placement of commas confuses the reader. Consider splitting the sentence as it looks lengthy.
Done
  • Same for the succeeding sentence.
Done
  • "Commander of the National Order of the Legion of Honour, the highest decoration in France" – Are you sure about it being the highest decoration? If so, needs a source.
Done
  • "an Academy Honorary Award at the 64th Academy Awards in 1992"
Done
  • "Ray made his directorial debut in 1955 with Pather Panchali." – Needs a source
Done
  • You say 3rd National Film Awards (1955) and 7th Berlin International Film Festival (1957) – Be consistent while mentioning the years.
Done
The year for Dadasaheb Phalke Award also needs to be corrected. —Vensatry (ping) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Not done —Vensatry (ping) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per source, parent list and this list, 1984 is mentioned everywhere. Point out the mistakes for the further correction, if any. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the Oscar mentions the year to be 1991, but the article says 1992. I think we sorted out this issue by mentioning the year in which the awards were given out. —Vensatry (ping) 04:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how does that source mention 1991 when Ray was awarded in 1992. I have changed the source, which says he was awarded in the year 1992, not 1991. -- Frankie talk 10:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize you removed the official citation? For this thing, I wish to have the opinion of the nominator. —Vensatry (ping) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quite do, but I don't understand why does that mention 1991 (maybe it was announced in late 1991 or something and given in March 1992?) when he it was in 1992. And I don't understand what you want in the list to be changed. Anyways, that can be restored, all I tried to do is help, that's all. -- Frankie talk 14:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: The source says the award was presented in 1992, it incorrectly writes the 64th ceremony as 1991. Here's another ref from the official website which states 64th = 1992 [[36]], from official Oscars Youtube channel, presentation video of Ray's award, [[37]]. The NYT source is fine as a reliable secondary source to make it clearer. Here's another book source that it was 1992. [[38]]. Cowlibob (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So 'year' represents the year in which the ceremony had taken place. Like wise, the year should be corrected for Dadasaheb Palke Award. —Vensatry (ping) 05:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Not quite. The Dadasaheb Phalke Award is listed as 1984 on the official website as the year it was awarded which we should go with (despite the presentation being in 1985). If you look at the news reports [[39]][[40]][[41]][[42]] for Shashi Kapoor's win it is listed as awarded for 2014 (despite him actually receiving it in 2015). The Honorary Academy Award is listed on official websites as a 1992 award. Hope that's clear.Cowlibob (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, see this. —Vensatry (ping) 11:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book would have gone with 1985 as that's when he received it. Surely we should go with what the organiser says is the year? SchroCat, could you help lift this impasse? The disagreement is what year we should state for when an award is won. The Dadasaheb Phalke award (equivalent to a BAFTA fellowship) is announced as the award for a particular year but is actually presented the following year. Should we state the year when it was presented or the year the awards committee specify as the year? Cowlibob (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with either of them. But be consistent throughout the article. —Vensatry (ping) 18:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to take sides on this (it's a content dispute, so my thoughts are as valid as those of you two, or anyone else's) Personally if there is any doubt, I tend to go with what the official sources say, and keep it as consistent as possible throughout. If it's official, then it's difficult to argue with it. I hope this helps. Cheers! – SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a never-ending discussion about the award year and ceremony year. As far as Dadasaheb Award is concerned, its clearly given for the year. Like for Shashi Kapoor, per this source, its conferred for the year 2014. Academy award does not mention so, for Honorary Awards at least. Per list source, "Year: 1991 (64th) Academy Awards" and "Date & Venue: March 30, 1992". Just to maintain consistency, I would change it from 1992 to 1991. Though, there is no clear indication for the year. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you say he won 10 awards for Best Screenplay, but the table lists 12.
Corrected
  • OCIC Catholic Award of Cannes Film Festival is linked to a Sri Lankan film award.
Fixed
  • 'Are 'Aparajito and Pather Panchali American films?
Just so you know, the answer is no. But the official site lists the entry under American film awards. However, its Wiki page says " The category was named "Best American Film" until 1961, when it became the "Best Non-European Film". In 2001, the name of the award changed back to "Best American Film", and the European category was changed to "Best Non-American Film"." Added it to the list.
To correct this simply change the category like this: [[Bodil Award for Best American Film|Best Non-European Film]] Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • In BAFTA, you should give the actual names of the category; Best Film -> Best Film from any Source
Not much clear about what needs to be done
The Apu Trilogy films won the "BAFTA for Best Film from any Source" so correct in table as [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film from any Source]] Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Filmfare nomination for Shatranj Ke Khilari (Best Film) is not verified by the source. Further, Ray doesn't look like the producer of the film. If so, he shouldn't be credited with the nomination as the film belongs to the producer.
Removed
  • Awarding body for Dadasaheb Phalke Award should be DFF. I'm not sure if the Dadabhai Naoroji Memorial Award is presented by the government. Also, since the UK govt. seems to present an award of the same name, this needs to be clarified.
Done Added the source from PIB release for the awarding body.
Mention the ministry —Vensatry (ping) 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Kanchanjangha->Kanchenjungha
Done
Corrected Though the award is given in this particular section, I incorrectly assumed it to be a screenplay section with his name written as a screenplay writer. Another film Bab El-Oued City was awarded that year.
  • In "Established in 1909, the National Board of Review awards are awarded annually by The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures" – Link "National Board of Review of Motion Pictures" rather than the awards. Also, the "Top Foreign Language Films" seems like a list. Not sure if that qualifies as an award.
Done
  • You should know the difference between "The film is directed" and "The film was directed" (in the notes section), especially when the other part of the sentence uses another tense.
Corrected
  • Refs. #47 and #48 use the same title.
Done
  • You have included Bijoya Ray's Manik and I: My Life with Satyajit Ray as a source, but not used it as a ref. anywhere in the article.
Done
The second para of the lead just reads like a series of bullet points. It goes too much into the Apu Trilogy discussing only about those three films. I'm sure the nominator must be aware of other films that fetched him a lot of awards. I can see that a lot of hard work has been put into the list, but sadly there are so many issues with the list. A peer review would have made this process much more easier. —Vensatry (ping) 19:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: Please add back the Best Film nomination at Filmfare as I found the archive of it here, and I think you also need to ping @Vensatry: to tell them to revisit. Cheers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 23:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ray was not the producer for the film so it makes sense not to credit him for the award. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • The third sentence of the second para is extremely long, so is the succeeding sentence.
  • "During his over five decade career" - His career spanned "over" five decades?
  • Year needed for Rabindranath Tagore's documentary in lead.
  • The 'years' for many films (awards) are still inconsistent.

—Vensatry (ping) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I assume Cowlibob has resolved your queries. -- Frankie talk 22:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work thus far, but this one is still pending (I don't see a point in splitting "Awards for the films directed by Ray" and "Awards for the films contributed by Ray". After all, he was the recipient (of a particular category), regardless of who made the film.) —Vensatry (ping) 10:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific reason as such. Just went by his filmography format and wanted to make distinction between his own films and others. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness. Looks much better now —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments edit

  • A dead link and a few missing access dates Please rectify them.
  • ...received critical acclaim and was awarded the Best Film prize at various award ceremonies and film festivals — i think prize can be replaced with award.
Ssven2 made the change on my behalf. :)
  • ...and two awards for writing lyrics — and two awards for lyric-writing.
Done
  • Looks like the list has been written with focus. I see a few redlinks though. Any reason behind this?
I think red links are ok with FLs and would encourage editors to create new articles.

I hereby request the nominator to ping me once all these issues are addressed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Thanks for the review. I have made changes per your request. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seven references do not have accessdates. Any explanation regarding this? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to ref no. 9, 20, 23, 109? These refer to a book so accessdates are not needed. Please let me know if you are referring to any/something else. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me then. Support Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2 edit

Supprort - Nice work on the article, Vivvt. One minor comment,

  • "The film was critical acclaimed" — Typo. Can also change to "The film received critical acclaim".
  • Done Thanks for the support. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:12, 3 August 2015 [43].

Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year edit

Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The list is modeled after articles of related award categories such as the Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year and the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album, both which are listed as FL. The Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year was an honor that was presented annually at the Billboard Latin Music Awards, a ceremony which honors "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music, as determined by the actual sales, radio airplay, streaming and social data that informs Billboard's weekly charts." According to Billboard magazine, the category was "created in response to the growing number of charting titles from the genre" of reggaeton. Regards, DivaKnockouts 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Erick edit

  • Please explain why the award category was discontinued. I presume it was because it was later replaced by the "Latin Rhythm Album of the Year" award, but the article doesn't explain why Billboard hasn't given the award since 2008. You also need to include the category Awards disestablished in 2008. Also use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to have Billboard italicized on the article title. I'll check for more later. Erick (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note: if you must use subsections, they need to be at least a level 4, or they pop out onto the main FLC page.--PresN 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Erick. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. — DivaKnockouts 16:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding, I've been having health problems. Anyways, the source doesn't exactly say that the "Rhythm Album of the Year" replaces "Reggaeton Album of the Year". Is it possible that "Reggaeton Album of the Year" may have been renamed to Latin Rhythm Album of the Year? Erick (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No no, you're fine! I hope everything is going better. Hmm, I tried finding a source that stated that, but failed. And well, if it was renamed, it wouldn't be considered a new category right? I'll look again. — DivaKnockouts 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much else to say so Support. Erick (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992 edit

  • "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music" - shouldn't it be reggaeton instead of Latin music in general since we are talking about reggaeton?
In this sentence, it's talking about the Billboard Latin Music Awards ceremony itself, not the award category.
  • What is reggaeton? Maybe a brief sentence that talks about its origins or influences would suffice. Best, jona(talk) 20:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your comments! — DivaKnockouts 21:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now support the article's promotion to FL. Congrats, jona(talk) 16:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin edit

Resolved comments. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the lead (see diff) as there was some repetition, redundancy and incorrect grammar. If I did something wrong, feel free to undo, or if you disagree with one of my changes, feel free to discuss. A few notes:
  • This seems irrelevant to this award itself—"The album was also awarded the Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year and the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album in 2005."
  • The award itself is similar to the Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year and Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album.
    But here, you're not comparing this award to those two, but digressing as you mention other awards the album received. It comes off as off-topic fluff. The Wikipedian Penguin 11:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed it. Although, I saw it in the other awards categories' articles. — DivaKnockouts 15:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puerto Rican singer Ivy Queen is the most nominated artist without a win, with three nominations, and the only female nominee."—trivial.
  • Sentences like these are also used in the Lo Nuestro Award and Latin Grammy Award articles for their respective awards.
  • Can you hold Puerto Rican nationality? Aren't they American?
  • Puerto Ricans have American citizenships, but are Puerto Rico, no? You want me to refer to them as American artist instead? Or without any nationality?
    Just as Californians and New Yorkers have American nationality, so do Puerto Ricans, so yes, American. The Wikipedian Penguin 11:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedian Penguin: Actually, they are recognized as a nationality. See Puerto Rican citizenship Erick (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Refs 1, 9–12: "Billboard" needs to be italicized in the title.
  • Done

Support—nicely done, DivaKnockouts. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Azealia911 edit

Body

  • Add Daddy Yankee and Don Omar to the "Most nominations" in the infobox, I assume it's how many times an artist is nominated, not how many times they're nominated without winning.
  • Done
  • Add a "| year2 = 2008" parameter to the infobox.
  • Done
  • Similarly to how you did for the Ref. column, you can Abbr the notes into the other column titles as they're not too long, EG "{{Abbr|Nominees|The name of the performer and the nominated album.}}"
  • Is this required?
No of course not, a simple suggestion, entirely up to you.
  • Make the Nationality column unsortable, it's redundant considering they all display the same thing.
  • Done
  • {{Reflist|2}} → {{Reflist|30em}} as it's more browser friendly.
  • Done

References

  • Considering the article is reporting an American topic, the dates should really all be MDY, not DMY.
  • Done
  • Done

Think that's everything I got! Azealia911 talk 12:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per all my comments being addressed, I am giving my Support to this, a good list. Azealia911 talk 14:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:12, 3 August 2015 [44].

Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album edit

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is well referenced and is modeled after several featured lists about the Grammy Awards, Latin Grammy Awards and Lo Nuestro Awards. I will be watching this nomination closely in order to follow your recommendations. Thanks in advance. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

  • Second sentence of second para is too long. Count the words (98).
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 28 should be changed from "Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company" to "Los Angeles Times (Tribune Company)" to maintain consistency.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billboard Staff" is redundant as seen in ref. 43 and 44.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A QPQ? -- Frankie talk 20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Like AB said, the list looks great. -- Frankie talk 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has been a long time since I've promoted or even endorsed an FL, but I think this list looks really great and appears to be consistent with similar featured Grammy lists. Well done! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you AB, very proud of this, I am very glad that you liked it, I am a big fan of your work. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comment.

Comments from Magiciandude

  • Capitalize the "l" in "Latin"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tribune Company" should be "Tribune Publishing" as it is now a separate publishing company since 2014
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no hyphen between "Puerto" and "Rican". It's simply Puerto Rican
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Billboard articles published between 1989 and 2009, publisher is Nielsen N.V.. Anything before 1989 is just "News Media".
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jose Feliciano is not a singer-songwriter as he does not solely compose and perform his own songs (see the article). Should either be "singer and songwriter" or just use "musician"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include the page number for Refs #13 and #19 as the source is a newspaper scan
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks good. Erick (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Erick!. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job as always! Erick (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you could just fix one more thing? On Ref 7, you listed it as a journal when it's a book. It also states that's in Spanish when the books is actually written in English. Erick (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Good job! Erick (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A five-paragraph lead is far too long for a list like this...
The lead has only four and I still think is short, there are 31 winners in the category. I think it is correct as is. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table needs !scope="row" tags
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (Thanks (Erick). Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead could probably be condensed to two sentences.
This category had a lot of changes, but I'll try to edit the paragraph.
  • That year recordings in this category were shifted to the newly formed Best Latin Pop, Rock or Urban Album violation of MOS:BOLDTITLE.
Ok, fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puerto Rican American singer hyphen after "Puerto"
Erick asked me to remove it, which suggestion should I take into consideration? Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Erick's right, our article Puerto Rican American doesn't hyphenate. Seattle (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will fix it. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: I know this isn't my nomination, but I've never seen a hyphen between "Puerto" and "Rican" anywhere in the English language. Not even the article uses them. Could you point out where a hyphen must be included between those two words? Erick (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 13:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911
  • All of the images need alts.
  • Some of the albums are redlinks, some are not, either remove them all or link all albums.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the album titles are presented "Like This", while others are presented Like This, what's with that?
I will edit lead section to explain this. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 2007 double-win, rowspan everything, no need for two listings. I'd also remove the coloring and just make a note next to the year. In case you're unsure of what I mean, this is it.
Fixed, and thank your for your suggestion, I followed the format from another featured list Latin Grammy Award for Producer of the Year, but this looks better. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 2012, change the 3 N/A's to colspan="3" {{N/A|Not awarded}}, demonstrated here again.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the references given back up the Also awarded section. Another, significantly bigger problem with refs, the ref for 2014's listing doesn't even say who won, it's just a list of nominees. Not checked all references but it's probably a good idea to make sure that the reference lists the nominees, who won, and who exactly is awarded.
It is a very good point. I added a general reference for the winners every year, just like a did for another FL, Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the moment, based on the reference issue I found, I'll happily strike it if it's turned around. Azealia911 talk 23:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azealia911: Again, not the nominator but I'd like to address some things in your comments. If you click on "Past Winners Search", on the General section it shows not only who won the awards in the field, but any shared awards as well. The reason some titles are listed in quotations instead is because the awards used to award songs as well when it was called Best Latin Pop Performance (I'll admit this may need to be clarified on the article). Erick (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the refs, thanks for pointing that out, I suggest to the nominator to just replace all Refs. in the column with the general ref, considering they're more informative, what do you think? And yes, the quotes could be further explained, even if it just means bolding the past names of the award in the lead. Azealia911 talk 00:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Azealia911: The only problem with that is that it only displays the winners and not the nominees. See Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album as an example of how it's usually done. Erick (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all my comments resolved, I can happily Support. Would also appreciate any feedback on my current FLC, cheers. Azealia911 talk 13:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:12, 3 August 2015 [45].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Graeme Swann edit

Nominator(s): Sahara4u, Harrias talk 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Swann is England's best spin bowler of the modern era. Were it not for his childish antics when he was originally called up by England that meant he was dropped and ignored by the coach at the time, he may have set a number of records. As it was, he managed a fair bit in his somewhat shortened career until a combination of injuries and Australians forced his retirement. Following the style set by plenty of similar lists before, this list summarises his five-wicket hauls. The list was initially created by Sahara4u, and I recently went through and tidied up the prose and the table to bring it up to what I hope are FL standards. As usual, all comments, improvements and thoughts are welcome! Harrias talk 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

  • "17 in Tests and one in ODIs" – see WP:NUMNOTES.
    Done. Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The English cricket journalist Scyld Berry" – I don't know if "the" is needed.
    It very much is in British English (and to be honest, any "professional standard" of English). Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes. I didn't notice that the subject is British. My bad! -- Frankie talk 20:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He did not claim any five-wicket haults in T20I cricket; his best bowling figures in the format were three wickets for 13 runs" – again, see NUMNOTES.
    In this case I disagree. The number of wickets and runs are not comparable quantities really. I'm not against changing if you really insist, but I don't think the MOS requires it. Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOSTRIKE says "do not use unpronounceable symbols". I am not sure if asterisks are one of them; it does not look appealing to me. Instead, you could use a hashtag or something.
    Changed it to § ({{Section-sign}}). Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3: ESPNcricinfo and ESPN should be de-linked and instead, they could be linked to ref. 1 as you have linked on first occurrences.
    Done. Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty nice list. -- Frankie talk 10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "represented England cricket team..." the England cricket team?
  • I'm fairly certain the last entry in the Test table has an incorrect date, might want to check others to make sure they are correct.
  • ref 2 should be cite news not cite web

Other than these comments, the list looks in good shape. NapHit (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Thanks for the comments. All are spot on, nice catches. For the second point, all the other dates seem to be right, guess it was a copy and paste error. Cheers! Harrias talk 19:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work! NapHit (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • 39 Twenty20 Internationals is not covered in the cited ref.
    • Changed the ref to be his Cricinfo profile. Harrias talk 15:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cricket, Australia and average in the lead
  • 18 five-wicket hauls in international cricket – seventeen in Tests and one in ODIs -> Be consistent per WP:NUMNOTES
  • "as of 2015" - Month needed as 2015 is not over yet.
  • "He claimed 255 wickets ..." -> Swann claimed 255 wickets ...
  • " taking two wickets in a match which England narrowly won against India" - If you check the scorecard, he actually took four wickets in the game. Further, the "narrowly won" part isn't verified by the source. Also, I don't think a six-wicket victory to be a narrow one. —Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More to the point, India won. No idea what was going on with this. I'll sort it! Harrias talk 18:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorted this now I think. Harrias talk 15:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five wickets for 57 runs", "six wickets for 65 runs", " five wickets for 28 runs" and "three wickets for 13 runs" - WP:NUMNOTES
    As I noted above, I don't believe NUMNOTES is relevant for this, as the number of wickets taken is not a comparable value to the number of runs conceded. Harrias talk 18:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2015, he is twenty-sixth overall among ...." - This bit should either be placed in the opening para or at the very last.
    • Indeed, this ended up out of place when I fiddled around with the lead. Harrias talk 15:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think "five-wicket haul takers" is good English
    • Quite. Rephrased it, how is it now? Harrias talk 15:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He only claimed one five-wicket haul in ODIs ..." -> Something like "His solitary five-wicket haul in ODIs ...". Also, the sentence goes into too much detail. For eg., Mentioning the venue is not necessary unless it holds some significance/has some relevance to the context.
  • "39 T20I matches" - Repetitive
    • Tidied this a little to remove the repetition. Harrias talk 15:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • five-wicket haults - Typo
  • For the 16th entry, opposition was Australia, not New Zealand
  • Why is ESPNcricinfo italicised in the refs. but not in EL?
    • Because EL sections irritate me, and so I didn't do anything to that section. I fixed this by removing the EL section altogether. Harrias talk 15:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Thanks, as always, for your comments. I've resolved all but a couple, which I've noted above with queries or rationalisations. Harrias talk 15:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:12, 3 August 2015 [46].

Azealia Banks discography edit

Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the musical releases of controversial American rapper Azealia Banks. Nominated once before, the sole reason it didn't pass was a lack of involvement, hopefully that won't be the case, and this time we can reach a clear consensus. Article has been worked on by myself and various others since the past nomination, and I feel it's even better than the previous occasion. Any and all comments appreciated, thanks. Azealia911 talk 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • American rapper Azealia Banks has released one studio album, one extended play Add (EP) after extended play since you use EP later on in the lead.
  • Banks officially adopted the present-day stage-name Azealia Banks. I don't think it's necessary to say that she "officially" changed her name back to her legal name. Maybe you should mention that it is her real name. And stage name doesn't need a hyphen. You spelled it correctly in the second sentence.
  • In 2012, she signed a record deal with Interscope and Polydor Records to record her first studio album. Change this to "debut studio album".
  • During which time, she released her first EP I don't think using "during which time" at the beginning of a sentence sounds right. Maybe change "which" to "that".
  • The EP has sold 35,000 copies in the United States. As of when?
  • In November of that year, her debut studio album, Broke with Expensive Taste, was released; the album which spawned four singles: "Yung Rapunxel", "Heavy Metal and Reflective", "Chasing Time", and "Ice Princess". I don't think this is phrased well. Maybe split it up into two sentences.
  • Extended plays section: "12-inch vinyl" Vinyl is just a material, change it to "12-inch vinyl record" or just "12-inch record". Maybe move digital download behind CD since it's sorted that way in the albums section.
  • Change the label for Fantasea to "self-released". The way it is now makes it look like it was released by a label called Independent. You also forgot a d in "Released" and can change "Formats" to "Format" since it's just one.
  • References: Link websites, magazines and publishers the first time you use them. For example, you didn't link Australian Recording Industry Association in ref #4 but you did for ref #39. ref #4 and ref #32 also aren't formatted the same way even though they should. Check this for the other references as well.
  • ref #6 is dead. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Littlecarmen thanks for your comments, think I've addressed them all. Azealia911 talk 20:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hung Medien isn't linked and Pandora Archive is linked in ref #32 but not 4. Please check all references again. Littlecarmen (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought Hung Medien had an article, but it doesn't. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be ok now. If you find any others, kindly request you change them, there shouldn't be any, but checking overlinks in references is probably my weakest editing skill. Appreciate the comments, Azealia911 talk 18:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Much appreciated :) Azealia911 talk 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I also currently have a list nominated for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look :) Littlecarmen (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on referencing: Do you have anything stating that these were all released as singles? That a song charted is not enough; charts do not always differentiate between singles and promotional singles like the discography here does. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 Is the fact that all of them have independent articles not enough? I understand your point completely, and have even used it myself when giving comments, but usually in FL discographies, the only listings that need references are the ones without independent articles, as seen in the "As featured artist" section. Azealia911 talk 00:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're relying on the existing articles, that is fundamentally the same as citing Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is about as reliable a source as a blog by Joe Blow in Kalamazoo. (In policy/guideline-based terms, relying on Wikipedia as a source is a violation of WP:CIRCULAR) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 No no no, certainly was not relying on citing the 'pedia. Independent articles just usually contain a release history section, I'm more than happy to cite the singles, it's just rarely done, on literally all the featured discographies I can think of, singles with independent article aren't cited. Azealia911 talk 01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that "Is the fact that all of them have independent articles not enough?", which suggests that you (and most previous discog writers) have depended on those articles having citations, rather than citing the single release in the list here. It's not the exact same as citing Wikipedia, but it does depend on the information in the single articles being cited. I recognize that most discographies haven't had references for the single/EP/LP/etc. designation of a release, but that's something we need to start changing. We shouldn't be relying on other articles to reference any information in our lists, even non-controversial stuff. I'll definitely be bringing up the issue with subsequent discogs I see. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, my bad for depending on those articles, without even knowing so. I'd definitely agree with you on stricter rules for FL discography referencing. Have added citations to all singles. Azealia911 talk 01:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty good work. My only question is this: are worldwide sales are available for her album? Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS Unfortunately not. WW sales are usually included in "Worlwide best sellers" year-end lists, and as you can probably tell, 30K in the first week of November won't really place her on those lists. Azealia911 talk 18:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I'll support, but you really should include such figures if they come along. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to as soon as anything's published, thankyou for the support. Azealia911 talk 18:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
* "In November 2008, when she was seventeen" → "At age seventeen, in November 2008".
  • "A year later, she released her debut music video" → "The following year, she.."
  • "In September 2011, she self-released her" – we don't start a paragraph with a pronoun.
  • Both, the second and third para start with "In [month] [year]" – rephrase one.
  • "In November of that year, her debut studio album, Broke with Expensive Taste, was released" – all of the commas after "studio album" are redundant.
  • "The album itself received positive feedback from critics and peaked at number 30 on the US Billboard 200" – shift this sentence to the above sentence I have mentioned. Also, Billboard 200 needs to be linked.
  • References that are already covered in the main body of the article, shouldn't be repeated in the lead section unless the purpose of the source is to verify something else which isn't in the main body – per WP:LEAD. For example ref 19 shouldn't be in the lead as it's already there in the Albums section.
  • The WP:ALT of the image is not something it should be – see this, especially the Queen Elisabeth II one.
  • Wiki-link labels in the "Extended plays" table.
  • I don't understand what is "Hung Medien" doing in ref 5.
  • Access date needed for ref 6.2 (the second bulleted one).
  • Link Billboard in ref 12 and de-link in ref 19 and 31. Also, it has to be in italics in ref# 31.
  • Publishers for ref 23 and 24 should read (and linked only in no 23) ARIA Charts.
  • Take Intent Media away from ref 30 as you haven't mentioned the owners of references, so it will be inconsistent to mention just a particular one. Likewise for others (e.g. Prometheus Global Media in ref 42) where applicable.
  • Unlink Ultratop in ref# 49 as it is already linked in ref 40.
  • Access date needed for ref 54. Likewise for ref 57 and 58.
  • Wiki-link Digital Spy in reference no# 55.
  • Is ref 58 a reliable one? The same for Pretty Much Amazing.
Both seem like reliable, professional sources to me, there's also no red flags after a search at WP:RSN. Azealia911 talk
  • Wiki-link AllMusic in ref 72 and the same for Idolator in ref 82.
  • What makes VideoStatic a high quality source? -- Frankie talk 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it not? Azealia911 talk
Have never seen it in an FL/FA/GA. Anyways, you can use this source. Surely this is a better one. -- Frankie talk 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, replaced. Azealia911 talk

Addressed all other comments. Azealia911 talk 13:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make sure there is access date in every reference e.g. one missing from ref 3, 7, 27, 43, 49, 50, 51.
Checked and added, all occurrences of a lack of accessdate featured an archivedate parameter, I think an editor thought one could substitute for the other. Azealia911 talk
  • Also, make sure to avoid overlinking issues in references and they are properly linked on first instances and not afterwards. For example iTunes Store needs to be linked in ref 27 and de-linked in ref 43. -- Frankie talk 14:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checked and corrected, all should be ok now. Azealia911 talk
  • A last one – there are dash violation in references – see MOS:DASH. -- Frankie talk 16:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed 'em. Azealia911 talk 16:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. However, I can still see dash violation in in ref 13, 38, 56, 67, 78, 87. Also, take away the owners of references (wherever they are) e.g. Hung Medien from Ultratop sources and remove ARIA Charts from sources by Pandora Archive. Also, make sure the links are working. -- Frankie talk 17:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dashes, removed owners, only one link isn't accesable, which requires subscription to view UK sales, swapped another dead link. How's it looking now? Azealia911 talk 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – All of my comments have been addressed with a timely response. -- Frankie talk 08:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Appreciate it. Azealia911 talk 10:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Lead section: "she released her debut music video, a visual for a song titled "L8R"", I think you could edit "a visual", it is redundant.
Done Azealia911 talk
  • Maybe you could include something about her featured performances with Britney and Beyonce. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't actually official features, merely Banks' remixes, one of which was even taken down for copyright. Maybe it'd make sense for me to do the opposite and remove the two womens' names from "other releases" the table? Azealia911 talk 20:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't an issue with other reviewers, I think you should leave it as it is. I am giving you my support for this to be a FL. Good work. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, muchly appreciated! Azealia911 talk 21:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

None of the directors are sourced/referenced. Some are in the references to the video releases but most aren't. Dan arndt (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt...umm...did you actually check the references? Every single director is mentioned in the reference for the listing... Azealia911 talk 23:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, shouldn't try and get things done so early in the morning. I would suggest that in addition to the production company (i.e. Were Were Monkeys) you try and include the actual directors as well (i.e. Mihai Wilson & Marcella Moser) or Rankin should be John Rankin Waddell. If you can try and find who the actual directors at BBGun Films were that would be a bonus. I also managed to track down Fafi's real name for you, it's Fabienne Fafi. I hope that helps. Dan arndt (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For single directors like Rankin and Fafi, I think I'll stick with their stage name, they seem to use them for a reason, plus suggesting to change any vocalists stage names to their real names would be somewhat odd, so I'll paint everyone with the same brush. As for companies, I've added WWM's, however it was hard enough to track down the company that directed "L8R", finding the exact directors for a five year old low-budget video, all in a reliable source? After looking for the best part of an hour, I've got zilch. Thankyou for going the extra mile though, I really appreciate it! Azealia911 talk 02:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - that's a personal choice. I would however change 'Rob Soucy & Nick Ace' to 'Rob Soucy, Nick Ace', as they are two separate individuals not a company (and I also hate the use of '&' when and is more appropraite).Dan arndt (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Separated the two. Azealia911 talk 02:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I also have a query about the grammar in "It was further promoted by the single "Liquorice"." - how was the EP further promoted by the release of the single? Also if you could add ref [28] to the end of the sentence "As of November 2014, the EP has sold 35,000 copies in the United States." would also help. Dan arndt (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singles promote projects, like how the video for the single features links to the EP in the footnotes "iTunes: (http://smartrl.it/1991EP)" when the video could've just linked to the single, as opposed to the full originating EP. I'd be happy to change if you want to suggest something though. As for the ref, WP:LEAD states that refs don't have to be repeated, but considering it's a challenge-able statistic, I can add it if you really want. Azealia911 talk 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that singles are supposed to promote album sales but is there anything that specifically links the sales of the EP to the release of the single. I'm probably being pedantic & it may not be worth worrying about.
I think given it is a challengeable statistic its worth playing safe.
I would also suggest that the link BEL (FL) Urb. be replaced with BEL (FL) Urb. - gives a more exact location in the article. If there are any others where you can pinpoint the exact topic it would assist. Dan arndt (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inserted sales ref, Ultratip doesn't relate to Ultratop, it'd be like doing the following [[Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles|US<br>Rap]], linked it to a more specific place in the article though. Azealia911 talk 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything else, so I'm prepared to Support this nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 10:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Vensatry (ping)

  • "In 2012, she signed a record deal with Interscope and Polydor Records to record her debut studio album" - Too many 'records'
  • Not sure if linking music critics isn't WP:OLINK
  • The album itself received" - Why there is an emphasis (itself) in the sentence?
Vensatry, thankyou for your comments, I've addressed them all. Azealia911 talk
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/August_2015&oldid=678512443"