Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 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 20:26, 28 January 2015 [1].

List of accolades received by Star Trek Into Darkness edit

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this as a follow up to the nomination of List of accolades received by Star Trek (film) for FL, which as I type is second from bottom of the list with no outstanding work to be conducted. I've sought to incorporate the feedback received from that earlier nomination into this version, so hopefully colleagues should find it easier going!! Needless to say, Into Darkness was not as successful with the nominations as the earlier film, but I believe that I have everything covered. Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
  • "J. J. Abrams " has a space between his J's.
  • "behind 2009's Star Trek" you've already mentioned it was the sequel to 2009's movie.
  • "garnered 9 wins out of 45 nominations" context please, like what wins, and what nominations are you talking about?
  • I've added some context, but currently the majority of the information is towards the end of that paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it "accolades" or "awards and nominations"? Infobox, lead, etc...
  • Hmm. I don't think anyone would be too pleased if I went and edited the infobox template, so I've changed the accolades subsection to "Awards and nominations" to match it. However the article titles for this sort of thing appears to use accolades. Miyagawa (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "left to right" in caption is usually in italics.
  • Any reason why Chambliss gets a red link while other recipients are simply unlinked?
  • I can't remember why I did that. I've removed the link. Miyagawa (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[34][10][11]" numerical order.
  • "OFTA Film Awards" about to be deleted so will need to be removed, and overall totals updated accordingly.
  • Removed and adjusted accordingly. Miyagawa (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias
Comments from Harrias talk
  • Is that September 17, 2009 date really right for the British Academy Film Awards?
    • It was completely wrong - I've corrected it to the right date. Miyagawa (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would have "Bronze" sorting between "Silver" and "Nominated" in the Outcome column, especially as you count them as wins in the infobox.
    • I had to recode it outside of the usual template, but it sorts now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..from seeking his revenge.." They can't really stop him seeking his revenge, merely stop him getting it.
  • The third sentence of the third paragraph ("In addition...") could do with splitting into two, around the point it starts talking specifically about Cumberbatch. It also repeats "in addition", so perhaps find a way of avoiding that repetition. Harrias talk 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split into two sentences, with the second "in addition" ditched. Thanks for reviewing. Miyagawa (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Awards ceremonies (with blue links) should be wikilinked
    • I went through the entire list and found three that were missing. (Now added) Miyagawa (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Abbr|Ref(s)|References}} → {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
  • The date for the BAF Awards is not correct.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list says that "runner-up mentions are considered wins" and as far as I can see there are two runner-up, which are listed as "Bronze" and "Silver" and I don't think readers will easily understand that they are runner-up, so better explain them.
  • I've edited that note to specifically mention the Bronze and Silver awards (I've given them as examples). Miyagawa (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 37 is dead.
  • Fix the redirects of ref. no# 31, 32 and 40.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miyagawa I think I can give my support once I am clarified with my comments.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again for reviewing - fortunately those links all got fixed when I included the archive sites per A Texas Historian's comments below. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Comments: Although I am not a good judge of this, the lead seems to be well-written. I'll go ahead and look at the rest of it.

  • I assume that the "recipients and nominees" column is sorted by last name? If so, then I see a couple of problems:
  • Benedict Cumberbatch's Britannia award is sorting between "AV Squad" and Maryann Brandon.
  • Shouldn't Jay Cooper et al. come before Chris Pine?
  • If it is going by last name, shouldn't Zoe Saldana come before Stefan Sonnenfeld and Star Trek Into Darkness?
  • Yep, there was a bunch of unsorted surnames - I've fixed them all now (including the three above). Miyagawa (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a suggestion: considering the problems already with dead links, I would suggest you archive the sources so that problems don't arise in the future.
  • Good suggestion - there was already one dead link in there. I've archived ever link now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am really close to supporting this. Once the reference problems and sortability issues above are dealt with, I think this will be ready. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — A good one. Also, if possible, please have a look at this--FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • based on a production budget of $190 million, - since this is the budget, and
  • You tend to make sentences with a lot of clauses, which is somewhat confusing, and which I think would work better with separating the more compound sentences such as the second sentence of the lead, the one with the writing and producing and directing.
  • I've gone through and trimmed those. Miyagawa (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • recommend combining intake with intake and standing with standing (most successful worldwide, etc), rather than NA and worldwide
  • This was out of 44 nominations, with the visual effects work highlighted by the number of awards ceremonies that they were represented at. - who is "they"? The awards, or the film, or...? Are awards represented at ceremonies?
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 19:08, 26 January 2015 [2].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by James Anderson edit

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Anderson, the highest wicket taker in international cricket for England, has taken 18 five-wicket hauls at international level. This list includes his Test and ODI fifers, and is based upon pre-existing featured lists of the same category. Since this fulfills the FL criteria so I think this deserves a nomination at FLC. Comments and suggestion are appreciated! Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*The lead profile image is of such low quality, I'd be tempted to just go with one from far away of him bowling.
  • Unless I've miscounted, there are 42 players with at least 15 hauls according to ref 4.
  • According to refs, he's a fast-medium bowler. Update the figures taking into account the tri-series that's going on. It's now 185 ODIs, 261 wickets in ODIs.
  • Elaborate on what the NBC award is for, According to the wiki, it's for Most Promising Young Player in each of county teams, which he won for Lancashire.
  • need to add cite next to the joint 26th comment.

Cowlibob (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Another good list. Make sure to update the figures after the tri-series or put as of a certain date as he's sure to get more wickets pretty soon. Cowlibob (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I'll surely update the article after the tri-series. Thanks for the support! --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well-sourced list and it meets the criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Good list but I think that a separate header for the references would be nicer.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: thanks for the support. The references already have a separate header! --Khadar Khani (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list already has a lot of columns. Recently promoted lists of the fifers have the same patron, have a look at [3], [4] and [5]. --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm you're right. Anyway I withdraw my request. Please see this if you could give some kind of help. It will be appreciated.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 10:17, 22 January 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 19:08, 26 January 2015 [6].

Tom Cruise filmography edit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise is perhaps known better nowadays for his offscreen activities than his films but as this list will hopefully show the "Cruise Missile" is one of the most bankable stars that Hollywood has ever seen with a string of hits and three Golden Globes in his long career. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to refine it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG
  • "also appeared in the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture winning romantic drama Cocktail" → also appeared in the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture-winning romantic drama Cocktail
  • "Two years later he made his breakthrough by starring in the romantic comedy Risky Business (1983)."
  • "In 2005 he collaborated again with Spielberg on the science fiction thriller War of the Worlds and received"
  • "Three years later he appeared in the satirical action comedy Tropic Thunder (2008) and played Claus von Stauffenberg in the historical thriller Valkyrie (2008)"
  • "Cruise played the eponymous role in the thriller Jack Reacher and appeared in the romantic musical comedy Rock of Ages (both 2012)."

Not major concerns, but these will make the sentences better.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 14:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I think I've sorted these. Thanks for having a look. Cowlibob (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to mention the future events in the lead. "Cruise reprised his role as Hunt in four more films in the Mission Impossible film series ... the upcoming Mission: Impossible 5 (2015)".--FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that as it's still filming. I've updated the lead to reflect that. It can easily be updated later in 2015 when the film releases. Cowlibob (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good list and thanks for yours on my one.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
  • The "xxx-directed" is quite repetitive. Maybe you can change a few instances to something else.
  • "In his next film he portrayed anti-war activist Ron Kovic in the Oliver Stone-directed drama adaptation " -> "In his next film, the Oliver Stone-directed drama adaptation of..., he portrayed anti-war activist Ron Kovic"
  • " Cruise next appeared in the 1993 film adaptation of the John Grisham legal thriller of the same name The Firm" ==> "Cruise next appeared in The Firm (1993), a film adaptation of John Grisham's legal thriller of the same name"
  • The last two sentences, on Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow, can be merged. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: I think I've sorted the above points. Thanks for the review. Cowlibob (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ruby2010
  • I noticed that Born on the Fourth of July also gave Cruise his first Golden Globe nomination, so suggest rewriting the sentence. Perhaps ""For his performance Cruise received his first nominations for the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama and the Academy Award for Best Actor".
  • Aaron Sorkin is a big name, suggest crediting him as screenwriter for Cruise's appearance in A Few Good Men
  • I always dislike parenthetical statements in articles, so perhaps changes "...of his production company Cruise/Wagner Productions[14] (founded in 1993)" to "of his production company Cruise/Wagner Productions,[14] which he founded in 1993".[15][16] (or "founded three years earlier").

Otherwise the list is looking really good! (Cruise is that rare actor who looks better with age. I mean, that smile is still rather dazzling). But I digress... Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 01:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruby2010: His first nom was for Risky Business which I have now added in. I had no idea that A Few Good Men was based on a play, have added this in. Also changed the Cruise/Wagner Productions sentence. Thanks for having a look at the list. (On a side note, I agree, he's like a fine wine.) Cowlibob (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this article for promotion. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 03:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 11:29, 24 January 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 20:24, 21 January 2015 [7].

List of accolades received by Kahaani edit

Nominator(s): FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kahaani is one of the best women-centric films produced in India. I have worked on this list and have closely followed other awards lists which are featured presently. It had a minor copyediting during the peer review. I think it meets the six featured list criteria FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
  • It makes the list pretty confusing as many of the awards in the list come without a prior nomination such as critics awards, National Awards to name a few and that the nominations counting become wrong and confusing, therefore I had removed it.
  • I would avoid talking about the reception the film got and anyway the ref doesn't support that as it says "word-of-mouth" helped the films not specifically film reviews.

Cowlibob (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob and Krimuk90: Pinging because it's been more than three days, Cowlibob and I have responded to your queries. Not sure if you have watchlisted this or not. Krimuk, eagerly waiting to see your comments here :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 10:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is probably something Krimuk90 could provide input on. I'd also ask @SchroCat: as he has worked on an accolades list recently. I've just noticed that a significant proportion of the accolades present in this article are discussed in prose form in the main film article Kahaani which leads me to question the need for a separate article on them as it would be just duplicating the content. Perhaps just adding a few sentences on the Star Guild Awards, Stardust etc. to the article's reception section (which I think has space for such addition) would be comprehensive enough to make this list surplus to requirements. This is not an oppose but just something I need clarification on. Cowlibob (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: The similarity between the articles is coincidental although I did take a bit of inspirations from the main page. You have quite a good point and I have added about Stardust and BIG Star in the section reception of the main article, and have also made some changes which now looks pretty different from the list. It looks perfectly fine now.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Did a quick run through of the refs
  • Ref 19 doesn't seem to go anywhere, fix the link.
  • Ref 19 (now 18) works perfectly fine. As you said, so I checked every single ref and also tried this, but all are working links. I guess you are mistaken
  • According to Ref 18 Prasoon Joshi won Best Lyrics for 'Chitrangadha'(Bengali), 'Kahaani', 'Gangs of Wasseypur', 'Dekh Indian circus' and 'Talaash' (Hindi). Cowlibob (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Stardust award seems to be for Hottest film producer of the year rather than hottest film with Kushal Kantilal Gada winning it according the refs.
  • Done.
  • Not sure of the credibility of the times of india or surfer's choice award as they are both basically internet polls.
  • Hmm, I am not sure either anyway I have removed them from the list.
  • Winners of Zee Cine seem to be verified by refs but not all the noms. Best Supporting Actor, Best performance in negative role, best male debut, best cinematography, best background music, best sound design, best production design. Also Best Film, director, actress. Althoughy jury award versions of these seem to be confirmed in the refs. Cowlibob (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to Cowlibob's comment above, the main article summarizes the awards information in one paragraph, which I think is quite necessary and doesn't really qualify as content duplication. So I think this one is quite okay on that front. Otherwise, I copy-edited the lead during it's peer review, and I think it is in decent shape now. A source review is what necessary now, but I am currently busy with other commitments to do so myself. If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll try to do it later. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Skr15081997
  • "Kahaani (English: Story) is a 2012 Indian mystery thriller film" Indian cinema doesn't mean only Bollywood. Link should go to Cinema of India or better remove Indian from this line.
  • Done.
  • In 2nd para Kahaani has been mentioned 3 times. Reduce it by using "the film" or "It".
  • Done.
  • Names under "Recipients and nominees" column should be sorted by last name.
  • Several FLs use the same format and so do I.
@FrB.TG: Not sure this has been fully done. Chatterjee is still being sorted under Parambrata and Saswata. Prasoon Joshi, Ritesh Shah, Sujay Ghosh, and also Vidya Balan are not sorted by their last name. For it to work, every first recipient/nominee in each row needs to have sort template applied not just at the first occurrence of the person's name in the table. Cowlibob (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cowlibob, I think I have resloved them.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Lions Gold Awards notable?
  • @Skr15081997: Not sure of its notability but it has held 21 ceremonies so far and has been mentioned by several renowned online sources.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 14:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose: The prose looks good to me now! Good job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: After supporting this, I found a glaring error in the table. The film did not win a Best Lyrics awards at the National Film Awards ceremony as claimed by the article. I have removed that, but would request a thorough source review to see that all the claims are cited correctly. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: I had asked for that to be added because the following was in the CNN IBN source: "Best Lyrics: Prasoon Joshi for 'Chitrangadha'(Bengali), 'Kahaani', 'Gangs of Wasseypur', 'Dekh Indian circus' and 'Talaash' (Hindi)'". I can't read the official PIB source from my location so if that disagrees or I've misread fair enough. Cowlibob (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. So the source gives the wrong information. I think it will be wise for Frank to not use that source anymore. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: I think that Krimuk has a very good point. I don't really think that the film has actually won the Best Lyrics award and this is not mentioned by the Directorate of Film Festivals (the official one for the National Award), which can be trusted more than CNN-IBN. There seems to some kind of error in the source and I think we can remove the latter from the list to avoid confusion.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Joshi didn't even write the lyrics for the film. The Government of India pdf source is enough to cite the awards. Please remove the CNN-IBN source.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with that. Media often make mistakes. Cowlibob (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the source and have resolved {{sort}}. It does not need further source review as it's been thoroughly reviewed, thanks to Cowlibob. Thank you both for your respective reviews. Thanks Skr and Krimuk for supporting :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good effort on this list. Hope you can tackle some more Indian film accolades list as they are currently severely lacking. Cowlibob (talk) 18:00, 20 January 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 11:34, 20 January 2015 [8].

List of films released by Yash Raj Films edit

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Raj Films is one of the leading film production companies in India. This article provides a fully sourced listing of all the films that they have produced and distributed. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the progress of this and it looks good. Some minor things I noticed:

  • Inconsistency with numbers, you use twenty but start with 1. I think you should word numbers below ten and letter above, or all in letters. Words will definitely look better in the image captions.
I've used words from numbers below ten.
@Dr. Blofeld: Done. Thanks for the comments! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Following a car accident, a woman makes a promises God to...". Does not look sound.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was a typo! Corrected. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too was watching the progress of this list with interest. This list is like taking a stroll down memory lane. Nice idea to include the plot summary of the films. On a side note, Indian film wiki is sooo lucky to have so many high quality CC 3.0 pictures, brightens up this list a lot.
  • Longest running film makes me think of the running time. Perhaps something like "the film has the longest theatrical run in Indian cinema history as of 2014".
Changed, though I left off the "as of" part of it because the record will definitely not be broken any time soon.
  • check the archive dates of the links as the few I saw didn't match the dates given by webarchive.
Corrected.
  • You could think of adding the actors' names next to the character they played in the plot section e.g. Yusuf (Sheikh)
I thought about doing that, but that would unnecessarily bloat up the table, so I decided not to.
  • AGF on Ref 15, 30, 32 as I can't fully read the refs.
  • Ref 16 doesn't fully support the plot. Particularly the accomplished architect bit.
  • Ref 17 doesn't fully support the plot. Just that it had a rape scene in it which involved the main female actor.
  • Need ref for Silsila plot. Current one just implies there is love triangle between the main actors.
  • Chandni plot needs ref as current one only supports that "Chandni marries her boss despite loving Rohit."
  • Lamhe ref doesn't support that Sridevi's character marries another man or that Waheeda Rehman is in it.
  • DDLJ table ref doesn't support that they fall in love in Europe.
  • Mohabbatein ref doesn't support that the motivation was the suicide of his girlfriend.
  • Need ref for plots of Sawaal, Faasle, Vijay, Nakhuda
  • Ref 23 doesn't support that it's 1984 release + starred Rati.
Included another ref.
  • Probably could include Bipasha Bapu in the Mere Yaar entry.
Yup, added.
  • Dhoom plot could exclude Esha's role in the film as she's barely in it. Something like: "A police officer and a motorbike dealer team up to stop a gang of bank robbers."
Changed.
  • I think the Veer-Zaara ref doesn't specify 22 years or that the lawyer fights for his rights.
  • Bunty ref doesn't say the policeman is alcoholic.
  • Neal 'n' Nikki ref doesn't support that he wants to sleep with 21 women, just that he wants "serious action in the 21 days before his wedding"
  • Fanaa ref just supports that a blind girl falls in love with a terrorist but not the character names or that he abandons her when she's pregnant or that they meet again when her vision is back.
  • Dhoom ref doesn't support the "loyalties questioned bit"
  • Kabul Express ref doesn't mention the American journalist.
  • Jhoom Barabar ref doesn't mention the dance competition.
  • Aaja Nachle ref says developers not a local politician want to close the theater.
  • Tashan ref doesn't match the description. It says something like "Saif gives English lessons to Anil Kapoor while falling for Kareena and then Akshay is called in for some reason".
  • Bachna ref doesn't specify that Ranbir wants forgiveness because a woman left him
  • Roadside ref doesn't specify that Saif was left by his family on the street. could also mention in the plot that he wants to set up a dog grooming business.
  • Lafangey ref doesn't specify that he's responsible for her losing her eyesight just that an accident occurs that results in her losing her eyesight.
  • Band Baaja ref doesn't specify that they become rivals
  • Ishaqzaade ref doesn't specify that its Hindu vs. Muslim just two warring families from different political factions.
  • Ek Tha Tiger ref doesn't specify Kaif is an ISI agent
  • Jab Tak ref doesn't specify that Kaif made a promise to God to break up with Khan in exchange for his life.
  • Aurangzeb ref doesn't specify the doppelganger swap.
  • Shuddh ref doesn't specify that he leaves Vaani and the bit about Parineeta also leaving him at their wedding.
  • I thought the twin aspect was the twist in Dhoom 3, it's odd to use that in the plot summary sentence. The plot I think should involve Abhishek and Uday's role as well, makes it sound like there's no one else in the film except for Aamir.
Added the bit about the cops, though I kept the twin brothers bit as is. Actually, the "twist" was revealed in the first half of the film, and was widely discussed in the media soon after it's release. IMO it wasn't a climactic twist, and it was kept under wraps to not reveal the film's plot during the film promotions.
  • Aaha ref doesn't support the "they become rivals bit".

Cowlibob (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowlibob, before I address these comments, I would just want to know if we need to provide references for each and every plot point. Since the summary doesn't provide any additional analysis, the contents are easily verifiable. In that case, I am not sure how helpful multiple references that cover each plot twist will be. Also, no reference really states the "entire" plot of the film. We can only go so far as to establish the film's premise, but the plot summary is only verifiable through the film itself. Any thoughts, Dr. Blofeld? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plot generally isn't sourced in film articles, I think it should apply to lists to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: Not aware of that. Have crossed out the relevant points. Cowlibob (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cowlibob I have addressed the remaining points. Thanks for the review. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've made some copyedits of the plot summaries so that they hopefully read better, feel free to revert changes you didn't like. Good effort on this list, can't wait for your work on Dharma Productions. Cowlibob (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Cowlibob. :) I'll begin work on Dharma's list by the end of this month. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The list is a brilliant one. I just want you to change the summary of Daawat-e-Ishq as Gullu plans to con people to seek revenge from dowry seeking people.—Prashant 11:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent list. Meets the FLC requirements.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Prashant and Skr. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Kabir Khan (Kabul Express, 2006), is a disambig link
  • "protagonist" is usd a couple of times: see WP:protagonist

- SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat Both the points have been addressed. Thanks for taking a look! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:42, 19 January 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 11:53, 19 January 2015 [9].

List of accolades received by Dallas Buyers Club edit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC), and Earthh[reply]

Another one from my series on the most awarded 2013 films. This one for Dallas Buyers Club which saw Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto sweep the majority of male acting awards that year. Before I worked on this, Earthh was the majority contributor so they have been added as co-nominator. As always, look forward to all the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90
  • Great job as always. Just three minor points:
  • "before giving it a wide release" can be changed to "before expanding it" to avoid repetition of the word "release".
  • In the sentence "Robin Mathews won for Best Makeup and Hairstyling, although she had a budget of only $250", the 'although' makes it seem like the low-budget was a bad thing. This may not be a major concern, but it think it will better if you can tweak this a bit.
  • Any way we can talk about the actors winning the Oscars without having to repeat the category, as the categories in which they were nominated are already mentioned in the previous sentence. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. I think I've fixed the above points. Cowlibob (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the article. But, I think a note should be added to indicate that the "runner-ups" are considered wins in the list to clarify it to the readers.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I've added the note. Thanks for pointing it out. Cowlibob (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: An excellent list! Cowlibob, you've done amazing job as always. Keep it up! --FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—

  • Last sentence of the third para and first sentence of the last para need references.
  • There is a 'Pending' cell in the table??
  • At "Central Ohio Film Critics Association", you have added two other films?
  • How is the list initially sorted?
  • Add an appropriate template at the end of the list

--Khadar Khani (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahara4u: Added refs. Pending as it has been nominated but results will be announced next week which is a simple update. The win for Central Ohio was for his performance in all three films. List is alphabetical. No appropriate template exists at this time. Cowlibob (talk) 16:51, 14 January 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 11:58, 19 January 2015 [10].

List of Pakistan women Test cricketers edit

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another women cricketers' list based on List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers (an existing FLC which has significant support) and List of South Africa women Test cricketers. I've worked on the list and I believe this is according to the FLC criteria. Constructive comments and suggestion will be appreciated! Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It meets the FLC criteria and it is a well-referenced list. --Carioca (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*should cite page number of the PDF where the relevant info is found.
  • Batool Fatima's caption should probably more descriptive, perhaps highlighting that she has the most dismissals.
  • Not sure we need a separate table for Test Captain as there has only been one.
  • Highest total should have "as of 2014".
  • The lead does seem a bit slim, maybe something on the history of the Pakistan Women's cricket team like how the South African article is set out.
    • I think the lead is sufficient for a table of this length. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • PDF refs. should have page nos.
    • Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing like page no. 10 in the document. —Vensatry (ping) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the opening sentence is even partly verified by the specified part of the document. —Vensatry (ping) 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... between two of the leading cricketing nations" would mean that Women's Test Cricket is played between the top two teams
  • Have a better caption for the image
  • "Batool Fatima holds the record for the most number of dismissals with five" - Is this an overall record or just a Pakistani?
  • Runs scored per dismissal -> Average runs scored per dismissal
  • Why dashes sort (descendeing order) before figures in the Bowling Average column?

—Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk
  • The dashes sort oddly in the table, sometimes appearing in the middle of the list.
  • Specifically for the bowling average, the dashes should sort "high", ie the best average (19.00) should be at the top, through to the worst (76.50), and then the dashes, rather than vice versa.
  • I know it's tough with this sort of list, but the article could possibly do with a couple more references that aren't ESPNcricinfo.

Harrias talk 08:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, nice quick work, thanks. The prose seems a little like a set of facts in bullet point form, but I know it's difficult given that they've only played three matches, and they don't receive a great deal of media coverage. Harrias talk 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, just noticed who you are, the change in signature threw me. Hopefully I'll be around a bit more again now, but we'll see! Harrias talk 18:38, 13 January 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 11:57, 19 January 2015 [11].

Morgan Freeman on screen and stage edit

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because he is one of the great actors of our generation and deserves to have a well written career history article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man edit

Quick comments you've waited nearly a month for some interest....

  • " in The Pawnbroker (1964), and A Man Called Adam (1966)." no need for the comma.
  • Any reason why the image captions avoid mentioning the subject matter?
    • I was told on another peer review/fl candidates comment that his last name isn't necessary since the article is about his career so it'd be redundant. I can add it back if you'd like. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was on the television series" he was "on"? Reads weird to me, why not, "he acted/featured in"?
  • What sort of show was The Electric Company? It may help us to understand the "various characters" you go on to discuss.
  • " earned him second Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, the first for " seems odd to do this in reverse order.
  • "he was cast in the films" he appeared in more than those you listed, so perhaps it should be "in films, including..."
  • No need to link God.
  • "he was in the science fiction action films" grim writing, need to fix it up a little.
  • "The Pawnbroaker"? typo.
  • Gone, Baby, Gone has no commas.
  • Sortable tables mean linked items should be linked every time.
  • This is a predominantly USEng article, why are dates in the references in BritEng?
    •  Done - changed dates to mm, dd, yyyy format. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: were all the suggestions you gave completed? Or do you have more? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cowlibob edit

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References check of film section
  • Echo the comment above, dates should be m/d/y as he's American.
  • Include publishers for each work in the refs
  • Ref 5 (Pawnbroker credit) is sourced to a review which itself references IMDb so alternative needed.
  • Ref 6 says "A Man called Adam" is his screen debut but the table disagrees, which is correct?
    • It says "His first film roles were as uncredited characters in The Pawnbroker (1964) and A Man Called Adam (1966)." and in the table is has The Pawnbroker and A Man Called Adam as his first film roles, so I'm kinda confused lol LADY LOTUS • TALK
  • Ref 7 is sourced from "6th floor blog" on NYT, are they reliable?
    • I consider them to be reliable coming from the New York Times. If you don't consider them to be, let me know LADY LOTUS • TALK
  • Ref 8 supports that he appeared in those films but not for the role he played in all of them and also whether he directed Bopha!
  • Ref 9 again supports he appeared in those films but not the role he played in all of them.
  • Ref 12 doesn't support the role he played in Street Smart and anyway we could probably do better than a magazine for a hotel chain.
  • Ref 17 supports he played a brigadier general in Outbreak but not what he's named. Also doesn't support that he played Red in Shawshank.
  • Ref 18 says he played "Shannon" in Chain Reaction not "Paul Shannon"
  • Ref 23 says he plays "Colonel Kurtz" but the role he played was Colonel Abraham Curtis as it says in the table. Use this one instead: [[12]]
  • Ref 25 doesn't support the name of his role.
  • Ref 28 doesn't support he played Lucius Fox in Batman Begins
  • Ref 30 doesn't support that he voiced Neil Armstrong
  • Ref 31 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 38 says he was involved in the events of the doc but not that he appeared in it.
  • Ref 39 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 43 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 44 doesn't support full name of his role just the Beech part
  • Ref 48 doesn't support the name of his role
  • Ref 49 doesn't support the name of his role
    • "With the help of Dr. Cameron McCarthy (Freeman), who developed a unique prosthetic tail for the injured dolphin, they were able to save her life." LADY LOTUS • TALK
  • Ref 51 doesn't support the name of his role

 Done LADY LOTUS • TALK

  • Ref 53 doesn't support the name of his role

 Done LADY LOTUS • TALK

I'm going to wait till you sort these out to continue on to the other sections. Cowlibob (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: in regard to the comments about the references not supporting the name of his role, I've honestly never had to do that before, I was never told that was a prereq. for FL, so I'm just asking if that's necessary. If it is, I can go back through and find references to support it but it might be kind of hard. Just let me know! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: It's a good habit to get into of giving as much info of ref so publishers would be helpful and other reviewers have asked me to provide publishers in previous FLCs. I apologise if I didn't highlight the need in previous FLCs for roles played in films to be verifiable but they really should be. Film reviews are good for that as they confirm appearance and often the role played. Try and find refs that confirm the whole name of the character if possible. I found a ref for his film debut in Pawnbroker [[13]] to replace ref 5. This book ref confirms A Man Called Adam was his second appearance. [[14]], you can replace ref 6 with this. The confusion I wanted to fix was that in the lifetime bio it says "man called adam" is his first film role which isn't true as the Pawnbroker was before that. Also I see in the stage section you've just put venue as Broadway for some (which is just a location where lots of theaters are found like the West End), try to find which theater the plays were performed in. Cowlibob (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: roger that, I will work on references today. Thank you :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: ok, references should be fixed. Want to recheck and let me know? Also, I added publishers but what happens when the publisher is the same as the 'work'? Like Rolling Stone and Los Angeles Times? Work is for published entities but they are also the publisher. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: Much better in terms of refs now. 2nd ref check again point out if I made a mistake.
  • Use the book ref I suggested above for his role in "A man called adam".
  • publisher for those can be the named publisher: Rolling Stone (Jann Wenner), Los Angeles Times (Austin Beutner).
  • Teachers ref only says his character role as "Lewis" not Al Lewis.
  • Ref 13 only supports "Charlie" not "Charlie Woods".
  • Ref 16 only supports "Rawlins" not "Sgt. Mj. John".
  • Use this ref for Lean on Me [[15]] and no need to pipe it just call him "Joe Louis Clark".
  • Ref 19 only supports "Lt. Drones" not A. Z.
  • Ref 20 only supports "Judge White" not Leonard
  • Ref 27 only supports "Brigadier General" not Billy Ford
  • Ref 28 only supports "Detective Somerset" not Detective Lt. William Somerset
  • Use this ref for Chain Reaction [[16]] supports full name of Paul Shannon.
  • Remove the piping of Theodore Joadson to the film article.
  • Deep Impact role was Tim Beck not Tom Beck
  • Ref 35 supports "Charlie" not "Charlie Quinn"
  • Ref 32 doesn't support that he exec produced Along Came a Spider
  • Ref 44 goes to 404.
  • Ref 46 only supports "Mitch" not Mitch Bradley
  • Ref 48 doesn't support his role in Batman Begins as Lucius Fox
@Lady Lotus: My mistake. Cowlibob (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50 doesn't support that he voiced Armstrong
  • Fix ref 60 formatting as accessdate needs a
@Lady Lotus: Right, sourcing seems to be pretty much sorted except for the Earth Day Special which you can exclude if you want if you can't find an RS. I've done some reworking of the lead as I find that you share my tendency in making the prose of the lead very listy which doesn't really work in making "an engaging lead". So I've tried to reword it to be more like a story of his career rather than bullet points. It probably still needs a bit more work but hopefully looks better now. Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I removed the Earth Day special, maybe a RS will come along one day :) Is there anything else you find that needs to be fixed before you support it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: It's close I'll have a look at what I can do with the lead. Just needs some tweaking, I'll try to have a good look at it tomorrow. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: Ok I think that does it. Happy to support now, good work! Cowlibob (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SO much!!! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld edit

Support Looks in good shape. I'm sure you'll complete Cow's points. One thing though you might change the web source authors with surname first like the books for consistency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you :) I made the book cites [firstname lastname] for consistency just because there were fewer of them as opposed to changing all the web cites. Hope that's ok. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Resolved comments from Snuggums (talk / edits)
Looks quite nice :). I don't have many concerns, though Freeman starring in the Broadway adaptation of Driving Miss Daisy should be added. It's also worth mentioning he won a Golden Globe for Best Actor in Driving Miss Daisy and a nomination for Best Supporting Actor in Street Smart since Academy Award nominations and the Academy Award he won are listed. Also, "earned him his third Academy Award nomination, this one for Best Actor" → "earned him his third Academy Award nomination for Best Actor". For the future, yes- references DO need to support names of roles. Can't see any other issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and both are added :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, I now support :D (sorry for the delay) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks so much :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:22, 7 January 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 04:17, 17 January 2015 [17].

List of Asia Cup five-wicket hauls edit

Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another fifers list based on List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls, an existing FL, and List of ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls, another candidate of mine which has gained substantial support. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • File:Lasith Malinga tossing a cricket ball at practice.jpg needs a personality rights warning at the Commons
  • This is regarded as a notable achievement, why? What does Pervez say? I would prefer a quote from Pervez instead of the broad, sweeping "this is regarded as a notable achievement".
    • The specified page no. in the book is not available for preview. FYI, the first two/three sentences in this list are taken from similar lists. It's a pattern that we follow in fifer lists. —Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't make it right. "This is regarded as a notable achievement" seems too broad. Who exactly regards it as such? What does Pervez state? Seattle (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added one more ref. It's clearly said in the book that a fifer is a notable achievement in a player's career. What else you want me to add here? If you feel it's still not satisfying, suggest an alternative. —Vensatry (ping) 15:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just bought A Dictionary of Cricket, so I'll look for a quote when I receive the book, in about a week. Seattle (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Seattle: Barring this one, have the rest of your concerns been resolved? —Vensatry (ping) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I received the book, and the author described the achievement as "notable". I've reworded slightly; is that OK? Seattle (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again what difference does it make? I don't think "described" is the right word. We need to provide an attribution in this case. The former was better. —Vensatry (ping) 06:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I disagree. We don't need in-text attribution for that kind of statement, as long as it has a source. See {{According to whom}}. Seattle (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your interpretation is correct. You use a subjective term (notable) that too with in quotes. If it were a fact your opinion would hold some weight. But in this case, it may not necessarily be a fact. Given that we have just one ref. to backup the claim, I feel an in-text attribution should come in place, else it's better that we revert to the original wording. —Vensatry (ping) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attributed. All of my other comments have been addressed. Seattle (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lasith Malinga's overs score sorts out of place
  • The "inn" column sorts out of place
  • First reference uses a different dating system than the other references.
  • No fifers were taken in the two subsequent tournaments—1990–91 and 1993 editions. there was no subsequent tournament in 1993.
    • The 1993 edition being cancelled is explained in the footnote. —Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence implies that there was one, and in it, no fifers were taken. Seattle (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mendis' 6 wickets for 13 runs against India in the final of the 2008 is the best by any bowler across the tournament. the most, not the best. "Best" is subjective, while "most" is not.
    • Most in this case would be inappropriate as bowling analysis isn't quantitative. Assuming that you're not a big fan of the game, Best is the most commonly used and apt one when we talk about this figure. See [18]. —Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2000 and 2004 Asia Cups saw no bowler taking a fifer. use "take" here, past tense
  • The Sri Lankans lead the list with seven fifers, followed by Pakistanis with three and one by India. if you're using demonyms to describe the team, use "and Indians with one" to be parallel. Seattle (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Khadar Khani (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—
  • You have linked the Sri Lankans in the last sentence of the first paragraph but not Pakistanis and Indians?
  • I would merge the first two sentences of the second para, this also needs a reference.
    • Merge done. However, I don't think a ref. is must in this place as it's obviously verifiable in the table. —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two bowling performances feature...... featured?
    • Given that Wisden hasn't released another list since the 2002 one, I think feature would fit here. —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mendis' 6 wickets for 13 runs against India in the final of the 2008 is the best by any bowler across the tournament." → Mendis' 6 wickets for 13 runs against India in the final of the 2008 is the best bowling performance by any bowler in the Asia Cup's history.
    • Done but not exactly in the way you suggested. —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link five-wicket haul
    • Already linked. I assume that you are pointing out at the entry in the key. —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table heading shouts 'ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls'
  • The last 'was' in the Note should be 'were', I guess.

--Khadar Khani (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • No need to link the Indian cricket team twice in the lead.
  • "The former has taken took two". Giants2008 (Talk) 03:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone has fixed both. Thanks for the review. :) —Vensatry (ping) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It meets the criteria. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk

Firstly, sorry it's taken me so long to have a look at this. As expected, it is generally very good, just a few minor issues:

  • "Fifer" is cricket slang, and as such isn't encyclopedic language. Use the more proper "five-wicket haul" in the prose, though still mention "five–for" or "fifer" at the start.
  • "The 2000 and 2004 Asia Cups saw no bowler take a fifer." This sounds a little clunky, it there a more integrated way to say this?
  • I know we don't normally for this sort of list, but given that the matches are all at tournaments, it might be worth listing the country in the venue.

Harrias talk 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be worth mentioning that seven of the eleven hauls have been by Sri Lankan players, this would merge quite well into the final paragraph.
  • Support, thanks for your quick work. Nice list. Harrias talk 17:00, 13 January 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 07:47, 13 January 2015 [19].

List of Seattle bridges edit

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it gives details on the most notable bridges in Seattle. Sortable table with images and specs. Cptnono (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great list! I have a few comments:

Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you wiki-link the first instance of each bridge type? Bascule, Cantilever, etc.
  • Sure thing. I might do every instance in the table since it is sortable.Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes a bridge notable? What criteria was used to determine notability? I think this needs to be made clear so we can determine inclusiveness (FL criteria 3a).
  • I tried to go over that in the first sentence but need to copy edit it. I went to every bridge article and verified GNG then created a couple more after finding sources. I really wanted to add an all but defunct rail bridge but the only source only found a single source. If I couldn't find sources on Google Books, News Archive, or other locations I did not add it.
  • The googlemaps coordinates is excellent, however I got a warning "A Google Maps feature used on this page is changing soon. Custom map content will need to be migrated." Can this be fixed?
  • Lame! Google Maps has undergone a massive change and it looks like the KML Data is not supported the same. I'll poke around but might lose it down the road.Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink first instance of Seattle.
  • Lead may need copyedit, ex: "The following list in of noteworthy" does not make sense. "Another body of water, Lake Union, is just north of the downtown area" is passive. To make it active consider something like "Lake Union is another body of water just north of the downtown area".
  • Last minute addition that didn't work. I'll try again. Done?Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1970s, residents grew wary of congestion that made the previous connection the second busiest road in the state." needs a source
  • Hmmm... removed for now. I'll try to pull it up but removing the line made the next concern more readable.
  • " The bridge was left inoperable after" What bridge?
  • Shorten and merge these two sentences: "The area is also serviced by the Spokane Street Bridge. Built in 1991, it is the world's first and only hydraulically operated concrete double-leaf swing bridge"
  • Sources needed for the span of a few of the bridges.
  • A couple more to go but I am hunting them down.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a quick glance, once the changes are made I may be able to go over it in finer detail. Mattximus (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Getting those sources in did a lot for list (found a few errors). Any other thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. A few minor quibbles.
  • The "circa" Arboretum Sewer Trestle bridge is interfering with the ability to sort. I think there is a way around this but I don't know it off hand. Everything else in the list looks good.
  • Adjusted by putting circa after in parentheses.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead still needs a good edit. I think the sentence "The following list is of noteworthy spans throughout the city" can go, being almost tautological.
  • The first paragraph needs to link to the idea of bridges, rather then just a description of waterways. The description is a bit confusing, as it's not made clear that Elliott Bay is a part of Puget Sound. If there is no bridge across lake union, is it worth mentioning in the lead? Perhaps I can take a stab at it:
Downtown Seattle is on an isthmus between Lake Washington and Puget Sound which are connected through canals and locks that make up the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Vehicles, trains, and pedestrians cross these bodies of water over X bridges. The largest bridge is… the oldest bridge… (these latter two are trivial and only a suggestion.
  • I tinkered with it more. I kind of like the flow with it sections but I might have looked at it to long and am kind of stuck. I ended up playing with it based on your ideas. I think you might have been on to something. Let me know.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that Magnolia Bridge is already deteriorated but the source you reference has no mention of this bridge.
  • "A primary span" was left inoperable after being hit by a freighter in 1978, did this span (I think you mean bridge?) have a name?
  • I didn't like the line after looking at it so it was removed/reworked.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my review, I'm happy to support if the above comments are addressed, good work! Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mattximus: Thanks! I tried to hit some of your points. What do you think?Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copy edited the lead a bit more, what do you think? I'm not the best ce, but I think it's better now. I'm happy to support, nice work! Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, @Mattximus:. I was looking at it like a Neanderthal trying to bake the perfect apple pie after awhile. Thank you so much!Cptnono (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You call it the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge in the lead, but that's not its name (and the link is redirecting). The same redirect is happening in the table
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Cowen Park Bridge the only one with a source for what road it's a part of? It's not that I think you need sources for that, it's just odd that one of them has a source
  • Cowen Park Bridge needs a source for opening date, as do several others
Phew... Done!Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fremont Bridge needs a source for length, as do several others
All leangths are now sourced.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Riged frame"
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Swing bridge in Spokane Street Bridge, also in the lead
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of your "see also" links are redirecting
DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kinda wish we had a flat-color city map in the article with the bridges highlighted, but that's a bit much to ask for
I hope the maps at the bottom of the list are sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The missing references are the big one here, but should be doable. If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC, located just below this one. It's short! --PresN 19:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I need to do some reviews since it has been a bit. I need to try to tackle this sourcing issue. I think one issue (besides not having a confirmed length for Fremont it looks like) is that the sources are placed sporadically. Instead of repeating the sources in each cell I can do a column with references.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: My eyes hurt from going through so many pdfs! All lengths and years sourced (with some corrected). Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Switching to Support. Did one minor reference tweak edit. A thought occurred to me that bold and italics might not meet access requirements for calling out something, as opposed to putting a dagger or * after the word, so I've asked on WT:ACCESS about it to find out. Not going to wait for the answer to support, though. --PresN 03:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daggers and stars are a good idea. I'll make the change today or tomorrow (about to go celebrate a birthday for a friend just under one of those bridges) . Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

  • the city's unique topography. - Who says the topography is "unique"? Feels WP:WEASELy to me.
  • I'll change it to hills and water. American Scietific added as a source.[20]Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fremont Bridge crosses the center of the canal and is one of the most raised bridges in the world due to its clearance over the water of only 30 feet (9.1 m). - forgive me, but how does having a low clearance make a bridge "one of the most raised" in the world
  • Sail boats and large vessels would hit the bridge deck at that height. Sources:[22][23][24][25] I'm not sure what change, if any, would be best here. Oh wait! I think that "raised" was a confusing term. Adjusted.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles of books etc. should be capitalized
  • 1991-built Spokane Street Bridge - Is 1991-built a standard term? Feels like this should be reworked; it's quite rough
  • The year isn't needed since it s in the list and not the focal point of the line. Removed.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps someone else knows the exact guideline, but to the best of my understanding a header is necessary between the lead and the list proper to allow easier access for screenreaders and the like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing anything mandating a section for the list at WP:LEADFORALIST. I would like to make it easy on screen readers, though, if you have any suggestions on the headings title.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Thanks for the review. I believe everything is now addressed except for the screen reader suggestion at the end. Thanks for noticing that CAPS in refs and a couple other things that look like no brainers after looking at it a little closer.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose; good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Only really small stuff. Bit confused why the list is part of the Lead. Notes b and f should end with a full stop. Ref 26 has no retrieval date. YellowStahh (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 17:47, 12 January 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 23:07, 11 January 2015 [26].

James Cameron filmography edit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian director, screenwriter and producer James Cameron is best known for directing two of the biggest box-office hits of all time: Titanic (1997) and Avatar (2009). This filmography article covers his early beginnings doing technical jobs through to his breakthrough direction of The Terminator (1984) and the box office success that followed. It also covers his television work such as Dark Angel (2002).

As always I welcome comments on how to improve the article. Cowlibob (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very finely researched and constructed. One thing, I see you format the author names of sources like Siegel, Tatiana (July 31, 2013). "James Cameron Brings in Writer Josh Friedman for "Avatar 2" Script". The Hollywood Reporter (Prometheus Global Media). Retrieved December 20, 2014. correctly, but the NY Times sources stand out with the author in brackets which looks a bit unsightly and breaks the consistency, Can you place the author surname and name first? Although perhaps it is intentional to credit Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. as the publisher? I can't remember seeing his name in brackets after Ny Times like that anywhere else though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1997, Cameron directed, wrote, and produced the epic romantic disaster film Titanic which grossed over $1.84 billion[10][a] at the worldwide box-office and became the highest grossing film of all time.[b] For the film he received the Academy Award for Best Director, the Academy Award for Best Film Editing, and shared the Academy Award for Best Picture with the other producers. In total the film had 14 nominations (tying the record set by 1950 drama film All About Eve) and won 11 (tying the record set by 1959 epic historical drama Ben-Hur).[1" - I think it's important here to mention that he later re-released it in 3D and it has since passed 2 billion in earnings after many years in lower 1 bill range I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: For the first point, the NYT credit refs have no named authors and no dates of publication so that's why they appear different from others. I could add author=The New York Times Staff but it wouldn't be bracketed. Would that work? It would appear like this: The New York Times Staff. "Galaxy of Terror (1981) – Production Credits". The New York Times (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger). Archived from the original on October 17, 2014. Retrieved September 14, 2014.
I've already added the 3d rerelease info as note A. Only made an additional $340 million in the end but enough to cross $2 billion. Cowlibob (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, so you did, I missed the note. I'd have thought simply The New York Times as publisher would suffice if there is no given author. I don't think you need to enter the publisher's name.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks pretty sound to me. You might add a column in the TV credit for what channel it was done for, that might help, but not essential of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added channels to TV section. Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Another job well done! Also, I have made some copy-edits by myself that I would have suggested here. Nothing major. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ce, review, and support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent work, once again!--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Although I will have to double check, the list looks very comprehensive.--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now: the lead has thirty-three instances of the word "film". That is more than 5% of its total length. Prose needs some refining. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Cut down instances to 11, hope that's better. Cowlibob (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it down to nine. Striking my oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 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 21:20, 4 January 2015 [27].

List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset edit

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset to FL and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane this is the next in the series (the third of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available.— Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pipe link to Cluniac Reforms. Looks very good but does the column with the info in have to be so skinny?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done Cluniac Reforms, but I'm not sure which column are you seeing as skinny? If its the "Notes" column it is wide on my screen (I use large monitors). The width of the columns is not set & (I presume) autoformatted depending on your monitor. When I started this set of lists I was asked to add in the notes column, rather than make the reader go to the article for more info.— Rod talk 21:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On my monitor the notes column has a new line for every two or three words, making it look stretched vertically.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could try setting the width of the column (perhaps 20%) but can you tell me if you get the same effect on List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset &/or List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane?— Rod talk 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do on those too but they're not so bad because a lot of the summaries are shorter. This stands out more as more of the entries have longer summaries. 20% set I think would really look better if you're going to have more than a couple with some sentences, especially as a lot of readers will have smaller screens or phones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Setting the column width doesn't seem to make any difference - this may be because of Template:EH listed building header. Asking for help there.— Rod talk 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forcing the width at 20% would make the column narrower on my setup, where it currently occupies about 25% of the width of the table. In any case, I don't think this a a FL issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same as Dr. Blofeld and also have to scroll table right/left as too wide as it stands. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now confused. On Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1 I was asked to add the notes column & did this (& it passed FL). I did the same on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 which has 3 supports & I used the same here. Would you like to look at the ones I'm currently adding notes to (List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor, List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor & List of Scheduled Monuments in West Somerset) where I'm adding notes but they don't yet show. I'd appreciate some further guidance on the best way forward.— Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there is no real solution to this one at the moment, not really a sticking point for the promotion of this list. May be worth discussing this on a wider forum to see if anyone has any ideas how to improve things. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Shall I start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates as I'm not aware of any other discussion forum for list layout issues - the MOS & tables guidance don't seem to help as far as I can see.— Rod talk 21:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point on ref 3 the "retrieved" needs capitalising as per other references. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Fixed.— Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "current legislation" - this is recentism, which is frowned on.
  • Removed (and I will do it on the other 6 where I have used this).— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muchelney Abbey, which was founded in the 7th or 8th century," The source says 762. In the full entry below you have date as 12-16C, and 7C in the text.
  • Pastcape at [28] says thought to be founded 762 and remains of 8C church have been found. I think you can say 8C - definitely not 7th. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised to "probably" 8th century.— Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stoke sub Hamdon Priory was formed in 1304 as a chantry college rather than a priory." I found this - and the full entry below - confusing. It says below secular college, but neither word is used in the usual modern sense. Looking at the EH entry, secular means priests in the community as opposed to monks in a monastery, and college in this case means a group of secular priests attached to a chantry chapel. A clearer explanation would be helpful.
  • I have reorded this (and shortened it in the light of the column width discussion above).— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cary Castle was built either by Walter of Douai or by his son Robert." Perhaps worth saying around 1100 - presumably it was definitely pre-Anarchy.
  • I've added "late 11th or early 12th century" as that is what the Pastscape source says - I don't there is any better evidence for the date.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bruton Abbey was originally founded as a Benedictine priory by Algar, Earl of Cornwall in about 1005." This is dubious. Pastscape says: "According to Leland, it was formerly a Benedictine Monastery founded circa 1005, but there is no mention of such in the Domesday Survey." Algar, Earl of Cornwall does not sound like an early 11C title.
  • The mentions of Algar all seem to be 19C sources, including BH online. I doubt whether the earldom of Cornwall existed before the Conquest and Earl of Cornwall says the same. You could say may have existed before the Conquest, but I don't think anything more definite. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find lots more sources for Algar of Cornwal - although it appears there may be some debate about his title. This book (from 1769) says "ALGER Earl of Cornwall, AD 1046 founded the abbey of Bruton. There seem to have been several people named Ælfgar in the 10th & 11th centuries & other variations on the name. Gazeter 1868 says "About the year 1005 a monastery was founded here by Algar, Earl of Cornwall, for monks of the Benedictine order, which was subsequently converted into a Dominican priory by William do Mohun." This recent book (2011) mentions Earl Ælfgar in association with manors in Somerset. I think it is verifiable in its current form, but would welcome further comment. One last thought is that Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia may have held (or claimed) other titles & could possibly be the person concerned. There may also be some confusion based on: "The Laud Chronicle (E) — 1048 [1051] "And then Odda was appointed earl over Devon, and over Somerset, and over Dorset, and over Cornwall; and Aelfgar, earl Leofric's son, was given the earldom which Harold had had." I don't really know where else to go with this.— Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for Algar are all very old and not RS. Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia is very unlikely as he died in 1061 and with the life expectancy then he can hardly have been old enough to found an abbey in 1005. It could be Æthelmær the Stout who was ealdorman of the western provinces (south-west England) from 1005, but there is no source for this. According to Pastscape at [29] the 1005 date is from Leland, who is 16th century. I would cite Pastscape and say 12C but possibly pre-Conquest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised as you suggested. Help with ensuring the actual article at Bruton Abbey reflects the sources would be appreciated.— Rod talk 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowl barrow known as `Wimble Toot'" Shown as Bronze Age even though latest research suggests it is Norman. "The interpretation of the site's original purpose has changed over time." This sentence is superfluous. Repetition of "originally".
  • Revised & I've put the date as Bronze Age or Norman as I think the jury is still out on this one.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamdon Hill camp. I think it should be made clear that the evidence of mesolithic and neolithic occupation pre-dates the camp and has nothing to do with it.
  • Hillfort 475m south of Howley Farm. Repetition of univallate.
  • The final item "Village Cross" is out of alphabetical order.
  • Thanks again for spotting these. Further advice or discussion on the Muchelney Abbey and Bruton Abbey issues would be helpful.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Concerned that, what, 49 of the 69 items don't have an article, particularly when some of those actually do have an image. If they're notable enough for images they should have an article. There's really no excuse for a list like this to have so few linked articles. It's also unlikely that the names you've given to the redlinked articles will be those we would use....
  • I will continue to look at the red links and try to ensure that they point to something which would be used for a wp article however, where they are something like "Bowl barrow 110 m south west of Spittle Pond Cottages" it is difficult as the article needs to include "bowl barrow" and there may be dozens in a parish/district. I would appreciate guidance about whether plain black text can be used instead of red links? I feel they all need to be included for the list to be comprehensive, but I've never seen any discussion about whether all scheduled monuments are inherently notable and therefore should have articles, however many of these would be stubs as the only source is the English Heritage listing as they have never been explored in any detail. A sample statement from a scheduling document " The bowl barrow 110m south west of Spittle Pond Cottages survives well and will contain archaeological remains and environmental evidence relating to the monument and the landscape in which it was constructed." - so we know it exists however it is the potential for archeological evidence which means it is scheduled. For many of the bowl barrows etc all we have is dimensions and this would not make a full article. Does the fact that a photograph has been taken of the site increase its notability? I was interested in the Op-ed in Signpost - Red links, blue links, and erythrophobia about the advantages of red links, but would welcome further discussion or guidance here as several of the other list of scheduled monuments I am working on have even higher proportions of red links.— Rod talk 08:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Rod, thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't have a clear answer. I understand that there's an inherent notability to those items in the list without an article, and I understand that you're using the "official" titles of the items, but it seems to me that, at a first guess, if nothing links to the red links you create and if the red links you create are unlikely search terms (first is objective, second is purely subjective, granted) then it's probably a black link for me. Just to be clear, I won't oppose the nomination whichever way you go, but it's certainly worth a centralised discussion I suppose, for the listed buildings and monuments that have no articles yet have no chance of ever being found because of the obscurity of their official names.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some into black links (mostly obscure barrows) where I don't think they would meet notability. In other cases (particularly deserted medieval villages and roman house earthworks) I have added something to the village article & directed the link from the title to that article. I'm currently working on Haselbury Bridge and will do a few others where they are clearly notable enough to have their own article (still red on the list). There have been previous discussions about listed buildings & the consensus seemed to be that Grade I & Grade II* are definately notable in their own right because of their recognised historical or architectural interest - Grade II to be dealt with on an individual basis. I will start a discussion on the talk page of Scheduled monument to see if others with interests in the same areas see them all as inherently notable, simply because English Heritage has advised the minister to scheduled them.— Rod talk 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most recent monuments include the Round House, a village lock-up in Castle Cary dating from 1779." seems like an incomplete sentence...
  • Hope I've caught these now.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use non-breaking spaces between values and their units.
  • Again I hope I've caught all of these now.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Ballands Castle) Consider using the {{convert}} template, which gives you the non-breaking spaces for free (I think) and will allow non-Imperial unit readers to understand.
  • Convert used.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "`Wimble Toot'" non-matching apostrophes.
  • "hillfort" or "hill fort"?
  • I've standardised on hillfort for consistency as bot seem equally acceptable.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".5 metres" dunno, but I usually expect a leading 0 here in Brit Eng.
  • "earthworks within the" consistency: "Earthworks..."
  • I found one of these & fixed - are there any others I can't see?— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a six pipe" -> "a six-pipe"
  • C of "Norman Conquest" appears to be no longer capitalised by Wikipedia.
  • OK I didn't know that had changed, now revised.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "motte and bailey" needs hyphenation.
  • Hopefully all done.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, nice to see a practical approach to some of the monuments, I don't suppose that even many inclusionists would agree that we need an article about a "A bowl barrow approximately 16 metres (52 ft) in diameter and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is at least one inconsistent date in the refs, so it may be worth just checking to make sure they are all formatted correctly. – SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed a few using a script. Are there any others I've missed?— Rod talk 09:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. As to the proposed discussion on the contents, which was mooted earlier today, I suggest the FLC page would be a good place to go in the first instance, with notifications in the appropriate projects. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 4 January 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 16:20, 3 January 2015 [30].

List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek edit

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because:

  • Prose. I won't pretend to be a good judge of prose, but I did give it a copyedit and I didn't notice any issues with the prose. I also asked someone I know offline, and they liked the prose.
  • Lead. I believe the lead does a fairly good job of introducing the topic and of explaining some basic facts about the tributaries as a whole.
  • Comprehensiveness. I think it goes into a reasonable amount of detail. It is not as long as the somewhat related FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, but it's my opinion that that other list is a little too detailed, so the list I'm nominating should be fine. This list could not easily be integrated into the article on Catawissa Creek without unbalancing the article.
  • Structure. The article contains a lead section with basic facts about Catawissa Creek and its tributaries. The next section contains a table of the tributaries of the creek and the subsequent sections contain tables of sub-tributaries. I belive that this structure is fairly intuitive and it is also similar to the structure of the FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek.
  • Style. I don't know the MOS by heart, but this does meet the specific guidelines at WP:FLCR. There are no redlinks and no major accessibility issues. The majority of the tributaries have pictures and all are CC-BY-SA images taken by me. Captions are impractical since the images are inside tables, but the meaning of the pictures should be obvious.
  • Stability. The list is extremely stable. In fact, there has been only one substantial contributor and two minor copyeditors. No edits to the list have been reverted.

I haven't had much luck with featured content, but hopefully this will pass. Thanks for considering it. --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it would be best to list details similar to those found in List of tributaries of Larrys Creek; I think it's valuable information that would lead to a much more comprehensive list, and I don't see any reason to not include it when it's available. Also, nice job with the taking the pictures! I know it's not easy. However, I'm not a huge fan of the missing pictures (10 out of the 26). Not sure what others think, but it may be worth removing the images column, and instead provide only a few of the best images in a gallery (as is done with the Larrys Creek list). The water bodies aren't particularly distinguishable from each other, so I don't think images for each listing add much value (especially when other data could be included in its place). At the same time, though, doesn't hurt to include them. Finally, I'd definitely include page numbers when referencing the lengthy PDFs. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SuperHamster: Thanks for the feedback and the compliment :-). I've added page numbers to all the PDFs. I've also added a little bit more information, but not all of the information in the list of tributaries of Larrys Creek seems terribly relevant. A paragraph describing the structure of the list seems rather silly and describing the creek's course and its watershed seems to go a bit off-topic. I already do describe Catawissa Creek's general location. It would be nice to keep the pictures in, since they do add some aesthetic value. There's still room for another column or two if there was some other information you wanted to include (elevation perhaps? or coordinates?). --Jakob (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jakob: Nice, thanks for the pages. Apologies for being unclear, but I was looking for more data in the table, not more information in the intro. I think any information available would be value (so evaluation, coordinates, remarks if needed, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a creek that is not even 50 miles long should not have a sub-article on its tributaries. A road that long should not have a separate article with all the intersections it gets. If this is not a 3.b violation, then it should be AFDed for GNG. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to try it. Personally, in fulfilling Wikipedia's gazeteering functions, I'm not entirely sure this is a GNG violation. Either way, I'm noting that I (with my delegate's hat on) consider this oppose inactionable at FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoe can this NOT be easily included in the parent Catawissa Creek article? There are 20 entires here that have way too much information listed here which can be presented in a shortened format there. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above oppose is really just IDONTLIKEIT. All the items in the list have their own articles, and I see no problem at all with gathering them into a list. Unless the commentator actions his own threats, this nomination is good to go. So, some actionable items.
  • Avoid bold links in the lead. There's really no need to have any bold here, just for the sake of it.
  • Not keen on the opening sentence, perhaps a reword to avoid the use of the term "tributary" three times in one sentence.
  • "long ... long" I'd mix it up a little perhaps with "in length" or something to avoid repetitive prose.
  • I'm no expert, I don't know the difference between a run, a creek and a hollow. Do we have articles or sections of articles we can link these terms to?
  • No need to link common terms however, such as fish.
  • "most, but not all, of the tributaries" "but not all" is redundant.
  • Is there a reason for the capitalisation of Coldwater Fishery? If it's so significant, why don't we have an article or a redirect to something appropriate?
  • If this is a USEng article, I would expect to see units like "metre" written as "meter".
  • I was confused by the fact you list the tributaries of the tributaries at the same heading level. I would expect to see sections 2, 3, and 4 as subsections of section 1.
  • What's the initial sort order of the lists?
  • Check your columns sort properly, at a first glance the Mouth elevation column doesn't for example.
  • References in numerical order please, you have [6][7][8][9][1] for instance.
  • Several blank cells, never good. I usually annotate them with N/A or Not known or –.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your feedback. Responding to your comments in order:
      • I removed the bolded links from the lead.
      • The word "tributary" is only used twice in the opening sentence (there's no non-awkward way to only use it once).
      • I changed one "long" to "in length".
      • I made section links for run and creek and explained hollow in the text.
      • Delinked.
      • Fixed.
      • It is an official designation used by the PADEP if I'm not mistaken. I don't believe there's an article on the topic.
        Needs a footnote explaining the designation then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.
      • They're now level three headings under section 1.
      • They're sorted in ascending order by river miles.
      • I think whenever the cells in a list aren't bare numbers ({{convert}} is used in the columns), the sorting mechanism treats them as strings, so 1000 comes before 200.
        Well it needs to be fixed because it doesn't sort correctly. There's a chance you could use the {{sort}} template, or one of its derivatives. Right now it's unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.
      • I added ndashes to the blank cells. The image cells aren't actually blank; they contain placeholder images in case pictures of those streams show up someday. --Jakob (talk)
        They most certainly are blank to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with TRM, those white placeholders are more disruptive than an actual blank cell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a good list and my issues have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the list has been well-improved to satisfy the comment I posted above (now collapsed). Glad to support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat edit

  • I suggest making the image column unsortable: it's not usual to sort by image;
  • Any chance of bundling the five citations in the "Mouth elevation" column?
  • I know it does look a bit ugly, but all of them are needed. The elevation lists only list streams in one county each and four such lists are needed (the National Map is needed since Tomhicken Creek's elevation is slightly off in the elevation table). --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sorting is slightly off in places. "Mouth elevation" shows David run last, even though it's not the longest; distance from mouth: cross run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. (Check the other columns and tables too)
  • Fixed Davis Run, the rest look good. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite: "Distance from mouth": Cross Run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be fixed now. --Jakob (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the numbers need to be sorted. 9.10 miles should just be 9.1 (and a number of others too; 08.3 should be just 8.3
  • Fixed 08.3, but 9.10 should stay 9.10, since the source specifically gives it to two decimal places, like it does with the other tributaries. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. It's probably best we retain consistency with all the figures as well. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All good now. A map would have been ideal, to show the location and/or course, but there's nothing obvious on Commons. Maybe have a quick search to see if you can find anything PD, but that doesn't affect my support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was asked to comment here and find it meets the FLC criteria. I have made some minor copy edits to the article to polish the prose. I am impressed that there are so many images of the tributaries, and added one of Catawissa Creek itself to the lead. I think it would be great if a map could be added - have you tried asking User:Kmusser, who makes beautiful stream maps? Even when a map is added, I would still include a picture of the main stem (Catawissa Creek itself) in the article. The only quibble I have is that the reference links in the three Notes are just URLs and should be formatted like any other web ref in a FL. I am OK with this being different than the Larrys Creek trib list (which I am the main author of), but do think it would be pretty easy to add left and right bank info here (to the list itself), as well as mentioning river mile explicitly (I know it is linked). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:18, 3 January 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 16:20, 3 January 2015 [31].

Akshay Kumar filmography edit

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Akshay Kumar's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. Issues raised during the previous FLC have been addressed. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome.Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The captions are all basically saying "Kumar at _____", very repetitious
Changed
  • "Kumar was initially signed for a lead role by producer Pramod Chakravorty for the film, Deedar (1992) but made his acting debut in the 1987 Mahesh Bhatt-directed Aaj"..... this detail would be better in Kumar's main page rather than here. Just say Aaj was his debut and later mention his role in Deedar.
Changed
  • "The following year he starred"..... add a comma after "year"
Done
  • "many of the films he starred in during 1997–99 performed poorly at the box office"..... give names of such films
I have mentioned a few of his flop films.
  • "Kumar's career prospects improved"..... something about this just doesn't come across as professional writing
Changed
  • "In the same year he received a nomination".... again, add comma after "year"
Done
  • "In the same year he presented the television series" → "That year, he presented"
Thanks for the suggestion.
  • "His role in the comedy, Garam Masala, earned him"..... remove the commas
Removed
  • "appeared in comedy drama, Housefull 2, and action comedy Rowdy Rathore" → "appeared in the comedies Housefull 2 and Rowdy Rathore"
Thanks again.
  • "satirical comedy drama, Oh My God"..... remove the comma
Removed
  • "The following year he starred in heist thriller Special 26"..... once again, comma after "year"
Added
  • "Indiatimes" should link to Times Internet, and only link this on the first ref used for this site
Fixed, now it links only on first occurrence.
  • Digital Spy should not be italicized, and I'd try to replaced this if possible. Not saying it's bad, just saying there's even better sources that could be used.
Replaced.
  • What makes "Bollywood Hungama" or "Sify" reliable sources?

Sorry, but this is not up to par. Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both BH and Sify are considered reliable sources for India related articles. Many FAs and FLs use them. I have fixed the usage of comma everywhere in the lead.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: I've also checked above and they seem to be met. I've not used BH or Sify before but Bollywood Hungama has been used extensively in various FLs including recent ones like Hrithik Roshan filmography, Shah Rukh Khan filmography, and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filmography. Sify was used in Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya's filmography also. Have another look and suggest further improvements for Skr. Cowlibob (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. This looks better now, particularly the lead. Let's go through ref's again:
Added
Added
  • Is "Koimoi" reliable?
Replaced
  • Remove "Press Trust of India" from FN20 so it matches the other Rediff links
changed |agency to |author
I was admittedly skeptical about this becoming FL, but it seems to have a chance now..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
  • " in Pramod Chakravorty-produced..." etc. Maybe it's an ENGVAR thing, but it would read much better in each instance if it said "in the .... -produced..." (just as you have "in the Umesh Shukla-directed " for instance).
Done
  • Garam Masala in the lead isn't linked correctly.
Corrected
  • His company is called "Grazing Goat Productions".
Corrected
  • Headings, you have some plural (e.g. Television appeareances) and some singular (e.g. Feature film). Be consistent.
Changed all to singular
  • Isn't K. Subhash actually K. Subash?
Fixed
  • You have an en-dash and an Unknown in the Role column, what's the difference?
Now only dash is being used
  • Probably need an "as of" for the films that are, as yet, unreleased.
This looks like a very good idea but none of the filmography FLs use it.
That's not really relevant. I would suggest using it to make sure we know when the details were accurate to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Host for Season 1, 2 and 4." etc, why the full stops all of a sudden?
Removed
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think all of the above issues have been addressed. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
  • In the film section, please restrict the award nominations to National Film and Filmfare Awards, to maintain consistency with all other Indian actor filmography tables.
  • Why are some talk show appearances mentioned in the television section? Surely, Kumar has appeared in many, many more than the ones mentioned. I personally don't think they shouldn't be included here as they aren't exactly part of his film or television "work".
  • Also, in the television section it will be more beneficial to include the creator and/or producer information than the channel.
Will be happy to support when these points are addressed. Good job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Dipping in regarding the above):

  • I think the awards are fine as they are: if he hs recieved awards from notable organisations (i.e. if we have an article about them), then the list is incomplete without the awards. Consistency between articles means little if it means we end up misleading by omission.
  • I also think the talk show appearances are fine (I have them in a number of my lists), but opinions differ on the point).
  • I am not sure that creator and/or producer information tell us anything about the programme. "Channel" is far more common in television lists, than excess amounts of other people connected to a programme.

- SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat The reason why I want to limit the awards is because there are more than 10 different awarding organisations in India, and Kumar has won awards from several of these. This particular list talks about Filmfare and IIFA, but omits the rest. My understanding is that we limit the awards to the most notable ones in this particular list, which are the National And Filmfare Awards, as the full list is already mentioned in his awards page. About the talk shows, why cherry-pick only Koffee with Karan when Kumar has appeared in many other notable ones. Either we mention all notable talk shows, or don't mention them altogether. I agree that the creater/producer information is not all that important, so the channel information is alright. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x 2 In terms of the awards and the talk shows, I would include all or none. The only caveat to that would be that the awards have to be notable enough to have their own article here to meet out notability thresholds. So, if he has won awards from all 10 notable organisations, we should include all 10 notable awards. I certainly wouldn't put OR into deciding which are the "most notable". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the edit conflicts. Anyway, what you say is totally understandable. But with regards to the awards, why would we want to include all the awards in this list too when there is already a separate page for them? I don't mean to argue over this, but just want it to be cleared is all to avoid similar conflicts in other filmographies. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I missed the link to the awards page. In that case, I'd remove all the awards from this table (not the lead tho) on the same basis: you have to have all or none. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: I'd back SchroCat on this. For filmography articles, the note section should not include awards won if a separate awards article is present as it's just repetition. Of course, you can still mention the major awards in the lead so nothing of value is lost. Cowlibob (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: I have removed the information regarding awards and nominations from the notes column. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krimuk90: I have removed the information regarding the IIFA and Asian Film Awards nominations. Talk show appearances have also been removed. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Opinions may vary on the awards, but this version has my support. Good job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2014, he starred in the action thriller Holiday: A Soldier Is Never Off Duty, which became his third film to gross over ₹100 crore (US$13 million) at the box office." Add domestic after "over ₹100 crore (US$13 million) at the" as he has featured in more than three films which has grossed over ₹100 crore (US$13 million) (internationally). Correct me if I am wrong.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: The given source doesn't specify the domestic-international box-office fact. Hence I have just added that it was his 3rd film to earn more than 100 crores. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 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 14:01, 3 January 2015 [32].

Hugo Award for Best Fancast edit

Nominator(s): PresN 20:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back again with another scifi/fantasy award list, this time a blast from the past! Back in 2010/2011, I got all 15 Hugo Award lists featured and stuck in a featured topic. Beginning in 2012, though, the Hugo Awards added another category- that of Best Fancast, for podcasts ("non-professional audio or video periodicals") as a separate thing from fanzines. Other than a peer review to get it in the FT, the list has just been waiting since to get enough items to be nominated- and here it is! It's a lot shorter than the other Hugo lists, but Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story got featured when it only had three years of nominations as well and looked pretty similar to this, so it should be fine. The list should be up to the standard of its 15 sibling lists- thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and source review (ProtoDrake) edit

I've looked through the prose and structure, and after consideration, I Support this article's inclusion as an FL. As to the sources, there seems nothing wrong here, so that's a Pass. One minor note: I might try archiving the few unarchived references, unless they won't archive properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoDrake (talk • contribs) 7:25, 11 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Review by Tezero edit

In the middle of some writing now, but I'll try to begin reviewing by the end of the day. At first glance, the intro looks exceptionally lengthy for such a short list - is there any reason it's gotten this way? Tezero (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "World Science Fiction Society" is linked on the main Hugo Award page - why not here?
  • There isn't an article for WSFS- the link at Hugo Award is to Worldcon, which is linked here when I mention the Worldcon convention itself.
  • "generally available" - ambiguous; does this mean available to a variety of regions (if so, which ones?), to the general public (if so, as opposed to what?), usually available (based on time?), ...?
  • I swear that phrase used to be in the rules for that category, but it's not there now. Removed. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we supposed to know going in what a "fancast" is? It's not linked, and this list doesn't explicitly define it. What does "non-professional" mean?
  • Mentioned that it's "fan-podcast, and put in the WSFS definition of "non-professional" --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hugo Award for Best Fancast was first proposed as a category after the 2011 awards. It then appeared as a temporary category at the 2012 awards. Temporary awards are not required to be repeated in following years." - kind of choppy; I suggest merging the second sentence into the first or third, or even all three together somehow
  • Done. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much detail about SF Squeezecast (do we need all of its authors? Heck, any?) in the intro
  • Cut to "a team of five people". --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is SF Squeezecast one of the nine, or does it count twice?
  • It is, clarified. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is SF Squeezecast marked with an asterisk in the table? Alternately, why isn't SF Signal Podcast? The legend includes an asterisk in the mark for "Winners".
  • Added the missing asterisk. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can an award really be "currently held by" anyone? SF Signal Podcast was just the most recent winner.
  • Turns out there's a non-listed parameter in Infibox Award to rename that field- now "Most recent winner" --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, why is it a person rather than his work who's listed as having won the most recent award?
  • Flipped to be the fancast, with the runner/creator in parenthesis after. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning on what date the award is typically assigned. The 2014 one could've come hastily right at the beginning of the year, or just a few weeks ago. What date it was would signal how deliberate and in-depth the selection process was.
  • The third paragraph says so already- nominations January-March, voting on final ballot April-July, award given near the start of September. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero: Responded inline. --PresN 08:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, then. Support. Tezero (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I would feel happier if the glowing quotes in the opening paragraph are attributed.
  • "was once officially known as the Science Fiction Achievement Award." once, as in just for one ceremony, or really "previously known as"?
  • "is awarded to any non-professional audio" that can't be right, surely it's awarded to the best example of such?
  • Last sentence of para 2 has "awards" three times... repetitive.

Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: all four done. --PresN 21:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Cptnono) edit

This is an informative list with tons of good stuff and style. I second the idea that the lead seems long for the length of the list. Hopefully that will be fixed with time and more awards.

  • WP:FLCR 5b mentions media. Is there anything that could be added to this list? A picture of the award or a winner. Audio from a winner?
  • Is the list of references bulky enough to require 3 columns? This could be automatic and appropriate with 30em called for in the template.
  • I'm not sure if portmanteau needs to be wikilinked. Maybe a few word explanation would be better. WP:OVERLINK doesn't say "yes" or "no" on this so not a major issue.
Cptnono (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and source review (Caponer) edit

  • Comments. I find that this list meets the majority of criteria for inclusion as a Featured List. The informational template is concise, and the introductory paragraphs are also informative with internally-cited references that check out. An internal citation should be added to the last sentence in the lede: "SF Signal Podcast, run by Patrick Hester, won the 2014 award." The final sentence in the second paragraph of the lede could also use an internal citation. Great job on this nominated list! -- Caponer (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Matthewrbowker edit

  • Support Concise, informative list. I am a little concerned about MOS:ACCESS-related stuff with the table, but I don't have the proper equipment to test it. Maybe add some row and column heading code? Also, the leade is a little long but that's not a concern because of the fact that the list will "grow into" the size of the leade. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 22:27, 1 January 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 14:02, 3 January 2015 [33].

Matthew McConaughey filmography edit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another filmography article from me. This time for Matthew McConaughey whose career has had a recent resurgence with films such as Killer Joe, Bernie and of course his Academy Award winning role in Dallas Buyers Club. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
====Comments from Seattle====
  • Fill the empty rows in the "Notes" column with mdashes
  • The "Title" column under the film section doesn't sort properly; articles such as "A" and "The" in the titles should be omitted.
  • The "Artist" column under the "Music videos" section doesn't sort properly, and the "Ref" column should be unsortable.
  • There's only one article that links to this page, which makes it an orphan.
  • The following year McConaughey played lawyer, Roger Sherman Baldwin comma isn't necessary.
  • Refs 13, 14, 16, 40, 62 needs a mdash. Seattle (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle: Thanks for the review. Done all except two things. It is an orphan article but I don't think it will be useful to label it as such because it's always going to remain as such because it is an offshoot of the actor's article. I had thought the point of labelling orphan articles was to encourage people to create more relevant links to it. I'm not sure why the empty rows in notes should be filled with mdashes. Cowlibob (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • The mdash is an aesthetic preference, but, as far as I know, it isn't necessary. Is there anywhere you could find to link this article? Is there some template you could add it to? Seattle (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: Unfortunately no template that I know of exists for the actor. It should get enough hits anyway from the main article. Cowlibob (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Here's my 2¢.....

  • "The following year McConaughey played lawyer"..... add a comma after "year"
  • "starring in various films of this genre"..... reads awkwardly, maybe "for his roles in"
  • "However in the beginning of the following decade McConaughey took on more serious dramatic roles"..... questionable tone
  • "The following year he played the titular role in both Southern Gothic crime film Killer Joe, and coming-of-age drama Mud"..... I'd put the time frame at the end of this sentence
  • "For his performance in the former he received the Saturn Award for Best Actor"..... add a comma after "former"
  • "McConaughey next role" → "McConaughey's next role" (typo)
  • Why is there no description for his roles in the "music videos" section?
  • Digital Spy isn't the worst of sources, but I'm confident you can find something better
  • Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Flixster
  • Reuters is owned by The Woodbridge Company
  • YouTube is generally discouraged when reliable secondary sources are available

This is in decent shape, just needs touching up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted these out. Replaced Digital Spy with Associated Press. Added roles to the music video appearances. Removed YouTube link. Cowlibob (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, I can now gladly support :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Image captions all appear to be incomplete sentences so should not use a full stop.
  • "in the ... Linklater-directed" vs "in Linklater-directed"... I'd pick one variation (I prefer the former) and stick with it.
  • "However in the beginning of the following decade" not a great way to start a new para, I'd go more along the lines of "In the early 2010s, he played more dramatic roles..." or something similar.
  • "his first Academy Award for Best Actor" while technically correct, it would imply he has won others.
  • "Alexander Stephens/" usually referred to as Alexander H. Stephens, and either way needs a space before the slash.

A good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the multitude of reviews you've done today! I think I've sorted the above comments out. Cowlibob (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Do you have any other remaining concerns with this FLC TRM? Cowlibob (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I have made some copy-edits in the lead, and have separated the second paragraph into two parts for better readability. Of course, those are cosmetic changes, and you can revert if you like. Good job once again Cowlibob! I must say that I look forward to your filmography lists at the FAC. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and appreciation! Cowlibob (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The second para of thelead ends with an unsupported line (half is in the article, but you need something to support the bits of the sentence that claim "starred", "supporting role" and "Soderbergh-directed comedy-drama"). All good apart from that. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks for the comment, added refs. Cowlibob (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2014 (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 14:03, 3 January 2015 [34].

List of accolades received by Vidya Balan edit

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) & FrB.TG (talk · contribs)[reply]

After several previous unsuccessful nominations, that I wasn't involved with, I decided to work on this list. I have previously taken the subject's biography to FA-status, and after a lot of work on this one I feel that it now meets the FL-criteria. As usual, constructive criticism is appreciated. KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Asia Pacifc - "Vidya has been received "? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screen Awards - is Mararhi intentional or Marathi? I've not heard of Mararhi, but there's lot of small cinema industries in India I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (both fixes have been done by the user Cowlibob).
  • Support Looks sound to me now. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Throughout the article the actress is referred to by her first name, I've not really seen this on wikipedia often as it's usually conventional to use surnames as it's more formal. I will note the FA seems to have passed despite using first name throughout.
  • "In this Indian name, the name Balan is a patronymic, not a family name, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Vidya."
  • Roles in films should be cited e.g. the radio jockey role in Lage Raho Munnabhai.
  • Done.
  • The most important award nominations she won for her role in Guru and Bhool Bhulaiyaa should be highlighted in the lead rather than simply stating that she was nominated.
  • Done.
  • Ref 1 doesn't really support the "widespread praise and accolades".
  • Worded accordingly.
  • "She played a sexually manipulative woman in the 2010 black comedy Ishqiya, for which she was awarded the Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress and received a Best Actress nomination at the same ceremony; she also won Best Actress awards at other ceremonies, including Screen, Zee Cine, and Star Guild." Needs to be reworded into separate shorter sentences.
  • Done.
  • The Dirty Picture sentence should start with her role in the film and then the awards/nominations she received.
  • Done.
  • lead change suggestion: "In 2005, she appeared in her first Hindi film, musical drama Parineeta. For her performance she received the Best Female Debut award as well as a nomination for the Best Female Actress award at Filmfare." Cowlibob (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Cowlibob. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref check (feel free to correct me if I've misread)

  • Ref 8 doesn't says that the Anandalok Awards are awarded by ABP group to Hindi and Bengali professionals.
The ref doesn't explicitly say that, but the categories, mentioned in the listing of winners, are for the Bengali and Hindi film industries. I guess that's alright.
  • Ref 9 just says she appeared in the film not that she won the Anandalok award for it. However Ref 10 does so replace Ref 9 with it.
Corrected.
  • Ref 14 says Vidya was nominated at Asia-Pacific festival for Kahaani not The Dirty Picture.
Corrected.
  • Ref 19, 20, 21 don't have urls so can't verify. Could online sources be provided?
No online source from a reliable publisher is available for these. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2 only supports that she won four consecutive awards not that she has won the most Best Actress awards at Screen.
Changed to a better ref.
  • Ref 63, 65, and 66 are a YouTube links from an official channel which are acceptable as primary sources. However if suitable alternative secondary sources were available that would preferable.
Not present. I think the primary references are okay here, as they just state the fact without additional analysis.
  • Ref 82 says she won the award for Versatility In Acting which is supported by this ref: [[35]]
Corrected.
  • Ref 85 doesn't specify which award Vidya won at GQ. However If I squint my eyes I can just about make out from the picture that its for "Excellence".
GQ India's facebook account says that she won for Cinematic Icon of the Year here.
  • I've counted 54 awards total not 52 but correct me if I miscounted. Cowlibob (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's 54 awards in total, but 52 film awards. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it looks fine now. Consider using these refs [[36]], [[37]] to support that the Anandalok Awards are presented by the film magazine owned by ABP Group. Cowlibob (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Skr15081997
  • Done.
  • "Vidya won a third Filmfare Award, a fourth consecutive Screen Award, and a third IIFA Award for Best Actress." This sentence doesn't looks OK.
  • Reworded.
  • Good idea. I made the change.
Thanks for the comments, Skr. They have been addressed. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its a great list. I just want to ask whether all awards won by her is listed here. If not then, it should be added at the top.—Prashant 17:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prashant!: Yes, all of the awards are mentioned, although some of the non-notable awards have been removed and thanks for the support.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Prashant! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:21, 3 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/January_2015&oldid=644599603"